|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Nov 16, 2007 23:34:34 GMT -5
|
|
maycanady
SERIAL KILLER
????#???? ?$ ??????+?????? ????? ????????? ?
Posts: 600
|
Post by maycanady on Nov 17, 2007 0:55:55 GMT -5
Wow. Is nothing sacred anymore?  I hate when the remake tries to explain every little thing about the character. A series of underground tunnels? The hell? Part of what makes Jason scary is his eerie ability to pop up unexpectedly wherever he wants. Imagining on your own how he does it is also part of what makes it fun. Why bother explaining how he does it and take away that element of mystery? |
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Nov 17, 2007 3:09:51 GMT -5
^^ true..im not a huge friday the 13th fan..but i think its best left off as is..
|
|
vincentprice
drug dealer
This mask is jolly tight!
Posts: 201
|
Post by vincentprice on Nov 17, 2007 13:56:34 GMT -5
I actually think it's a good idea. Make him less supernatural and more human, could be interesting.
Not like the sequels of the original haven't beaten the whole thing into the ground as it is anyway (I'm a huge fan of the entire series despite that).
|
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Nov 17, 2007 15:13:16 GMT -5
I know this is going to be just like all the other torture-killer movies coming out. And just like them, it's most likely going to suck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Nov 17, 2007 16:35:18 GMT -5
I actually agree with vincentprice. It doesn't sound like a half bad premise. At first I was all ready to go off on this idea, but after reading about the director's ideas in pursuing this project, it might turn out to be fairly interesting to watch. Besides, it doesn't really sound like a "remake" to me. More like an explanation or an addendum to the rest of the series. I'll definitely reserve my judgement here until I'm able to check it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Nov 18, 2007 1:31:28 GMT -5
^^ yea they have it labeled as a remake..but from reading that i wouldnt really call it a remake..although im not a huge fan like i said so i really dont care what they do with the story..ill check it out sometime and watch it for what it is..im not gonna judge it based on the other friday the 13th movies
that was the problem with halloween...i havent seen it but it seemed that every1 judged it by comparing it to the original..people need to learn how to watch a movie and just take it for what it is
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Nov 18, 2007 7:35:36 GMT -5
that was the problem with halloween...i havent seen it but it seemed that every1 judged it by comparing it to the original..people need to learn how to watch a movie and just take it for what it is I completely agree. I used to absolutely despise any of the remakes of past horror movies, but if you watch them with an open mind, there are some that are actually pretty well done. Like you said, you have to view it as it's own movie and detach yourself from whatever feelings towards the original you might have. Otherwise you're doomed to hate it. |
|
vincentprice
drug dealer
This mask is jolly tight!
Posts: 201
|
Post by vincentprice on Nov 18, 2007 13:17:59 GMT -5
I completely agree. I used to absolutely despise any of the remakes of past horror movies, but if you watch them with an open mind, there are some that are actually pretty well done. Like you said, you have to view it as it's own movie and detach yourself from whatever feelings towards the original you might have. Otherwise you're doomed to hate it. Exactly. While there are some shitty remakes out there, a few are pretty damn good (Dawn Of The Dead, The Hills Have Eyes, The Amityville Horror-The original Amityville fucking sucked so it didn't take much to improve on). |
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Nov 18, 2007 13:30:50 GMT -5
I think the only way a movie that is making a similar-themed movie based on another movie would not be called a remake... is if it was originally based on a book.
It is a remake if they keep the same title and are remaking a movie, not a book. Especially if they have to pay for the rights to the title and/or the Jason Voorhees character.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Nov 18, 2007 17:11:41 GMT -5
^^^ Nah, if the only similarities are characters and title it's not necessarily a remake. By that logic every sequel would be considered a remake too.
In the case of this would-be movie, I'd say it's more of a re-working than a remake.
|
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Nov 18, 2007 17:56:11 GMT -5
^^^ Nah, if the only similarities are characters and title it's not necessarily a remake. By that logic every sequel would be considered a remake too. Well, not exactly. Because a sequel has never called itself by the name of the original film. There's always an alteration to the title, indicating that it's intended to be a sequel. Sequels are sequels because they call themselves that. If this new movie were called Friday the 13th Part 11 or 12, or anything but Friday the 13th, then it would be a sequel. Unless the original film was based on a book. It's stupid and petty perhaps, but it's a fact. And- nobody really cares. So... In the case of this would-be movie, I'd say it's more of a re-working than a remake. No offense - but that's a total crock. |
|
lowkey
SERIAL KILLER
Posts: 574
|
Post by lowkey on Nov 19, 2007 0:41:41 GMT -5
Jason wasn't always supernatural though. He didn't become that way until part 6. Before that he was just a hillbilly, freak who could take a beating better than Mike Tyson on PCP.
I don't hate all remakes either, but most of them are garbage. Dawn '04 is a decent movie, but it's nothing special. I never expected it to live up to the original, but it didn't live up to some other zombie classics either.
House of Wax, now that was a great remake. The Vincent Price House of Wax that is, and not the piece of shit that Paris Hilton was in. Hammer's Dracula is another great remake. Arguably the best Dracula movie ever in fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Nov 19, 2007 0:46:08 GMT -5
^^ the house of wax remake was actually a good movie  |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Nov 19, 2007 6:17:45 GMT -5
^^^ Yep, I agree. As I've said a couple of times before, I didn't go into it expecting much, but it's actually not half bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Nov 20, 2007 8:01:37 GMT -5
What kind of movie did that one try to be? A torture movie with zombies? Or were they like ghosts?
I have absolutely no idea what the threat was in that movie. Nobody said anything, and I didn't have the attention span that day to finish Roger Ebert's review. But ffs, he gave it 2 stars. Which means... he didn't hate it. He gave Hellraiser less.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Nov 20, 2007 14:00:57 GMT -5
The real threat of the movie is the crazy bastard and his freakish sibling that's capturing everyone and turning them into "living" works of art. His victims stay alive after they're encased in the wax so I guess you could liken them more to zombies than ghosts, but they don't walk around and kill for him or anything. The baddie's sibling does most of his dirty work and he's somewhat covered in the wax too, but he's more of a leatherface type fella than anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Nov 20, 2007 14:39:12 GMT -5
So- it's not really like Saw in a wax museum. It's... Hills Have Eyes / TCM remake in a wax museum?
Do the crazy killers give speeches?? Or do they look like deformed freaks? Or do they sort of look like Geoffrey Rush in House on Haunted Hill '99? Or does one look like one and the other the other?
|
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Nov 20, 2007 20:38:35 GMT -5
A lot of these remakes should be more low-budget. It seems that once you get a big-budget, the shitty CGI and "big-named cast" immediately follow. That's why I'm looking forward to "Diary Of The Dead". NO big-names are any of the principal characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Nov 21, 2007 2:17:23 GMT -5
So- it's not really like Saw in a wax museum. It's... Hills Have Eyes / TCM remake in a wax museum? Do the crazy killers give speeches?? Or do they look like deformed freaks? Or do they sort of look like Geoffrey Rush in House on Haunted Hill '99? Or does one look like one and the other the other? Just watch the movie.............. |
|
I hate when the remake tries to explain every little thing about the character. A series of underground tunnels? The hell? Part of what makes Jason scary is his eerie ability to pop up unexpectedly wherever he wants. Imagining on your own how he does it is also part of what makes it fun. Why bother explaining how he does it and take away that element of mystery?
