When I hear that another science fiction movie is being re-made the first thought that comes to mind is “Why?” Really, how do the studio execs come to the conclusion that this film should be redone versus the other?
What exactly is the criteria? If you’re going to take someone else’s work and redo it then there should be rules.
Rule #1 - The remake should resemble the original work.
I recently saw the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still. I think that Keanu Reeves is a great actor when given the proper roles but whoever re-wrote the script for this movie has given new meaning to the word disaster movie. Less than 50% of this film stayed true to the original and the story line was weak so to say that it was a remake was a joke.
Rule #2 - Taking a 50 year old movie like War of the Worlds and adding really cool special effects is not reason enough to do a remake.
Rule #3 - There should be a limit as to how many times you can remake a film.
In the case of War of the Worlds Gene Barry starred in the original movie version while C. Thomas Howell played the lead in the remake before Tom Cruise starred in the version directed by Steven Spielberg. That’s three versions that I know of. What I am getting at is that there are plenty of great sci fi stories waiting to be told on the big screen.
The website Book Town has dozens of sci fi authors who’s novels would make great movies but in most cases if comes down to who you know. I ask you, would you have rather sat through a remake of Lost in Space or would you like to see something fresh and original? And just to make things a little more interesting you can throw in Keanu Reeves and Tom Cruise.
Next Wednesday: Crop Circles