I've been on this board long enough to know that many here hate remakes AND that many here love An American Werewolf in London. Now comes news that it will be remade. Interesting, but sure would be interested in hearing from you guys and gals. What do you think? I for one think they should leave it alone. The original is a classic. You be the judge and let us know. http://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3413770/american-werewolf-london-remake-happening-max-landis/
The original is 35 years old now, so it's not really any difference from when a movie from the 50:s was remade in the 80:s, when it comes to the time between the original and remake. But for some reason, it doesn't feel old enough for me. It has aged better than a lot of other 80:s films. The original was so groundbreaking with the transformation FX and perfect blend of comedy and real horror, that I don't know what they could bring to the table with a new one. Though, considering how far practical FX has come, since then, and if they bring back Rick Baker, and go all in for practical transformations again (we can all dream), AND if they create a brand NEW story, around the original idea, then I don't mind it too much. I just fear that it will be dumbed down for todays teens, with plenty of poop jokes, and will skip the horror aspect.. How about just making another sequel instead? Maybe "A British Werewolf in New York" or something
I love the original, so I'm biased, but I don't feel it can be improved on, so I believe this will be a watered down, teen/PG 13 movie with awful CGI. All of which is a big no thank you for me.
Most remakes tend to pale in comparison to the originals but I generally give them a viewing anyway. It's never made sense to me when someone says a movie is terrible without even watching it.
It's extremely fair when the director of one bad remake, Friday the 13th, already made a bad remake, Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
I can't agree. That would be the same as saying that every film made by a director is good just because you like one of their movies. Without seeing them you can only assume.
Well this ain't happening. So no need to worry about it. Landis's son has been a naughty boy. https://www.thedailybeast.com/max-l...ional-and-sexual-abuse-were-not-people-to-him
I’m sure that he enabled this assholery in a major fashion. He didn’t get his wealth and sense of entitlement from out of nowhere.
I haven't heard anything about John being a psycho-sexual rapist; I think it's a slippery slope to assume such damaging characteristics were from his father, especially with no kind of reference. Re: the TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE, I fail to see how his refusal to heed warnings and keep shooting made his son a rapist. Can anyone following this thread offer any actual information?
John doesn’t need to be a rapist. That isn’t what being an enabler is all about. Raising a trust fund son with zero oversight and poor role modeling is bound to create a monster with entitlement issues. Or maybe he is just a sociopath by genetic design. It’s the old nature vs nurture argument. All I know for sure is that the one time that I met John Landis he was kind of a dick. I didn’t think much of it at the time, but hearing about how his son turned out in hindsight it doesn’t surprise me, not really.
I'm going to be brutally honest here: your posts strike me as typical Internet assumption. You met John Landis once and "he was kind of a dick." That's disappointing for me to read because I have enjoyed a lot of his work. But by your logic, every single Hollywood Kid should be a "monster with entitlement issues" yet that is not true (although I don't doubt that there's a strong percentage), by genetic design or not. It IS shitty for any parent to not be involved when these kind of details emerge, but who am I to judge? My concern here is the blanket statements, which seems to be what the Internet feeds on. John Landis really could be an OK guy with a shitty kid. It happens, and more often than not it seems. To make the "I met him once..." jump to "it doesn't surprise me..." seems a bit wonky. I'm sure you'll take my comments the wrong way. This is not a personal attack.
Meh. You’re getting far more worked up about this than I am. All that I’m really saying is that none of this surprises me. Rich kid thinking that people are toys for his pleasure. I’m sure upbringing has absolutely nothing to do with it. You’ve convinced me.
