|
Post by lazario on Aug 7, 2007 13:56:18 GMT -5
Remakes bother the living hell out of me. They almost always suck. It's just the way. In fact, the only movie I've ever seen that could justify remakes is Cronenberg's The Fly. That's it. No other remake is good enough to say sometimes remaking is good.
Remakes in horror, that is. I won't argue against remakes in sci-fi, comedy, drama, action, etc.
But... Why do they bother us most? I think most people fall into two camps when it comes to why we don't want to see remakes. One group, I think, is bothered by the fact that remakes never try hard enough. Another group, and the one I fit into, feels that the remake is a complete insult to the original film.
But with that being said, there are 2 more questions that puzzle me. One is, does this make me a hypocrite? Because I have a problem with films being remade. But that's an adaptation. In some peoples' estimation, isn't that an adaptation just the same as making a book for the screen? Which I've never had a problem with, ever. My personal motto is, and always has been (and I suspect, always will be): screw the book. But an original film is sacred to me, as the book is to people who love it. Isn't that truly the same thing in some cases?
The other major question is the American-remaking of Asian films. This is something I've never had a problem with. But, shouldn't I? Of course, I was never excited to see The Ring. I just watched it when I had the chance to. And I thought it was kinda okay. But, I think I'm the foremost expert on almost everything to do with horror. Yet... I can't be an expert on this. Though I much want to be. I want to say it doesn't matter just because it doesn't bother me. But that's clearly wrong. It just doesn't feel wrong.
So... what do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Aug 7, 2007 14:08:34 GMT -5
im not a big fan of remakes..the best remake tho is clearly the blob..if you like 80's monsters movies there is no way you cant like it..but all the remakes now are just like suped up versions of the older movies..bigger budget, more gore stuff like that..i wont say i hate them but i would rather see a new original movie over a remake..
as far as asian movies being remade..90% of asian horror movies are just terrible..asians cant make horror movies so i usually tend to stay away from both the asain version and the american remake
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 7, 2007 14:19:24 GMT -5
You know... Asians just have a different idea of what horror is. In fact, the thing about Asian movies is that they actually know how to balance story with style and violence. In fact... usually, they are often much more literal and literate than our horror films are.
But as far as remakes, I'm still keeping my mind somewhat open on The Blob. I haven't seen it, but everyone keeps saying it rules. I'll try to check that out in a couple years or whatever (my book is filled!).
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Aug 7, 2007 14:25:26 GMT -5
a couple of years!!!!! you can pick it up for like 7$ cant believe you have never seen it though...they used to play it on tv alot.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 7, 2007 14:33:28 GMT -5
Alert us if it'll be on Sci-Fi channel. Are you on the East Coast, U.S.?
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Aug 7, 2007 14:37:26 GMT -5
yea im on the east coast..ill post if i see it on..i actually havent seen it on ina long time tho..i saw it a bunch of times on tv when i was younger..finally just picked up the dvd last year..its easily worth the money and time to watch it tho
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 7, 2007 14:38:29 GMT -5
I'll check it out if I ever see it on.
|
|
lowkey
SERIAL KILLER
Posts: 574
|
Post by lowkey on Aug 7, 2007 14:59:37 GMT -5
Ever seen a Vincent Price movie called The House of Wax? It's one of the true horror masterpieces, but it's also a remake. The original is good also, but it's more of a mystery, than horror.
The Horror of Dracula surpasses Lugosi's Dracula--no easy feat I might add.
Nosferatu the Vampyre is a nice remake of the original. It's really too much of an art film for my tastes, but so was the original when you get down to it.
The problem I have with remakes isn't the fact that they aren't original. Precious little is these days. My problem is that they are a huge fad. Hollywood is churning them out left and right, without even attempting to equal or surpass the orginals.
You also have idiot kids, who automatically assume new = better, and make it their life's work to annoy fans of the original. I'm really sick of hearing how awesome the Dawn remake is. I liked it when I first saw it but it was nothing special. The fanboys have really started to make me despise it though.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 7, 2007 16:50:13 GMT -5
Ever seen a Vincent Price movie called The House of Wax? No. For some reason, I have no interest in it whatsoever. Not that I don't already have 12-15 DVDs of movies with Vincent in them. Most of them are the Roger Corman films though, so... The problem I have with remakes isn't the fact that they aren't original. Precious little is these days. My problem is that they are a huge fad. Hollywood is churning them out left and right, without even attempting to equal or surpass the orginals. You also have idiot kids, who automatically assume new = better, and make it their life's work to annoy fans of the original. I'm really sick of hearing how awesome the Dawn remake is. I liked it when I first saw it but it was nothing special. The fanboys have really started to make me despise it though. Very intelligent observations, all. Though my personal feeling on remakes is that they keep trying to remake movies that can't be surpassed (inhumanly possible), such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Fog, Hills Have Eyes, and Dawn of the Dead.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Aug 8, 2007 0:37:40 GMT -5
My judgement on this topic depends on why the individuals involved chose to remake a movie. If they wanted to remake a movie because they truly felt that the original had potential but they could improve upon how the theories were carried out, then I don't have a problem with it. But if they're just trying to capitalize financially on a classic's good name, then I have a HUGE problem with it. Unfortunately, most of the recent remakes fall into the latter category IMO. [Though my personal feeling on remakes is that they keep trying to remake movies that can't be surpassed (inhumanly possible), such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Fog, Hills Have Eyes, and Dawn of the Dead. Excellent point Laz. Sometimes a movie is done perfectly the first time around and there's simply no way to improve on it. When will Hollywood realize that lightning can only strike once in the same place? BTW, I don't think it makes you a hypocrite for not holding a grudge against remakes of originally Asian made horror. In most cases I'd say people see the American remake version first, so since they have no viewing of the original to compare it to, it more or less is original when they see the remade version. Probably really bothers the Asian fans though!
|
|
|
Post by biscuitpower on Aug 10, 2007 11:21:34 GMT -5
The only actual horror remake is the 1990 night of the living dead remake. I have yet to see another movie that can actually qualify as a remake (dawn of the dead[2004] should have been called 28 Days in a Mall, since it's not a remake, and it has running non-rotting zombies)
|
|
|
Post by biscuitpower on Aug 10, 2007 11:24:28 GMT -5
a couple of years!!!!! you can pick it up for like 7$ cant believe you have never seen it though...they used to play it on tv alot. It's a movie about a giant blob, do you really think it's worth $7. ;D Jk
|
|
lowkey
SERIAL KILLER
Posts: 574
|
Post by lowkey on Aug 10, 2007 11:56:54 GMT -5
Try the Psycho remake. It's not exactly bad, it's just pointless. It's basically a frame by frame remake. The acting is more or less equal. The only real difference is that it's in color.
At least the Night of The Living Dead remake changed enough to make it worth watching. It also helps that Romero wrote and produced it, and was behind it 100%. He's probably made more money off of it than he ever will the original too. I gotta say Bill Mosely was probably a better Johnny than the original, and Tony Todd was a great choice for Ben.
|
|
|
Post by biscuitpower on Aug 10, 2007 12:27:00 GMT -5
Try the Psycho remake. It's not exactly bad, it's just pointless. It's basically a frame by frame remake. The acting is more or less equal. The only real difference is that it's in color. At least the Night of The Living Dead remake changed enough to make it worth watching. It also helps that Romero wrote and produced it, and was behind it 100%. He's probably made more money off of it than he ever will the original too. I gotta say Bill Mosely was probably a better Johnny than the original, and Tony Todd was a great choice for Ben. Romero for certain made more off the remake than the original. The original black and white version is in the public domain. You can download it from the internet archives for free. www.archive.orgHave you ever seen the colorized 1968 version? It's a lot more watchable just because of the colour.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 10, 2007 20:15:43 GMT -5
Don't most people think colorization is one of the most Evil things on the planet? I know I was pissed when they colorized the full seasons of Bewitched on DVD. Some things just look sad when they're colorized. And extremely dated. I'm almost completely against colorization. Except that I thought it probably helped the movie The Absent-Minded Professor, since he makes the Flubber stuff in the movie and now we know what color it was.
|
|
lowkey
SERIAL KILLER
Posts: 574
|
Post by lowkey on Aug 10, 2007 20:29:13 GMT -5
Sadly I think it's probably the opposite. A lot of people, especially younger people, hate B&W. Personally I like it better. Look at the Crazy 88s showdown in Kill Bill. It was done in B&W to get past the censors, yet it's probably a lot more graphic in B&W.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 10, 2007 20:30:25 GMT -5
If they ever colorize Psycho, the shit is gonna hit the fan, Big Time!
|
|
|
Post by biscuitpower on Aug 10, 2007 20:59:24 GMT -5
I like the colorized version of night, just because you see A LOT more detail. I'm not talking about just in the zombies and blood but the set in general, as well as the actual time of day outside.
It does seem to be almost another film in colour though.
I know a lot of people think black and white is artsy or classic or whatever.. but honestly it just takes away from the detail of the set and loses the attention span of younger people like myself.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Aug 10, 2007 21:12:26 GMT -5
Artsy or classic? Let me just put this one way... I know it's already happened, but if I saw a colorized version of Carnival of Souls (1961) - I might kill someone.
It's not about being cool or hip or anything. It's the fact that the original versions of each B&W movie work better in B&W and there is no need to colorize them. Whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by biscuitpower on Aug 10, 2007 21:26:54 GMT -5
Why not, are you that against a new audience watching the movie? I understand your stance on remakes, but on colorization come on!! If you don't want to see it in color don't, but I can guarantee that you will have a tough time getting almost anyone born since 1985 to watch a black and white movie. And like I said the colorization of night really improves it, how could it not? Romero's other zombie movies are in color and IMO Dawn and Day are a thousand times better than night. So I really don't see how colorizing a movie could have any ill-effect as the b&w version is still there for those of you who want it
|
|