Has a mediocre movie ever been remade into something better? A bad movie? I guess there are a dozen horror movies that you could pick from, including The Mist or The Hitcher.
Has a mediocre movie ever been remade into something better? A bad movie? I guess there are a dozen horror movies that you could pick from, including The Mist or The Hitcher.
Horror is a great example of bad movies improving with a fresh look or take. The problem is that a lot of horror remakes forget that horror is by and large symbolic, and thus just updating the time period doesn't really do it any justice.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake is one of my favorite remakes. It accomplishes the same thing as the original with a little bit more cinematic flair.
On the other hand, after watching the remake of Last House on the Left, which kind of spat in the face of free love, a concept which really doesn't exist anymore, I realized that some remakes are just not appropriate.
However, with something like Let Me In, you have a new vision taking on a story. I may not like many remakes, but I always welcome artists taking a crack at something.
Have any of Hitchcock's horror movies been remade besides Psycho?
literally or in spirit? because Hitchcock kind of pioneered a large number of horror tropes that survive to this day
I mean by that thought process everything is derivative. There have been very few original ideas or stories in years and years (not attacking your point at all, just making an observation).
Has a mediocre movie ever been remade into something better? A bad movie? I guess there are a dozen horror movies that you could pick from, including The Mist or The Hitcher.
Horror is a great example of bad movies improving with a fresh look or take. The problem is that a lot of horror remakes forget that horror is by and large symbolic, and thus just updating the time period doesn't really do it any justice.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake is one of my favorite remakes. It accomplishes the same thing as the original with a little bit more cinematic flair.
On the other hand, after watching the remake of Last House on the Left, which kind of spat in the face of free love, a concept which really doesn't exist anymore, I realized that some remakes are just not appropriate.
However, with something like Let Me In, you have a new vision taking on a story. I may not like many remakes, but I always welcome artists taking a crack at something.
Its hit or miss I think for horror, the remake of My Bloody Valentine (3d) was weak compared to the original, but I also enjoyed the 90s remake of Night of the Living Dead, not sure if I say its better than the original but it is an excellent film.
One thing I have a problem with remakes is they have made remakes and adaptations galore of "I am Legend" and none of them have got it right. :P
Has a mediocre movie ever been remade into something better? A bad movie? I guess there are a dozen horror movies that you could pick from, including The Mist or The Hitcher.
Horror is a great example of bad movies improving with a fresh look or take. The problem is that a lot of horror remakes forget that horror is by and large symbolic, and thus just updating the time period doesn't really do it any justice.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake is one of my favorite remakes. It accomplishes the same thing as the original with a little bit more cinematic flair.
On the other hand, after watching the remake of Last House on the Left, which kind of spat in the face of free love, a concept which really doesn't exist anymore, I realized that some remakes are just not appropriate.
However, with something like Let Me In, you have a new vision taking on a story. I may not like many remakes, but I always welcome artists taking a crack at something.
Its hit or miss I think for horror, the remake of My Bloody Valentine (3d) was weak compared to the original, but I also enjoyed the 90s remake of Night of the Living Dead, not sure if I say its better than the original but it is an excellent film.
One thing I have a problem with remakes is they have made remakes and adaptations galore of "I am Legend" and none of them have got it right. :P
Yeah one of my biggest pet peeves is the idea in cinema that anything is adaptable. Perhaps it is possible that I Am Legend only works as a story? It's like when all the studios bought up graphic novels after the dark knight went nuts and they slowly got dropped because not every graphic novel makes a great movie.
Has a mediocre movie ever been remade into something better? A bad movie? I guess there are a dozen horror movies that you could pick from, including The Mist or The Hitcher.
Horror is a great example of bad movies improving with a fresh look or take. The problem is that a lot of horror remakes forget that horror is by and large symbolic, and thus just updating the time period doesn't really do it any justice.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake is one of my favorite remakes. It accomplishes the same thing as the original with a little bit more cinematic flair.
On the other hand, after watching the remake of Last House on the Left, which kind of spat in the face of free love, a concept which really doesn't exist anymore, I realized that some remakes are just not appropriate.
However, with something like Let Me In, you have a new vision taking on a story. I may not like many remakes, but I always welcome artists taking a crack at something.
Its hit or miss I think for horror, the remake of My Bloody Valentine (3d) was weak compared to the original, but I also enjoyed the 90s remake of Night of the Living Dead, not sure if I say its better than the original but it is an excellent film.
One thing I have a problem with remakes is they have made remakes and adaptations galore of "I am Legend" and none of them have got it right. :P
Yeah one of my biggest pet peeves is the idea in cinema that anything is adaptable. Perhaps it is possible that I Am Legend only works as a story? It's like when all the studios bought up graphic novels after the dark knight went nuts and they slowly got dropped because not every graphic novel makes a great movie.
I found myself thinking that after I saw the Green Lantern trailer...
Interestingly enough, the author of the novel was more positive about the English version than the director of the Scandanavian version was.
More and more I'm suspecting this animosity towards English-version remakes is just a new avenue for people to be pretentious. The English version doesn't change or alter the previous version in any way, shape or form. It's just a new way for people to say they liked it before it was popular.
This. It's the new version of "the book was better," for people who were too lazy to even read the book.
I have no problem with remakes, as a concept. But I don't see a point in not acknowledging that they are remakes (if/when they suck - or not). "You made remake. And the original was better. Man, your movie sucks balls." BAM!
Have any of Hitchcock's horror movies been remade besides Psycho?
literally or in spirit? because Hitchcock kind of pioneered a large number of horror tropes that survive to this day
I mean by that thought process everything is derivative. There have been very few original ideas or stories in years and years (not attacking your point at all, just making an observation).
Interestingly enough, the author of the novel was more positive about the English version than the director of the Scandanavian version was.
More and more I'm suspecting this animosity towards English-version remakes is just a new avenue for people to be pretentious. The English version doesn't change or alter the previous version in any way, shape or form. It's just a new way for people to say they liked it before it was popular.
You said it yourself. The english version doesn't change or do anything new. The reasoning that a remake should be made only because people are too lazy to read subtitles is thin as shit justification. Even if subtitles do somehow diminish a film experience (though I don't think it does), it still isn't even close to a strong enough reason to do it. At least not when it's only been 2 years since the original. Remaking the same film all over again is a waste of money and talent; who knows how many other scripts are out there that are original and fresh, waiting to be made.
Have any of Hitchcock's horror movies been remade besides Psycho?
Yes. Rear Window has been remade twice that I know of, once a fairly faithful adaptation by Chris Reeves after his accident, and then later a version that changed things up quite a bit called Disturbia starring Shia Labeouf. Disturbia stumbled in quite a few ways, but overall I found it surprisingly interesting.
Yeah... Draper, you're exactly the kind of person I'm talking about there in my second paragraph.
That isn't being pretentious at all. Thinking there should be strong motivations behind getting a film made is being sensible. That train of thought leads to shitty and/or unoriginal movies getting made. Would you rather LME get financed as opposed to any other number of other potentially great original vampire movies written by unknown screenwriters? I'm not one to hate on movies for no reason, I just think that if you've already done something, go on to something new, don't do it over again.
Draper on
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
Interestingly enough, the author of the novel was more positive about the English version than the director of the Scandanavian version was.
More and more I'm suspecting this animosity towards English-version remakes is just a new avenue for people to be pretentious. The English version doesn't change or alter the previous version in any way, shape or form. It's just a new way for people to say they liked it before it was popular.
This. It's the new version of "the book was better," for people who were too lazy to even read the book.
I have no problem with remakes, as a concept. But I don't see a point in not acknowledging that they are remakes (if/when they suck - or not). "You made remake. And the original was better. Man, your movie sucks balls." BAM!
This is an easy place to go to, too. For instance, Insomnia was a movie I saw in its original form before Christopher Nolan remade it. And the original is a good, intriguing murder story. I suppose it wasn't too unreasonable to assume that the original would be the superior product...
But apart from Hillary Swank kind of losing it in a couple of scene, the remake is a much better movie. Of course, getting directed by Christopher Nolan has never hurt a movie, but...
Interestingly enough, the author of the novel was more positive about the English version than the director of the Scandanavian version was.
I know I'm about 10 pages late in replying to this, but I'd like to point out something in response to this. The author is given credit (and money, one must presume) for the American film. The director of the Swedish film is not given anything or (to the best of my recollection) even recognized in the credits. This is despite the fact that seemingly everyone, regardless of their opinion on the remake, agrees that it was extremely similar to the original. And not only in that the scripts were similar in many places, but that they are visually very similar and quite a few scenes are virtual replicates of scenes in the original.
I think Let Me In is a really terrible example to use when discussing remakes in general, in that it was basically a perfect storm of stuff that can irritate people -- and critics -- about remakes. I have never really given a shit about remakes before; I've seen my fair share of remakes of movies that I have liked, and although some of them have been significantly worse than the originals, none of them have made me angry (beyond being a waste of money). Let Me In is the one exception I've found to this, because to copy the original so exactly while giving no credit to the original's director is a slap in the face. Doing so for a movie which is so recent just adds insult to injury. And, doing so in spite of claims by the remake's director that he was not remaking the film, but creating a new film based on the novel just adds... more insults, I guess?
In short, I think there are plenty of reasons to dislike Let Me In beyond the "remakes suck, Americans are too dumb for subtitles lol" reasoning that seems to be about as deep as the criticism goes in many other cases.
Clipse on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Have any of Hitchcock's horror movies been remade besides Psycho?
literally or in spirit? because Hitchcock kind of pioneered a large number of horror tropes that survive to this day
They've actually been trying for about five years now to remake The Birds.
Even as a remake advocate, it still makes me go, "What the fuck?"
It's a movie about being chased by birds.
Birds are terrifying creatures of the devil (especially when attacking from above), I can totally see the potential for a great movie based on this. From the snippets I've seen of the original, it really hasn't aged well.
Zedar on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Yeah... Draper, you're exactly the kind of person I'm talking about there in my second paragraph.
That isn't being pretentious at all. Thinking there should be strong motivations behind getting a film made is being sensible. That train of thought leads to shitty and/or unoriginal movies getting made. Would you rather LME get financed as opposed to any other number of other potentially great original vampire movies written by unknown screenwriters? I'm not one to hate on movies for no reason, I just think that if you've already done something, go on to something new, don't do it over again.
You're making the assumption that there are more potentially great original vampire movies.
I'm making the assumption that most of the vampire scripts follow the Twighlight formula.
BECAUSE HUMANS ARE SHEEPLE. BAAA BAAA.
jungleroomx on
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Have any of Hitchcock's horror movies been remade besides Psycho?
literally or in spirit? because Hitchcock kind of pioneered a large number of horror tropes that survive to this day
They've actually been trying for about five years now to remake The Birds.
Even as a remake advocate, it still makes me go, "What the fuck?"
It's a movie about being chased by birds.
Birds are terrifying creatures of the devil (especially when attacking from above), I can totally see the potential for a great movie based on this. From the snippets I've seen of the original, it really hasn't aged well.
The problem with remaking The Birds is that the original is an experience not unlike Psycho--you walked into the theater, and they showed you a light romantic comedy that slowly, eerily turned into a bizarre apocalyptic horror film. There's no way to recreate this experience, because everybody remembers it as a horror movie. But that's kind of the whole point of the movie. So it's fucked before it even gets started.
That is why you make a vampire movie about Proinsias Cassidy.
Quid on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited November 2010
Also, I put it to you that given Vampires are the flavour of the month with the teenage girls, that there isn't exactly a set number of vampire movies in which major studios are willing to invest.
If someone were to come along with another brilliant Vampire movie script, it's a fair bet they'd both be made, either by the same studio, or another studio who wants a cut of the sweet, sweet vampire money.
It's possible something would not be made, but it's stupid to say "Wouldn't you prefer other awesome vampire movies to be made?" because a remake of Let Me In almost certainly was not what stopped this hypothetical awesome movie from getting in the can.
Apothe0sis on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
It's probably due to all the Starbucks cashiers giving the Hollywood types their Twighlight fanfic, just with different people.
I really wonder how many people start off pitching their script with the words "It's like Twighlight, but..."
The fact that Hollywood has found out that just because it has vampires in it doesn't mean its going to sell, has probably made them a bit weary to introduce yet another take on bloodsuckers with the market already loaded with Van Helsing, Blade, Twighlight, Underworld, 30 Days of Night, etc etc.
Let Me In was based on an already successful idea, just Americanized. Yeah, it was safe, but it's a hell of a movie anyway.
See, I agree with Atomic Ross that every reboot needs to stand on its own merits, and that something shouldn't be judged until it has been seen... but I don't know how to reconcile that belief when I read about this Buffy reboot and all I see is white hot nerd rage...
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited November 2010
Whedon is vastly overrated.
I expect it to exceed expectations in everything except dialogue. Which is a paradox of sorts.
I expect it to exceed expectations in everything except dialogue. Which is a paradox of sorts.
Buffy was a fairly meh story that only succeeded BECAUSE of it's dialogue and character development, which were almost exclusively Whedon's purview.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I expect it to exceed expectations in everything except dialogue. Which is a paradox of sorts.
Buffy was a fairly meh story that only succeeded BECAUSE of it's dialogue and character development, which were almost exclusively Whedon's purview.
L O S T
emnmnme on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
Yeah, but Buffy is so inexorably tied to Whedon in both the original film and two TV series that I find it really weird that someone wants to pump that well without acknowledging the very thing that made it successful.
Fun fact: I've never seen a full episode of Buffy or Angel. However, the point still stands. I also think this film has a high risk for failure; sure, vampires are hot like Hansel right now, but Buffy isn't about vampires. It's about killing vampires. And then just about everyone who was a fan of the Whedon material is going to boycott this sucker with all the ire their nerd-rage can muster.
I still retain full judgment for the final product, but everything about this screams "soulless cash-grab."
Posts
Horror is a great example of bad movies improving with a fresh look or take. The problem is that a lot of horror remakes forget that horror is by and large symbolic, and thus just updating the time period doesn't really do it any justice.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake is one of my favorite remakes. It accomplishes the same thing as the original with a little bit more cinematic flair.
On the other hand, after watching the remake of Last House on the Left, which kind of spat in the face of free love, a concept which really doesn't exist anymore, I realized that some remakes are just not appropriate.
However, with something like Let Me In, you have a new vision taking on a story. I may not like many remakes, but I always welcome artists taking a crack at something.
literally or in spirit? because Hitchcock kind of pioneered a large number of horror tropes that survive to this day
I mean by that thought process everything is derivative. There have been very few original ideas or stories in years and years (not attacking your point at all, just making an observation).
Quite a few have been remade:
http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/wiki/Sequels_and_Remakes_of_Hitchcock_Films
And quite a few have been adapted.
Its hit or miss I think for horror, the remake of My Bloody Valentine (3d) was weak compared to the original, but I also enjoyed the 90s remake of Night of the Living Dead, not sure if I say its better than the original but it is an excellent film.
One thing I have a problem with remakes is they have made remakes and adaptations galore of "I am Legend" and none of them have got it right. :P
Yeah one of my biggest pet peeves is the idea in cinema that anything is adaptable. Perhaps it is possible that I Am Legend only works as a story? It's like when all the studios bought up graphic novels after the dark knight went nuts and they slowly got dropped because not every graphic novel makes a great movie.
I found myself thinking that after I saw the Green Lantern trailer...
I have no problem with remakes, as a concept. But I don't see a point in not acknowledging that they are remakes (if/when they suck - or not). "You made remake. And the original was better. Man, your movie sucks balls." BAM!
I meant in a much stronger way. Suburbia (or whatever that Shia LeBouf movie is) might as well be a remake of Rear Window
You said it yourself. The english version doesn't change or do anything new. The reasoning that a remake should be made only because people are too lazy to read subtitles is thin as shit justification. Even if subtitles do somehow diminish a film experience (though I don't think it does), it still isn't even close to a strong enough reason to do it. At least not when it's only been 2 years since the original. Remaking the same film all over again is a waste of money and talent; who knows how many other scripts are out there that are original and fresh, waiting to be made.
Yes. Rear Window has been remade twice that I know of, once a fairly faithful adaptation by Chris Reeves after his accident, and then later a version that changed things up quite a bit called Disturbia starring Shia Labeouf. Disturbia stumbled in quite a few ways, but overall I found it surprisingly interesting.
That isn't being pretentious at all. Thinking there should be strong motivations behind getting a film made is being sensible. That train of thought leads to shitty and/or unoriginal movies getting made. Would you rather LME get financed as opposed to any other number of other potentially great original vampire movies written by unknown screenwriters? I'm not one to hate on movies for no reason, I just think that if you've already done something, go on to something new, don't do it over again.
This is an easy place to go to, too. For instance, Insomnia was a movie I saw in its original form before Christopher Nolan remade it. And the original is a good, intriguing murder story. I suppose it wasn't too unreasonable to assume that the original would be the superior product...
But apart from Hillary Swank kind of losing it in a couple of scene, the remake is a much better movie. Of course, getting directed by Christopher Nolan has never hurt a movie, but...
I know I'm about 10 pages late in replying to this, but I'd like to point out something in response to this. The author is given credit (and money, one must presume) for the American film. The director of the Swedish film is not given anything or (to the best of my recollection) even recognized in the credits. This is despite the fact that seemingly everyone, regardless of their opinion on the remake, agrees that it was extremely similar to the original. And not only in that the scripts were similar in many places, but that they are visually very similar and quite a few scenes are virtual replicates of scenes in the original.
I think Let Me In is a really terrible example to use when discussing remakes in general, in that it was basically a perfect storm of stuff that can irritate people -- and critics -- about remakes. I have never really given a shit about remakes before; I've seen my fair share of remakes of movies that I have liked, and although some of them have been significantly worse than the originals, none of them have made me angry (beyond being a waste of money). Let Me In is the one exception I've found to this, because to copy the original so exactly while giving no credit to the original's director is a slap in the face. Doing so for a movie which is so recent just adds insult to injury. And, doing so in spite of claims by the remake's director that he was not remaking the film, but creating a new film based on the novel just adds... more insults, I guess?
In short, I think there are plenty of reasons to dislike Let Me In beyond the "remakes suck, Americans are too dumb for subtitles lol" reasoning that seems to be about as deep as the criticism goes in many other cases.
They've actually been trying for about five years now to remake The Birds.
Even as a remake advocate, it still makes me go, "What the fuck?"
It's a movie about being chased by birds.
Birds are terrifying creatures of the devil (especially when attacking from above), I can totally see the potential for a great movie based on this. From the snippets I've seen of the original, it really hasn't aged well.
You're making the assumption that there are more potentially great original vampire movies.
I'm making the assumption that most of the vampire scripts follow the Twighlight formula.
BECAUSE HUMANS ARE SHEEPLE. BAAA BAAA.
The problem with remaking The Birds is that the original is an experience not unlike Psycho--you walked into the theater, and they showed you a light romantic comedy that slowly, eerily turned into a bizarre apocalyptic horror film. There's no way to recreate this experience, because everybody remembers it as a horror movie. But that's kind of the whole point of the movie. So it's fucked before it even gets started.
If someone were to come along with another brilliant Vampire movie script, it's a fair bet they'd both be made, either by the same studio, or another studio who wants a cut of the sweet, sweet vampire money.
It's possible something would not be made, but it's stupid to say "Wouldn't you prefer other awesome vampire movies to be made?" because a remake of Let Me In almost certainly was not what stopped this hypothetical awesome movie from getting in the can.
I really wonder how many people start off pitching their script with the words "It's like Twighlight, but..."
The fact that Hollywood has found out that just because it has vampires in it doesn't mean its going to sell, has probably made them a bit weary to introduce yet another take on bloodsuckers with the market already loaded with Van Helsing, Blade, Twighlight, Underworld, 30 Days of Night, etc etc.
Let Me In was based on an already successful idea, just Americanized. Yeah, it was safe, but it's a hell of a movie anyway.
They're "rebooting" Buffy the Vampire Slayer, only without Joss Whedon.
See, I agree with Atomic Ross that every reboot needs to stand on its own merits, and that something shouldn't be judged until it has been seen... but I don't know how to reconcile that belief when I read about this Buffy reboot and all I see is white hot nerd rage...
On the other hand, Whedon's hilarious response to it does make me feel better: http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/detail.jsp?contentId=212644&_r=true
I expect it to exceed expectations in everything except dialogue. Which is a paradox of sorts.
Buffy was a fairly meh story that only succeeded BECAUSE of it's dialogue and character development, which were almost exclusively Whedon's purview.
L O S T
Fun fact: I've never seen a full episode of Buffy or Angel. However, the point still stands. I also think this film has a high risk for failure; sure, vampires are hot like Hansel right now, but Buffy isn't about vampires. It's about killing vampires. And then just about everyone who was a fan of the Whedon material is going to boycott this sucker with all the ire their nerd-rage can muster.
I still retain full judgment for the final product, but everything about this screams "soulless cash-grab."
Well, they are rebooting the movie, which was effectively scrubbed of everything Whedon except the core concept.