View Single Post
Old 03-28-2013, 10:08 PM   #19
Remaking My Soul
DVD-fanatic-9's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Horror
Posts: 3,311
Originally Posted by Steel76 View Post
Remake doesnīt mean itīs gonna be bad. Look at the remakes of "The Thing" and "The Blob from the 80:s, even though I love the originals, those remakes are far superior to the originals, as they took the original idea, but did something different with it.
I'll give you this: I've said before, after 1986 (which is what I've been shouting for years and I think most people know about me), all remakes to good original films will be bad. And, The Crazies was not. Of course, it wasn't good either. But I'm willing to count that as an exception to the rule. That doesn't make it any measure less pointless however. And, I don't care what people think of me, you can have a new take an on old movie and... make it into a film with an original title, characters, and basic identity. You don't have to call a remake of - let's choose something random - C.H.U.D. by the same name or keep any number of original details. The couple doesn't have to live together, he doesn't have to be a photographer, she doesn't have to be pregnant, nobody has to be pregnant, there doesn't have to be a diner attack scene, etc etc etc. When you remake a well-known film, you are partly suggesting the original is significantly flawed. And that will never change. Calling it reboot isn't different either, it's the same can of shit.

Besides, if you want different from a remake, you need to have true perspective on what difference would make a remake necessary. For example: faster zombies in Dawn of the Dead is not a legitimate reason. We've already got Return of the Living Dead and 28 Days Later. Turning a quirky story about a professor's family trying to rearrange his particles and restore him back to human into a painfully heartfelt film about disease, loss, and an allegory for the darkside of promiscuous sex and the heartless artificiality of the 80's with intelligent characterization, insightful observational dialogue, and dynamic acting performances in The Fly... that's the kind of remake we get once in the existence of cinema. If you think for one second that there's another one like that- you're deluding yourself. After that, I say Cat People is the next best remake. But I say this because I personally feel the original was a social study rather than a study in terror. And failed to generate even an ounce of creepiness. The remake is a perfect example of taking an original film and turning the entire thing inside out. This doesn't happen with anything after 1986. It's impossible to compare the original and remake, they are so vastly different in terms of ideas and execution.

The only link the remake process has in those examples to films like Dawn '04 and Chainsaw '03 is that, sure, there's a world of difference between those and their originals too. As in: the remakes sucked out every last ounce of meaning, thoughtfulness, intelligence, younameit the originals had and turned them into intellectually void, cheap, unrewarding action-thrillers. They are entirely disposable and interchangeable with any number of other action-thrillers of the last 10 years with violence and gore. This... is also not a legitimate reason to remake a movie or attempt to reboot a franchise. The same goes for The Hills Have Eyes, Piranha, The Fog, Black Christmas, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th- only add sleaze, a little humor, the phoniest, z-grade, regurgitated travesty of socio-political commentary, and studio bajillionaires like Michael Bay jerking off behind the scenes, and... you've got What Remakes Are Made Of. (Remakes of a certain era.)

However... I will make one clear subgenre exception: Americanizations. Merely because I've yet to see the original Ringu, or either version of The Grudge or Let the Right One In.

As for Carpenter's The Thing... I have issues with it. Mentioned that a few times in the past (though I'm not saying you should know that, I haven't talked about it in quite a while). Not the least of which being that I find it remarkably similar to Alien.

Originally Posted by Steel76 View Post
Sure most remakes today are pretty lackluster, but a lot of them like "Dawn of the Dead" and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" have been pretty damn good.
This is such an assholish thing to say, and I know/admit it, but: did you even see the originals? (I don't know what else to say and... if you say ^that^, you will get a response.)

Originally Posted by Steel76 View Post
And both the "Evil Dead" and "Maniac" remakes seems to go in the same direction with bringing something new to the table.
Aah, you found my weakness. Not that I can't see into the future (I...can't, of course), but that I find 1980's Maniac to be one of the most overrated horror films in the history of the genre. Although- not overrated in the same sense as Carpenter's The Thing. Not that it's merely imperfect at all or extremely flawed. Like: it's a legitimately bad film. I'll allow people to disagree with me on this next thing I'm about to say (I know, I'm so generous- right?): there isn't a person in the world hoping harder that the Maniac remake will be good. It might be the first step on the road to selecting Bad Original Films for remaking. (Hopefully The Funhouse 2014 and Motel Hell 2015 will be shot into production right after that; I'm truly sorry about the latter dig, I still enjoy large chunks of it but...that should have been remade to spare Craven's Hills being raped as hard as it was). And, you want bringing something new to the table- I haven't seen anything like trailers but I have a strong suspicion they will have already improved upon the original in recasting. Especially if he's no longer a fat slob. (I of course know how people are going to react to hearing that but, Joe Spinell was anything but a "Fat Slob" in the Rocky films and likely was a perfectly interesting person in real life. Also, remember: I love the Sorority House Massacre sequels and Orville Ketchum / Peter Spellos is high on the list of reasons.)

However... truth: I don't have any faith in remakes. None at all. I don't even anticipate Let Me In will be any good when I finally do see it.

Originally Posted by Steel76 View Post
An even though remakes are VERY common today, they have been around since the early days of cinema. Even Hitchcock remade some of his own movies.
Name one that wasn't based on a literary property. Or filmed by the same director (I don't give a shit about that- directors can do whatever the fuck they want to to their own films... so long as they're not digitally erasing old details or creating new ones on movies that made them many hundreds of millions of dollars- that's seriously biting the hand that feeds).

Originally Posted by Steel76 View Post
I always look at a remake or a reboot with an open mind.
No offense but I think that's very naïve and not taking into consideration how the film business works. (Not that you're doing it bothers me but you also don't need to tell me about it.)

Originally Posted by Steel76 View Post
And even though it might sucks, the amazing original is always still there.
You may very well be wrong about that too. For us, yes. Many of the originals do exist. For now, that is... But the industry is planning to move away from selling films and television on physical media. Entirely. They're planning on one day not offering consumers the option to own films at all. This may result in a Netflix type situation where the Netflix of the future lets you watch instantly but even then, you'll be borrowing. But you'll need to be constantly upgrading your computer for their upgrades in programs. That sounds about right, considering the situation with Blu-Ray forcing people to upgrade to exceedingly costly equipment just to be able to even watch the discs and DVD option already being erased with new releases: you can't get Video Dead without buying the fucking Blu-Ray. By that time, all separate properties owned by smaller companies will - mark my words - be swallowed up by a corporate giant because they'll be able to make money off of it when suing people who try to share or download it for free. Sorta like what Disney likes to do when they vault one of their animated films.

Which of course has little to do with how original films are regarded by us, the fans, the meantime, I see a different reality. Kids are far more likely to have the "it's old- it's boring" reaction to creative horror films than cheap "extreme" torture survival shit. At least, so long as we keep telling them these films are so great and dishing out so much money to see and buy them.

Last edited by DVD-fanatic-9; 03-28-2013 at 10:13 PM.
DVD-fanatic-9 is offline   Reply With Quote