|
Post by malbowski13 on Dec 21, 2007 11:32:47 GMT -5
Carol Kane,the original, by far. The remake was not even spooky.I don't know many people that could relate to a girl getting terrorized in a million dollar glass house. The more fancy you make characters,settings the more you distance yourself and your film from the audience IMO. Ducking down....give me Zombie's Halloween anyday! Still ducking...
How About- Ju-On/The Grudge?
|
|
vincentprice
drug dealer
This mask is jolly tight!
Posts: 201
|
Post by vincentprice on Dec 21, 2007 17:03:01 GMT -5
Ju-On although The Grudge isn't as terrible as people make it out to be.
The Thing From Another World/Carpenter's The Thing?
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Dec 21, 2007 20:04:57 GMT -5
I found Ju-On to be a lot darker with more backstory and more gory-lite parts. I guess I am biased because I think that Hollywood has pinched ideas from enough people and need to come up with their own shit. Never seen the Thing From Another World but am pretty positive that John Carpenter's The Thing will win. Just saying...
|
|
|
Post by Evil Dave on Dec 22, 2007 3:04:10 GMT -5
Ju-On although The Grudge isn't as terrible as people make it out to be. The Thing From Another World/ Carpenter's The Thing? Definitely Carpenter's reworking. The original has some good suspense and a nice "whodunnit" atmosphere, but because of it's age it simply can't hope to hang with the fantastic effects in Carpenter's interpretation. I love that movie. There's a few others of these that come to mind, but none that are really a decent contest so I'll let someone else take my turn.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Dec 22, 2007 8:15:44 GMT -5
Ducking down....give me Zombie's Halloween anyday! Still ducking... I guess the golden era of horror is turning into the new Black and White era. Although how anyone would prefer the new millennium over the 70's to me is a complete mystery. But hey, that's fine. You can join the club of little kids today who are hanging onto all the remakes and using them to destroy the heyday of true horror. It's your choice.
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Dec 22, 2007 10:46:15 GMT -5
Halloween is the only decent remake I have seen in the past 5 years.Poor Mr.Zombie....he was doomed from the start.If he rehashed the whole film scene for scene, he would be a no-talent,unimaginative hack.If he changes things,which he thankfully did, then he's messing with a masterpiece.At least he has the balls to do something different.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Dec 22, 2007 12:01:32 GMT -5
I actually don't mind that he wanted to do his own version. But it won't ever beat the original. Ever.
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Dec 22, 2007 14:41:38 GMT -5
I think of it as old sports stars vs. new ones. You can't really compare say... Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods; Ty Cobb and Barry Bonds. Everything is different and has changed through the years from equipment to training and more. It is good for its own reasons as the original was good for the things it brought to the table. To totally dismiss any remake without viewing is pretty juvenile. I knew the Fog remake would stink but I chugged along anyways just to see how it failed and what it did differently than the original.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Dec 22, 2007 15:39:16 GMT -5
To totally dismiss any remake without viewing is pretty juvenile. Let's not go there. I may have seen it before posting that last post, you don't know that. Don't assume. But your point is taken. And for the most part, I agree. But a remake is not a movie being made with no knowledge of the original. It's a lose-lose situation - a remake soils the reputation of the original, the act of remaking a movie is sending a message that the first film is inadequate, and if you actually look around, you will see that people are shitting all over each original every time a remake comes out: Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Black Christmas, The Fog, The Hills Have Eyes, Halloween, The Wicker Man, When a Stranger Calls, The Amityville Horror, etc. Kids don't know anything about real horror and because of these remakes, they are destroying the legacy of the impact of these movies. The kids now only go, "it sucks- the other version (or remake) is better!!" Look around and you'll see it's true. That's why remaking must be seen as nothing other than absolutely wrong.
|
|
piggsy
SERIAL KILLER
????#???? ?$ ?
Posts: 1,044
|
Post by piggsy on Dec 22, 2007 16:24:54 GMT -5
Rob Zombie should be the only one doing remakes, because he knows what he's doing. You hear me, Gus Van Sant?!
|
|
vincentprice
drug dealer
This mask is jolly tight!
Posts: 201
|
Post by vincentprice on Dec 22, 2007 16:56:57 GMT -5
"Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Black Christmas, The Fog, The Hills Have Eyes, Halloween, The Wicker Man, When a Stranger Calls, The Amityville Horror, etc. "
I would argue that the Hills Have Eyes remake and Amityville remake are actually superior to the originals.
I like the originals Hills but the remake is far more suspenseful and thrilling...as for the original Amityville, it sucked and was incredibly boring where the remake, while not anything special, was better than the original.
As for the rest, I enjoyed them all in varying degrees with the exception of When A Stranger Calls which was pretty much as dull and bland as the original.
EDIT: And I hated The Fog remake, felt like I should add that.
|
|
piggsy
SERIAL KILLER
????#???? ?$ ?
Posts: 1,044
|
Post by piggsy on Dec 22, 2007 19:14:42 GMT -5
Vincent, nobody liked "The Fog" remake.
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Dec 22, 2007 19:21:55 GMT -5
My only beef with Hills Have Eyes Redux is that shitty "hero-music" they play for the main guy who was a weeny at the start and by the end could take on Rambo.Very cheesius maximus! One positive thing I can say about all these remakes is that ,hopefully, they give some attention back to the originals for people who may not have heard or seen the originals. I am still willing to watch the Black Christmas remake as well. Couldn't agree more with Piggsy about Zombie as well.His movies just aren't for the majority of people.(which is good!)
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Dec 23, 2007 6:25:20 GMT -5
I would argue that the Hills Have Eyes remake and Amityville remake are actually superior to the originals. Amityville, you can have. The original was boring. But Alexandre Aja is one of the biggest hacks in today's world of horror, his Hills Have Eyes is absolute trash and can never beat old school Craven. Never. One positive thing I can say about all these remakes is that, hopefully, they give some attention back to the originals for people who may not have heard or seen the originals. Oh, people notice the original. Kids look at it, only to bash it. Because of these remakes, it gives them an excuse not to ever give the originals a chance. They have the remakes. They're newer, hipper, and all the same.
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Dec 23, 2007 9:52:59 GMT -5
Who needs 'em anyways! Like us, there will always be a small percentage of society that keeps the magic alive that the originals unleashed. This shit just weeds out the hardcore from the posers.
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Dec 23, 2007 12:21:58 GMT -5
I get you. I just don't think we need the added insult.
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Dec 23, 2007 20:39:45 GMT -5
Added insult? What would that be?
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Dec 24, 2007 15:15:08 GMT -5
I very much explained it already. The remakes are saying the originals weren't good enough.
|
|
|
Post by malbowski13 on Dec 24, 2007 20:59:48 GMT -5
I get 'ya. I prefer to think that Hollywood is just so stale that they have to rip off ideas now (be it past ideas or Asian success stories). Isn't the greatest form of flattery imitation?
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Dec 24, 2007 23:24:42 GMT -5
Well, it would be. But it isn't so flattering that they turn other people against the originals.
|
|