# Remakes: Why I am against/Why I am in favor



## Johnny Thunder

Some recent discussions in the Fright Night thread made me think maybe this topic needs its own thread and place to complain - lol - or have some civil discussion.

I know this is a hot topic right now given the number of remakes, reinterpretations and re-imaginings that Hollywood has been producing in the last few years, especially in the horror genre.

Put any and all general thoughts about the trend here, and feel free to include specific examples of why you despise - or aren't necessarily against - the remakes here.


----------



## The Creepster

CGI....is nothing compare to the talents of all the greats that made effects in films. So any re-make is going to pale in comparison.....BEAT THAT


----------



## Hauntiholik

I think the biggest reason that people don't care for remakes is it seems like the movie industry can't come up with new ideas so they are trying to ride the coat tails of something that was already made (for better or worse).


----------



## RoxyBlue

For me, it's partly a nostalgia thing. There are movies I "grew up" with that I loved as a kid and the tendency is to think a remake will take away from that. Sure, some of them were cheesy in terms of effects or acting, but I love them even as an adult for all their glorious cheesiness

On the flip side, there are special effects available today that could give a fantastic look in a remake. Think about the giant ants in "Them" or those scruffy costumed **** dogs in "The Killer Shrews". I absolutely love both those hugely B movies in the original, but I wouldn't be averse to seeing how they would look in a remake because both creatures could be visually far more terrifying using modern techniques. I get a huge nostalgia kick out of watching the original "Godzilla", but it doesn't stop me from appreciating the beauty of the modern version of the lizard in the 1998 semi-remake.


----------



## Terrormaster

It's not that Hollywood is short on ideas. There's a lot of talented writers out there. The problem is the execs. They don't see how good it is or how well written it is, etc. Will it make money? Bottom line. And with new ideas there's risk. With remakes you have a known franchise, characters, story, etc. It's "safer".

Althought Foamy the Squirrel says it all better than I do.


----------



## RoxyBlue

"Guitar Hero - The Movie" - LMAO!


----------



## Zurgh

I think a big problem with remakes and such, is the need to "modernise" them and make them "more hip & edgy & bigger, cause bigger is better". Usually at the cost of things like plot, good scripting, convincing acting... Just throw some current big names in there, add a ton of CGI, make it 3D too & you got a good movie! I don't think so.

Another problem seems to me to be the need for "focus groups" to sell this "idea" to. Hollywood no longer wants to make a truly remarkable "product", just one that will sell well, regardless of how bad it is. Not art or skill for it's own sake, but for money & the chance to show you some new products from its sponsors.

I'm not against making money, I'm against a 90+ minute Coke or Pepsi commercial (or car, or whatever), pretending to be a movie.

The last movie I saw in theater was the 1st Resident Evil. I am a big fan of the original games & hoped it would be somewhat closer to the source material. It wasn't.
It was an action movie, with horror elements. Not a bad movie IMO, but so far from the source material (a survival-horror game) that it was the straw that broke this camels movie going back. I have not been to a movie theater since...
Not that I would want to see a true RE game to movie remake. 2 hrs of fetch quests, puzzles & desperate searches for ammo with zombies & mutants at your heels may be fun to play, but not to pay a theater watch. I really wanted to see a good RE based horror movie, not a RE titled action movie. 

And now Milla's character has T-virus psychic superpowers... what???? Mario, Luigi, & Pikachu must be passing out the magic mushrooms again at the director meetings...

I'm not saying that a remake or retake can't be well done, but more often than not, it is redone only because of money. This results in a craptacular movie.

Terrormaster, Foamy is absolutely right...


----------



## Johnny Thunder

Are there any films that you WOULD like to see remade? Why?


----------



## morbidmike

yes creature of the black lagoon cause I dont ever rembering seeing a remake ..I love the old classics something about cheesy effects that still catchers my intrest I saw the FLY a few month's ago what a great movie and the laboratory equip made me laugh but I loved it...I did enjoy the new Halloween and wolfman movies I think they were well done without destroying the origional's


----------



## Perk-a-Dan

I have a strict rule that I don't watch remakes unless I haven't seen the original movie or I didn't think the original was a real classic. Which means, I saw When a Stranger Calls 2005 and... that's it. The remakes keep coming so fast, it's like each one doesn't really happen. So, I should say I don't have a strong opinion. But I used to. Even the advertisements for especially the remakes from the 70's used to make me so angry. But we'll have to wait and I'm hoping that time will show that the originals made much more of an impact on viewers in their time than the remakes do right now.



Johnny Thunder said:


> Are there any films that you WOULD like to see remade? Why?


Sure. Anything I thought was bad. Maybe some Stephen King adaptations. Couldn't hurt, right? Graveyard Shift. Thinner. Children of the Corn. Which now someone has to remake because the first remake was not well-liked I hear. Direct-to-video? Why?


----------



## Night Watchman

I posted this quote in the Elm Street thread. Seeing as this is a remake thread I'll remake the quote (or re-cut and paste). I think it kinda sums up the whole remake thing for me. The quote is from Kevin Williamson in an article reviewing the new Nightmare movie

"honestly, is creating a never-before-seen homicidal maniac who stalks and eviscerates nubile virgins really so difficult?"

Please feel free to argue but don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## Johnny Thunder

Night Watchman said:


> I posted this quote in the Elm Street thread. Seeing as this is a remake thread I'll remake the quote (or re-cut and paste). I think it kinda sums up the whole remake thing for me. The quote is from Kevin Williamson in an article reviewing the new Nightmare movie
> 
> "honestly, is creating a never-before-seen homicidal maniac who stalks and eviscerates nubile virgins really so difficult?"
> 
> Please feel free to argue but don't shoot the messenger.


That quote made me


----------



## Goblin

They're never as good as the original!


----------



## Sinister

Goblin said:


> They're never as good as the original!


Wrong. I can think of three right off the top of my head that are better than the originals.

But you are right in one sense: The ones I can think of are the exception to the rule, not the norm. Remakes inevitably fail because they are trying to make better what there wasn't anything wrong with in the first place. The only reason why they continue to be churned out is because movie attendee's will plop down cash, either hard earned, or ill gotten, to see the latest train wreck unfolding on the screen. Until people break this cycle by flat-out refusing to patronize these events, this trend is _never_ going to end. Pretty soon, they will run out of films to remake and then it will be the way of remaking the remakes.

Maybe they can get something right on the _third _time around.


----------



## Perk-a-Dan

Sinister said:


> Wrong. I can think of three right off the top of my head that are better than the originals.


_The Thing_, _The Fly_, and... _The Blob_? Those are probably the most popular in cult circles.



Sinister said:


> Remakes inevitably fail because they are trying to make better what there wasn't anything wrong with in the first place.


Can't be put any better than that.



Sinister said:


> Until people break this cycle by flat-out refusing to patronize these events, this trend is _never_ going to end.


That's what I do. I just don't watch them.


----------



## Zurgh

I would just like to see a purely well done movie, based on it's source materials, done well enough to make me forget I am where I am watching a movie... like all good movies(or games) should. If it is not a 90+ min commercial for crap or the movie itself, but some truly wonderful escape from our reality... than I'm all for it! What burned me was playing the RE games & watching it get soooo F-ing exaggerated in the movies as to breach the complete unbelievability level... sure, RE ain't real, but the games made me think a bit & even startled me at points.
More movies should be like that... or return to that standard... Not over-do-it so well, that it sucks & yet sells!:googly:

Hell, someone send me movie titles (originals & remakes) & I may rethink things...


----------



## just_HaLLoWeEn_Tim

I see it this way if they remake a film,and it turns out really good then I dont mind it at all.I myself did like both of the Halloween 1&2 remakes,as well as a few others.I know a lot of people dont like the remakes at all,but I give everything a chance.I would like to see Silver Bullet remade,that is one of my fav movies to this day,and I would like to see what they could do to it now a days,not that there is anything wrong with the old one its great !!!! but I would like to see a remake of it.The only remake recently I did not like at all was the Children of the corn remake that was on tv.


----------



## Perk-a-Dan

I don't believe Rob Zombie's _Halloween II_ was a remake. Just a sequel to his own story for the 2007 remake.


----------



## Johnny Thunder

Here's an interesting list of films that, in one fan's opinion, should be remade. I don't necessarily agree with him, but I thought it would make for interesting discussion.

http://screencrave.com/2010-06-14/ten-horror-movies-that-should-be-remade/#more-89213

Thanks to Gary B. for the head's up on this one.


----------



## kevin242

It seems to me that most modern remakes lack the same significance older movies had, case in point "The Day the Earth Stood Still". The original was questioning nuclear proliferation and was awesome, the remake was crap for several reasons, CGI, lame environmental message, Keanu Reeves and mini Will Smith with dumb hair. The same can be said for so many other recent films.
I'd like to see a remake of "Forbidden Planet" or "Logan's Run" but without the plot changes, CGI for CGI's sake, or Meagan Fox in them...


----------



## Dr Morbius

Johnny Thunder said:


> Here's an interesting list of films that, in one fan's opinion, should be remade. I don't necessarily agree with him, but I thought it would make for interesting discussion.
> 
> http://screencrave.com/2010-06-14/ten-horror-movies-that-should-be-remade/#more-89213
> 
> Thanks to Gary B. for the head's up on this one.


He listed Children of the Corn? Does he want a remake of the remake already done? 
I would like to The Sentinal remade, but Altered States? NO!


----------



## Perk-a-Dan

I've never been the world's biggest fan of _Hellraiser_ or anything, but there's no way a remake could be better than the original. You can't replace Clare Higgins. She was that good. No woman in the world could even come close. They could easily top Ashley Laurence and getting a new Frank (in full-skin human form) wouldn't be too hard. But then there's Andrew Robinson, who I personally consider perfect as the evil Frank in Larry's Skin. I don't think he could be replaced either. I mean, so they can do better FX. Is it worth making new mistakes just to correct the old ones?

A remake of _Audition_ would be disastrous. I mean, I think the remakes of _The Eye_ and _Shutter_ proved to be big enough mistakes. Walk away from even thinking of remaking Japanese films. Although... it's too bad they ruined _The Eye_ because I didn't think the original was that good. That could have been so much scarier than the Asian version.

As long as they could make it actually scary and edgy, I'm all for a remake of _The Sentinel_. The original had a few good spots but there's a reason not too many people talk about it. It was uneventful at best. And when something really did happen... it was just gross. Deformed people walking around?

Have they already remake Tobe Hooper's _The Funhouse_? I'd love to see that.


----------



## Johnny Thunder

There's a Funhouse remake in development as I recall. I don't see a reason for it. Oh yeah $$$$$.


----------



## Perk-a-Dan

I was never a big fan of the original. So, I'd be down to see that.

Of course, saying money's the reason for it... Well, if you mean that everyone knows about the original- what about _The Crazies_? Nobody knew about that movie.


----------



## Master-Macabre

*Remakes - What I Think*

Alright I've seen a lot of debate on what people think about movie remakes so I'm gonna tell you what I think

I'm not particularly fond of remakes but I understand why they're made and although profit does have part to do with it I don't think it makes up the entire reason for why remakes happen.

For the average remake hater:
Horror has always sparked an interest in an audience but I think horrors prime time came in the 80's. That era was notorious for many of its films. I think a big reason we're seeing so many remakes is because there are already sooooo many films out there that honestly, there aren't many truly original ideas left.

For those that hate remakes with many changes:
Those remakes have no excuses. For example the new Nightmare on Elm St. I don't wanna spoil it for anyone but those of you who saw it know. Glen??? really? Sometimes these movies ridiculously change their original stories and I don't think that's a remake, that's taking a good idea and making it your own.

For those that hate CGI:
I think CGI is becoming a breakthrough just like makeup did. When spfx makeup first started, it was pretty bad. CGI is on its way to becoming an effective tool in the industry. Although that's not to say some films haven't overused it.

For those who think classics should be left alone:
When I met Robert Englund and attended his live interview he was asked what he thought about movie remakes and he said something I very much agree on. He said "remakes are made for a new generation". Unfortunately kids growing up are becoming really demanding of how good the effects in films are made. Sometimes the makeup and effects in some of these old films just aren't appreciated anymore and it's a shame but unfortunately outdated films just aren't keeping up with the new generation. (I'm glad I grew up on a healthy diet of classic horrors despite the new era) That's why a lot of these outdated films are being remade as well, so that the upcoming teenage audience will watch. Unfortunately this often backfires on us, the fans that love all horror and not just the new stuff. Sort of an industrialized version of Misery Loves Company. One thing that really disappoints me is when I try showing my friends some of my favorite B&W horrors. A lot of them don't even hesitate to say "let's watch something else" simply because the films aren't in color. I think that's a really shallow reason to turn down a good film but it happens.

So yeah what do you guys think of remakes? Plainly, I'm rarely fond of one (like the new WOLFMAN...loved it<3 ) but occasionally it happens. I don't condemn the ones I don't like either, I just never watch them again


----------



## MorbidMariah

I tend to not like re-makes. Especially when the original was perfect, in my mind anyway. There have been a few remakes I've enjoyed, but I tend to shy away from 'em. One HUGE reason I dislike most remakes is all the damned CGI. I know it has its uses, but for me, 99% of the time I prefer squibs, latex, miniatures, etc to CGI. There's such a visceral tangibility to the old skool stuff. Most CGI makes me feel instantly bored and aware that what I'm looking at is "fake".


----------



## Master-Macabre

Woops! sorry Johnny T. I hadn't noticed someone had beat me to the topic of remakes and a while ago too  my bad.


----------



## Master-Macabre

Oh and one thing I can't STAND is CGI blood....I mean really...I understand CGI in situations were it would be very hard to do something realistically but BLOOD of all things? The cheapest damn substance in a horror film is the blood!


----------



## Nightmare-Dude

I dont like some remakes because they change the characters.


----------



## Spooky1

For me it depends on the movie. If the movie was done right the first time, does it really need to be remade? Did they really think a remake of the Omen was needed? Did they think they could improve on a true classic?

I just saw there's going to be remakes of "The Thing" and "Fright Night" out later this year. These movies just don't scream out "remake me" to me. Wasn't the previous remake of "The Thing" good enough?


----------



## MapThePlanet

I have to agree with a couple, most, of you, the remakes of today are not really made for you and I. They are created for an audience of today for the people who have an attention span of a gnat, I can understand HOW these work for them, however, I am not a fan of most. Movies used to rely on suspense and the use of your imagination to scare you not just gore. I have not seen the newest "Nightmare" but I probably will, then after it's over I'll beat the actors up and complain that the CGI stuff was cool, however,........


----------



## Johnmonster

As a screenwriter (as yet unproduced) I could go on for pages about this topic, but I'll just hit a few highlights:

The idea of The Thing (1982) being remade just sickens me. I can imagine a bunch of guys hovering over their rendering stations, sipping Starbuck's lattes, and boasting about how awesome the "improved effects" will be. No one will ever top Rob Bottin's achievement, in my opinion. I'm not against CGI in principle, but I am against CGI for the sake of CGI.

If it's a prequel, that doesn't bother me as much. Provided the Thing isn't explained as being Midichlorians.

Oh, I don't consider The Thing (1982) to be a remake, it's more of a retelling (and more faithfully to the source) of the original John Campbell short story _Who Goes There?_

I could almost consider the remake of Friday the 13th to be #11 in the series, and not a reboot, but it'd be a stretch. Based on that film, I could reasonably surmise that the logic behind remakes is to make sure there are enough pot references, just in case the writers of the original were silly enough to forget that weed is the Most Coolest Thing Ever...

There are a few good things about remakes, though. Sometimes you get a movie that is incredibly good and can stand on its own without having a pretense of "replacing" the original (The Fly, Invasion of the Body Snatchers). Additionally, I think it can bring some obscure older movies back into the spotlight. I doubt I'd have found a DVD of the original Assault on Precinct 13 if not for the remake reminding people like me it exists.

Overall, though, I think that about 95% of all remakes are unnecessary and fall flat. And, I often do find myself ranting that Hollywood is creatively bankrupt


----------

