OMG! The Day The Earth Stood Still Remake Might Be Different Than The Original!

Posted by on April 10th, 2008   Filed under: Remakes, Rumours, Sci-fi
Source: Ain't It Cool News

earthstoodstillscript.jpg

Love them or hate them (I know most people hate them), remakes are a reality of the movie industry right now and that’s something we just have to accept. As long as studios can repackage an old movie and sell it to both new and old fans alike, this trend is going to keep right on rolling. If you don’t like it… don’t pay to see them. Now personally I prefer to take each of these remakes on a case by case basis, because I think we can all agree that some remakes do indeed turn out better than (or at least as good as) the original. Some people, however, seem predisposed to hate a remake simply for existing. Case in point, around the web this week, there is outrage over a purported script review of the upcoming remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still.

According to a scooper at Ain’t It Cool News, the new version is supposedly lacking many key elements of the original, including the famous line “Klaatu Barada Nicto”. I will admit my first reaction to hearing this was “That’s lame”, but once I stepped back a minute and gave it some thought, I realized that it’s completely fine by me. I mean, what is the point of a remake if not to offer a new take on the original? First people complain about the fact that there is a remake, and then they complain if the remake differs in any way from the original. But don’t you dare try a shot for shot reproduction either… you’ll get slaughtered by critics and fans for that as well (just ask Gus Van Sant!).

I’m not saying that this remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still is going to be any good. All I’m saying is, let’s not overreact to a leaked script that someone read that hints at a different vision of this classic movie we know and love. The Day The Earth Stood Still was made over 50 years ago, clearly a modern take on it will need some tweaking. I, for one, still plan on giving this movie a chance. What do you think… wouldn’t you rather see a remake that is fresh and completely different instead of a mere rehash?



  • “…wouldn’t you rather see a remake that is fresh and completely different instead of a mere rehash?”

    No, because it the film is going to be fresh and completely different, then don’t call it ‘The Day The Earth Stood Still’!

    Remaking films is pathetic however you look at it. You could be apathetic and go “these are the films we are going to get, so lets judge them outside of being remakes or not” or something like that, but that’s not a healthy response. If somebody wants to be fresh and completely different, then don’t hold classics hostage in order to sell tickets. It’s dishonest and it cheapens your movie and yourself as a human being.

  • However, I will give you that it’s pretty ridiculous to get agitated that the remake is changing things, even big ones. This surely can’t surprise anybody but the most optimistic/ignorant of fans.

  • @Henrik
    There have been great remakes, in my opinion. And remaking films, if done well, doesn’t take anything away from the classics. It’s not pathetic or unhealthy to have a different opinion, right? I know scores of people who, upon seeing a remake, have sought out the classics they were based on and enjoyed them. These are regular people who wouldn’t have put the original King Kong in their Netflix queue otherwise. These aren’t people who know every Goddard by heart and consider movies pre-1980 to be sacred. Set aside the studio’s motives for a second and think about movie-goers. Both the classics and Regular Joes benefit from remakes when they are done well.

  • “These are regular people who wouldn’t have put the original King Kong in their Netflix queue otherwise.”

    “Both the classics and Regular Joes benefit from remakes when they are done well.”

    Financially, it’s a match made in heaven I won’t argue that. Creatively however, not so much. More people seeing a movie, doesn’t make it any better or worse in my book.

  • Itchy-Finger

    Seeing how there are duplicate movies all in Hollywood , at least these remakes are giving credit to the originals they are stealing from.

    The remake of Dawn of the Dead is just as good as the original in my opinion. 3:10 to Yuma I enjoyed just as much as the original also. I’ve got no problems with it. The Hills have Eyes I enjoyed more, that may be just because I could understand the father this time around though.

  • I’m with you Sean. You can’t win either way so if they feel the need to massage the original a little to make it a little more realistic(?)/modern(?) I’m OK with it. If I really have problems with it, there’s always the original.

  • Coolio as Gort? Come on! Sounds straight to video to me.

  • charnelhouse

    Fresh – yes

    Completely different – no

    The script review in question revealed that practically NOTHING endures from the original film save the title and the main character’s name. Remakes can make things fresh but they must keep the essence of what made the original great intact. “King Kong” did that. It is hardly a departure from the original. But no Gort? No warning? No Bobbie? No historic quote? A interstellar specimen collecting expedition? No thanks.

    Now had they envisioned this as a SEQUEL, with Klaatu returning with Gort 50 years later to tell humanity that, failing to heed my original warning, we’re gonna wipe you out – THAT would be something.