# Fog



## RAXL (Jul 9, 2004)

Did anyone know that they're remaking THE FOG?  
What the **** is that all about   
When will this remake madness end!!!!!!


----------



## Zombie-F (Apr 12, 2004)

I've known for quite some time now. It'll be out this October. I just hope they don't "Urbanize" it like was discussed way back when this idea first hit the scene.


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

It's been awhile since I saw this movie, but I don't seem to recall a black rapper/dancer/comedian in it like they are going to have in this adaptation. An all-new character named Spooner. I'll give you three guesses who ISN'T going to die.  Not really looking forward to this since Carpenter isn't having anything to do with it. It's going to be PG-13 and I'm sure it will be heading straight to home video shortly thereafter. Why, oh why can't Hollywood leave the classics alone?


----------



## RAXL (Jul 9, 2004)

You know, the remake parade is bad enough, but on top of it, why are all the new horror flicks pg-13? They aren't making THAT much money. C'mon, Hollywood, give us back our R rating! :voorhees: :voorhees:


----------



## Zombie-F (Apr 12, 2004)

Huh? I thought Carpenter is producing it in some capacity? Dread Central got to talk to him on the set of the remake earlier this week concerning the segment of "Masters of Horror" he's set to direct.

He's also on the IMDB page for it as a producer, not that IMDB is a reliable source for anything.

IMDB Page.


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

If he is producing, I stand corrected. Also if this is a fact, then Carpenter needs to take several steps back and direct a goddamn full length film again instead of besmirching the ones of his that there's nothing wrong with.

I'm not a huge fan of Rob Zombie, but God bless the man for keeping with the ****ing Rated R Horror film franchise instead of pussying out with that cursed PG-13 crap. Kudos to Romero as well for the Hard R rating for *Land of the Dead* as well. Horror films don't need to be PG-13. Isn't it bad enough that Jennifer Lopez has an "acting" career that they have to ruin our genre with this mess?


----------



## Nightshade (Feb 26, 2005)

*I can't believe they're remaking The Fog*

 The Fog is one of the best crafted horror films ever. I agree with Sinister that Hollywood is serving up a bunch of Horror Film crap with not one original idea. If you want an original Horror film made by an independent film maker check out The Ghosts of Edendale. Great story good effects. Much better than the crap mainstream Hollywood is turning out.


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

Well, at least Clive Barker isn't selling out. Check out the article over on _Dread Central _ about his *Midnight Picture Show * which will feature flicks based on his _Books of Blood _ series, which in this Horror Maven's opinion, is his best works. First on the slab is _Midnight Meat Train_ a very gruesome tale that will change your whole outlook on subways.


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

While we're here, why don't we also discuss our feelings for the upcoming remakes of Suspiria, The Hills Have Eyes, The Evil Dead, Friday the 13th, and I Know What You Did Last Summer (oh yes, they are remaking this one- hey it's been nearly 8 years).


----------



## RAXL (Jul 9, 2004)

Friday the 13th? 
WTF is this all about?
I know Kane Hodder's new movie is just a total rip-off of Friday the 13th, but are you serious about an actual remake?!  :voorhees:


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

First of all, *Suspiria:* I've said it once, and I'll say it again: **** THE ITALIAN SCHLOCKMEISTERS! Any remake could only improve Boregento and his compadre's flicks; unless it's made by another schlockmeister. Quite possibly the most overrated Horror film directors--EVER. Only Uwe Boll is worse or maybe David DeCoteau.

*The Hills Have Eyes:* A snoozefest in every sense of the word. I place the film making of Wes Craven just a step above the aforementioned chaps and that isn't saying much. He only gets that spot because of ANOES. The rest of his "works" isn't worth hardly mentioning.

*The Evil Dead:* No sense in messing with one of the best Horror films ever made. They want to "update" it i.e. throw as much CGI effects as they can and cash in on the name.

*Friday the 13th:* An okay film, but not great. It was destined to be re-made at some point or another. Of all the ones mentioned here, it is the one I wouldn't mind seeing a different interpretation of.

There you have it. It's been a while since we had a Sinister Rant on this board; it's good to see I haven't lost my touch.


----------



## Zombie-F (Apr 12, 2004)

Ah, scathing to the last.

They already re-made Evil Dead... it's called Evil Dead 2.


----------



## RAXL (Jul 9, 2004)

Yeah, but this time it's not gonna have Bruce Campbell. Or his chin.


----------



## Zombie-F (Apr 12, 2004)

Well, it will have him... as producer. So, I guess you can say his chin is associate producer.


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

Sinister said:


> First of all, *Suspiria:* I've said it once, and I'll say it again: **** THE ITALIAN SCHLOCKMEISTERS! Any remake could only improve Boregento and his compadre's flicks; unless it's made by another schlockmeister. Quite possibly the most overrated Horror film directors--EVER.


I think Argento is class in his field. Lucio Fulci is the schlockmeister. I'm only interested in seeing if you have a rant on him. Argento has falled somewhat from grace with his last 4 films, but in his prime he was an amazing filmmaker. And hey, if you don't like Suspiria, as far as I'm concerned- you are NOT a horror fan. You can say whatever you want about Argento, because you're right in a sense, though only in a part of his career pre-Deep Red and post-Trauma. But if you don't see Suspiria for the classic it is, then you and I have nothing to say to each other. I feel THAT strongly about it. And I'm right, Suspiria is the greatest surprise to come out of horror, the little Eurohorror film that could. Only actually it's not so little, which is why I'll always defend it's quality- it's kind of larger than life.


----------



## Zombie-F (Apr 12, 2004)

We're dealing with opinions here, and for every person out there that likes a flick, there's at least one that doesn't. I don't think the fact a person dislikes a horror movie makes them any less a horror fan, just a fan of different types of horror. It's a very elitist statement to say otherwise.


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

Thank You. Just because someone likes or dislikes certain Horror films that I do or don't like, I would NEVER call someone any less of a Horror film fan. I remember waaaaayy back on the old site, The Blood Theater and Gates of Gore, Kristy-75 and I had a big difference in our opinions on what was and wasn't quality Horror. I RESPECTED her opinions and she mine. I do not put down the fans, they are what make any film, rock band, actor, actress and in this case, director, for without them these folks wouldn't even have a career.

I WILL however pan or praise a work that I deem worthy, or UN, with no apologies. I will acknowledge, however begrudgingly, Argento's input as far as one of my favorite films of all time, *Dawn of the Dead* but IN MY OPINION he's a pompous, pretentious **** that doesn't have a tenth of the talent that John Carpenter has in his pinky finger. Fulci is even worse. His directing is haphazard at best and I seriously believe he just sits in a chair with maybe a few pages of indescipherable script, calls "ACTION," and just lets his "actors/actresses" just run to see how they will interact with his dimestore props. His movies bare out the truth of my words. Just watch (if you can actually sit through one without seriously contemplating suicide.) his *Zombie* series.

If you choose not to have anything to say to me Thingit, that's your right and also IN MY OPINION your loss. Zombie-F put together this board for discussions of Halloween and Horror, not for people to take prods at each other. If you like *Suspiria* then hey man, more power to ya! I wouldn't think of you any less a Horror fan for it. There's a lot of people on other boards that LOVE Argento and I have the highest regards for these HORROR FANS, I ask that you please extend me the same courtesy.


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

I didn't really mean that. I think the thing that made me say what I said more than anything was what I saw on your part to be an inability to separate Suspiria from Argento's other films, and Argento from all the other Italian horror directors. You can call him pompous and pretentious, but I think in horror that is a dangerous thing. Because does this mean you don't like the themes of his movies? What does it mean, where does it come from?

I'm glad you see that Fulci is "worse" (though in all my enlightened experience I never thought Argento was even bad), but do you see that he's a world apart from Argento? You make me feel as though I should defend Argento's work because as 'pompous' or 'pretentious' as you see it, it's far better in design than you're giving it credit for. I don't know that I can actually say anything more about it until I gain some more insight and perspective into this from you.

And is p&p really always a bad thing? I've seen some pretentious movies that kick the crap out of Fulci, and efforts of John Carpenter too. JC's had more than his share of turkies in his career. In fact, nearly everything post-Fog. Could I also hazard the guess that you're not a big fan of European filmwork as a whole? Horror or otherwise? Don't be offended, but I don't know what kind of a guy I'm dealing with here yet: are you the sort of person who just always finds the greater faith in things made-in-America?


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

I have nothing against anything European or made filmwise there. I am not one of these "If-it-ain't-American-it-ain't-no-good," Rebublican ******* types that want to wave the ****ing flag everytime that a country disagree's with them about anything. I have nothing against Canada (I would really LOVE to live in Vancouver) or France. I am split in my ways of political thinking, as I believe that both the Liberals and Conservatives have valid points and neither are totally right or wrong.

This however is not a political thread, but one about movies and I will give you some insight as to what European films I really like forgive me if it's not a total conprehensive list, but the past few days since Hurrican Dennis have been Hell, and my brain isn't up to snuff. 

Guy Ritchie- *Snatch* and *Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels* are two of the best films ever made that deal with thugs. Until he hooked up with Madonna, I felt that Ritchie was on his way to becoming one of my favorite filmmakers in that vein alongside Tarantino and Rodriguez. Now I'm beginning to lose some faith. Hopefully, *Revolver * will see his return to the film genre that I believe made him, and not his wife.

I'm also a big fan of Hammer Films, Clive Barker, Eddie Izzard, Monty Python films and Sergio Leone.

I hope this has been somewhat enlightening. IF not, I don't know what else to say. Sorry I don't like Argento, but everytime I have watched his films, I believe that he is given more credit than he really deserves and everytime I have seen the give interviews he just comes off as thinking that he is God's gift to modern cinema, and I'm here to tell you he's no such animal. JC has made some bombs, I'll agree but I'll go on record as saying that I believe most anything he has put out is much better in comparison to Snoregento's collective works.


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

You know based on what I've seen of the Eurohorror subgenre of horror, there isn't much I think is worth much either. I meant absolutely nothing to do with politics. I'm not sure that would even go far in the Off-topic forums. In fact one of the reasons I praise Argento so much is that he's one in a million Italian/Spanish/German horror filmmakers who can really direct. And I would never say his ambition has anything to do with being "God's gift", I think that's a very unfair labeling. And thinking about the credit he does get from horror fans, it's not cool to judge him by the same standards as the other Italian clone filmmakers. Sure he cares a lot about the very same things that populate all Eurohorror films of the 70s and 80s, but he makes real plots and stories with real characters. People have said this about Fulci, and a few other Italian filmmakers who's names I can't quite think about. But Fulci and most others couldn't direct or tell a story to save their lives. It was all about gore and that's great, but it's not all there is. If horror was only gore, it would stop being interesting to the collective and get really oldhat real fast.

Sure his movies don't always make sense, and I think it's that element that might seem pretentious given how much Argento talks about the plots of his films. But I love that he actually tries to put real substance into his films. And he's certainly a genius compared to most of the other Eurohorror filmmakers. I don't think you really understand the meaning of the word pretentious, because like I've said that's a dangerous label to use in horror films. If that could be said about Suspiria... forget it, than it applies to The Exorcist or Rosemary's Baby or Silence of the Lambs. This is just a filmmaker trying to put some substance into horror, something I think most fans truly appreciate. I know I do. And I've never felt bored during an Argento movie. What did you think was boring about them? And please don't say the dubbing, there's nothing anyone can do, it's just too late to change that.

I'm not going to ask you what Guy Richie has to do with European horror movies, I'd do better to say we're apparently talking about Italian filmmakers. On that note, I should also defend Michele Soavi for the one movie, Cemetery Man, which was an incredible film. His one and only. But about his wife, and mother of one his children, no one would ever say Madonna made him, he had a real cult of fans behind him and they're still there. You'll never hear me say they should have remade Swept Away. I personally feel the film is the bigger waste because there was no new Madonna tune, so why was she even involved honestly? No need to answer that. I love Tarantino, post-Reservoir Dogs that is. And kids movies are going to ruin Rodriguez, you notice how his audience base keeps going younger and younger with every film? Nobody embraces From Dusk Till Dawn like the young indie generation so I count that, then a movie aimed right at the teen market with The Faculty, then Spy Kids which is for families, then Sharkboy & Lavagirl for just kids.

And lastly about John Carpenter, I can't believe anyone would compare any of his films after The Fog, to Halloween in terms of quality. Because you won't hear me say Halloween wasn't a great movie. But after The Fog, he's more miss than hit. Argento truly has accomplished as much as Carpenter, though Suspiria will never be as popular or well-known as Halloween.


----------



## Zombie-F (Apr 12, 2004)

I'd compare The Thing to Halloween in terms of quality. I thoroughly enjoyed The Thing from start to finish, and rank it as one of JC's best movies to date.

And to slip out of the genre for a moment, I'd even dare to compare Big Trouble in Little China. A very different movie than Halloween, but definitely a quality flick. It's a fun flick from start to finish.

You're absolutely right though, Carpenter is pretty hit or miss (usually miss) in his post Fog days.

I should add Suspiria to my Netflix queue because I'm yet to see it. The only Italian directors I can comment on are Soavi and Fulci. I didn't really care for Cemetery Man (too artsy for my tastes), and Fulci is just a gore hound's wet dream. There's no substance to Fulci's stuff. He has no idea how to directe a coherent story.


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

Doctorthingit said:


> Could I also hazard the guess that you're not a big fan of European filmwork as a whole? Horror or otherwise? Don't be offended, but I don't know what kind of a guy I'm dealing with here yet: are you the sort of person who just always finds the greater faith in things made-in-America?


It's because of this last I even mention Ritchie, Izzard, Monty Python or Leone. I like a bunch of European Horror films but I'm just not down with Argento. Believe me, I don't have much faith in American made either, there is a lot from these shores that reek just as bad as some European films. I like what I like. If it fails to capture my attention and keep it about mid-way through, I'm not going to be kind to all involved with it. I think it very unfair of Hollywood, the Independants, European, Japanese etc. to put out total bull**** and expect the fans world-wide to plop down money, hard earned or otherwise, to support their dreck.


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

Of course, naturally some films are bound to be dreckish. But when it comes to getting viewer's attention, some viewer's are just not enlightened enough to appreciate their ambitious work. That's why I find it too easy overall to label Argento's work pretentious. In some areas, his elaboration gets too silly, but that's the only true flaw he exhibited in his heyday. Just seems to me you didn't get his movies. Which of his films have you seen?



Zombie-F said:


> I'd compare The Thing to Halloween in terms of quality. I thoroughly enjoyed The Thing from start to finish, and rank it as one of JC's best movies to date. And to slip out of the genre for a moment, I'd even dare to compare Big Trouble in Little China. A very different movie than Halloween, but definitely a quality flick. It's a fun flick from start to finish. You're absolutely right though, Carpenter is pretty hit or miss (usually miss) in his post Fog days.
> 
> I should add Suspiria to my Netflix queue because I'm yet to see it. The only Italian directors I can comment on are Soavi and Fulci. I didn't really care for Cemetery Man (too artsy for my tastes), and Fulci is just a gore hound's wet dream. There's no substance to Fulci's stuff. He has no idea how to directe a coherent story.


I forgot about Little China and Escape from New York completely.

Well, I enjoyed The Thing to a point. But it's quite overrated. The special effects are just so out there that I stopped caring about the story, and no one else I've ever encountered cared much about the story either. They just wanted to see the effects. The movie is basically taken over by the effects. They're good effects, but the story of the movie just has the one plot hook, where anyone could be a "thing" and who is/who isn't(?). And I don't know why because then, is the only point of paying attention to the story to surprise us when we do find out who is? After we start to see the over-the-top effects, that's all the movie's about. And it's not a very good movie. It just has the empty pay off of a few effects sequences. Then people who really liked the movie make up reasons why they think the story was so effective, I guess that's the biggest turn-off for me watching this film. It's definitely overrated. And not very scary either. A few jumps and a lot of grossing out. And it also seems to me the movie was really long for just the 3 or 4 big effects scenes. I don't feel all that build-up or suspense related to the characters' isolation that fans have said was in the movie.

Fulci is a joke. His films are truly about nothing but intensity, which I guess is supposed to unnerve the audience for the pay-off, and gore. Instead of being unnerved, I'm rather annoyed instead watching his films. Maybe the characters are just this obnoxious because we're being made to want to see them get killed. But then he puts in scenes about the suspense of, will they die or won't they die. Who cares? And when his films show gore, it's incredibly sloppy and cheap-looking. I mean, if I watch one of his gory films after seeing a couple others and/or I'm told what to expect, I do expect those scenes to really look outstanding. Is this the area where Fulci's films are supposed to be inspirational (he has to have one fan here)? Fulci always seemed to me to be one of the clones, not an innovater.

About horror films being too artsy, horror is art. So I would never discount a film because it's too artsy. I realize that's your taste, but what about it did you find too artsy? Any specific qualities? Suspiria is to an extent artsy, most of it's effect is in how the audience reacts to the music score and the film's unique and bright, and very outrageous, color scheme. But it's still Argento, and so the rest of that effect is violence, some of it pretty vivid or graphic. But it has that spookshow quality about it and there are scenes with some terrific build-up. Argento is always radically different than all other Italian horror directors too, so maybe if you even find it artsy, you'll still dig that art. I ask what's too artsy for you, again because I want to know does this mean you prefer realism? Horror movies with a gritty quality?


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

Here's the trailer for it. The thing looks slick in some places, but hokey overall. I don't have high hopes for this film making a lot of money. This thread, like the one about "**** Hrricanes" is going to have a long shelf life on this site. There's something always popping up about the both of them. 

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/the_fog/


----------



## Zombie-F (Apr 12, 2004)

Well, that doesn't have me wanting to see it any more than I wanted to in the first place.


----------

