Remake Hate

[BigSugar]

Okay, ladies and gents, here's the ball game; A remake in no way whatsofuckingever affects the original fim. TCM 2003 did absolutely nothing to my copy of the original film, not one line of dialogue changed, not one single frame shifted out of position, absolutely nothing happened! Let the poor misguided souls who like the remakes better wallow in their ignorance, leave them out of this, this is about you who ring the goddamned dinner bell and bring out your Pavalovian whines and bitches when someone gets the idea of remaking a classic. And by the way, if your enjoyment of a classic piece of cinema is eroded by a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MOVIE being cut from that cloth, then perhaps you didn't enjoy said movie as much as you claimed. That's know as posing in many circles.

[bourahioro]

I couldn't agree more, I personally love the remakes, as much, if not more (Texas Chainsaw being my best example) than the original. Now, I'm not saying I hate the originals, I actually really like them too, but let's be honest here, the TCM remake was far better, and more graphic than the original, not to mention more disturbing.

As far as remakes such as, Dawn of the dead, I loved the original, AND the remake.

If you don't like remakes, don't see them, but stop complaining with every opportunity.

I am seriously stoked to see the Halloween remake, and they couldn't have gotten a better writer, and director.

Remakes kick ass, very rarely do they miss, in my opinion.

[Cronos]

if it ain't broke, don't fix it.....well, attempt to at least

if they were remaking crap films and turning the stories into somthing good then i wouldnt have a problem with remakes....but they arent, they're taking classics/great foreign films and butchering the stories into piles of garbage. The Ring, The Grudge, TCM03, The Omen 666, The Fog, The Haunting, Psycho etc....the originals are all excellent films, but the remakes are terrible

there are some remakes i dont mind though such as the Amityville Horror, mainly because i never thought the original was that great to begin with

[KcMsterpce]

I agree with Cronos...

If a movie isn't all that great to begin with, I don't mind it being remade. However, what they usually do is take a movie that's a bona-fide classic, and instead of being ORIGINAL for a new story concept, they have to rehash an already proven story with the idea that it's going to make oodles of cash - again.

The worst remakes to me are the ones that are a Japanese/Korean horror movie from the last 10 years or less, remade to an American audience. Fuck, man. Do something ELSE!

I've reviewed many movies (almost all horror) where I mention WHY I don't think it's deserving of a remake, or why I think it's justified.

In the end, it's all in one's opinion of things, and if you like remakes, that's cool, whatever floats your boat. I'm more for Hollywood attempting to bring us newer, fresher movies that don't rely on the originals' prior popularity in hopes of bagging a few more bucks, meanwhile not bringing much in the way of freshness or originality to the remake.

There are some remakes that I like more than the original. In fact, I didn't like the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and thought the remake was watchable, not that great, but far more entertaining than the first version. Then, we have like, The Fog, which I think Carpenter's version is an "ok" movie, but it wouldn't have hurt to have a good remake. Instead, we end up with one of the SHITTIEST MOVIES OF THE YEAR!!!

I'm just sick and tired of the weekly "remake of the week" release. I'm more into seeing something that I haven't seen before, and remakes are almost guaranteed not to provide that. The best example of not straying from the original source and being far less inferior is THE OMEN. That movie sucked, but the original is fantastic. No need to touch it.

[ParileseMonster]

I am a big hater of remakes so lets just keep that short and sweet.
I am all for turning shit into gold if it can be done and I have said before that we have libraries full of great stories that have never been made into film that should considered first before any rehash. Rehashing is so easy, where is the challenge?

[LordSimen]

I don't see the big deal with remakes. I mean think about it, plays are usually written and performed and done by multiple different casts and directors, yet the moment you try to touch or remake a movie you're evil and satan.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

It's not that I'm opposed to the making of remakes, I just happen to think that they're never up to par with the originals.

[BigSugar]

Never? "John Carpenter's The Thing?" Chuck Russel's remake of "The Blob?"

Be that as it may, my remarks are aimed by and large at a near fanatical group of people who seem to think that a remake interferes with their enjoyment of the originals. Many people felt that the remake of "The Texas Cainsaw Massacre" tarnished the original for them. This a notion that, for me at least, borders on ludicrous. I enjoyed TCM 2003, and "Dawn of the Dead," though I wasn't as affected by the remakes as I was the originals (this is also due, in part, to having seen these films as much younger, therefore much impressionable man). The new TCM was a fun update of the slasher genre, nothing more. Because the material is damn-near bullet proof, I think the movie had a creepy, intense feel that can't be polished away, I don't care how much MTV is injected into it (I'm basing this, by the way, on having taken a girl to see it who had no prior experience with TCM. She couldn't handle five minutes of the original, because it was "too scary," so that tells you something.) All of us who know and love the old school have a tendency to put those films on a pedastal, and there's nothing inherently wron with that, unless we refuse to give up the illusion that these films are perfect. They informed our experience, so we think they have some lofty position that anyone with a modicum of knowledge about film history knows is false. My enjoyment of "Jaws" wasn't eroded by senseless sequels and knock-offs.

[Tuukka]

I guess it would be good if people for once and all would define when a film is a "remake". I mean The Grudge was a "remake" of a Ju-On, which is always referred as the "original". But Ju-On was in fact a remake of Gakko No Kaidan. Which was a feature lenght remake of a short film. So why the hell is "Ju-On" considered as "original"?

And Carpenter's "Thing" is considered as a remake of the 50's Thing... But Carpented went straight to the original book and ignored the earlier film version all together, ending up with a much more loyal film.

And Scorsese's "Cape Fear" is considered as a remake, when in fact the story is based on book... And Kaufman's Body Snatchers is considered as a remake, when in fact it's also another adaptation of a book. And The Ring is considered as a remake of Ringu... But Ringu is based on a BOOK, so technically The Ring is just another adaptation. Haunting was also a book originally.

If new adaptations of books are "remakes", then Peter Jackson's LOTR is a remake of Bakshi's LOTR, right? And when ever there is a new Shakespeare adaptation, it's not a really an adaptation, but a "remake", right?

And how is Amityville Horror a "remake", if it's based on a "real" story? Isn't it in fact another adaptation? So if someone makes another movie which shows the destruction of Titanic, is it really a remake of James Cameron's Titanic? Or was Cameron's film a remake of the 40's Titanic?

Questions, questions...

...Personally I think that people should just be considered whether a film is good or not. Who cares if there was another version? As far as I can tell, the earlier version still remains the same, even if there is a new one. I don't think that any of Shakespeare's original plays have been destroyed, despite the countless of film versions of varied quality.

[Tony_Montana]

Though there was a time when I absolutely despised remakes, I know see the light.

I have no problems with remakes in theory. One of my all time favourites, Scarface, is a remake. When I DO have a problem, it's when the remake is just another version of the original. For instance, take Dawn of the Dead. Yes that is a remake, but other than zombies, a shopping mall, the title and a cool badass black police guy, are there any similarities? Well besides that they are both in colour and in English and whatnot, there aren't. And so, Dawn '04 is a good film that can stand on it's own.
However, The Longest Yard? I haven't seen the original so I can't say much but I have seen the British remake (Mean Machine, making it a remake of a remake)and at least 80% of that film is stolen from Mean Machine, right down to some of the gags. And guess what, Longest Yard sucks (although I did like some of the football action at the end).

[Joshmo]

I just had a total blast last night with POSEIDON - great fast moving tightly done special effects extravaganza! Pure popcorn fun. I have no problem with remakes - just like orginal works - some suck balls and some are pretty good. This entire - "My childhood was raped cuz of this xyz remake" deserves a bitch slap when people get in that mode. It doesnt effect the original at all.

[NCarter]

I think people are unhappy with remakes because in a way remaking a movie is kind of saying to everyone that "the original isn't relevent anymore".

In a way, I think people get offended by that unspoken admission.

In that respect I can see the argument against remakes.

[Terror Australis]

Originally posted by Cronos
if it ain't broke, don't fix it.....well, attempt to at least

The Ring....the originals are all excellent films, but the remakes are terrible

Urge to kill rising....:D

Sorry, Cronos but disagree with you on this one 'cause I think that The Ring (2002) is the best of the current remakes. Don't get me wrong I think the original is damn creepy film as well (I own it on DVD) but I think that the remake is "better" than the original.

*Run Aways*

[bigred760]

It's not that I hate remakes; I just think that so many are unnecessary. Why remake a movie that was released 10-20 years ago? Why remake a movie that is considered perfect and that many critics and fans think a classic? I realize that Hollywood is a business motivated industry but take a little time to think about it that you're probably not going to make that much money on a remake when the original only came out a decade or two ago.

[Mr. Fred Krueger]

There are some good remakes like The Thing and Texas Chainsaw Massacre (although that one was a tad unnecessary). But the majority of them just stink. And considering everything being made nowadays is a remake, of course we're gonna be a little pissed. It's unoriginal.

Why not remake bad movies? Movies that actually need to be remade. Hell, try to make a good remake out of Manos, The Hands of Fate. It would be challenging, but at least it'd be fun to see the results.

[BigSugar]

Complaining about originality when talking about remakes is like complaining about cheap fast food while eating chllidogs. I actually like the fact that these guys are making a run at classic films like TCM, if for no other reason than I think they have to work against fans like us who expect the very best from films that we regard as the best. And while the point made earlier about the origins of some of these films is valid, it's also unique in that both TCM and DOTD were both from original screenplays. And based on the success of "The Thing," doesn't that allow that reinterpretations of some wroks can be a viable option?

[Shockwave]

I used to hate remakes, now i just look at the finished product.

If it sucks i quickly forget about it, if its good then ill watch and enjoy it.

I loved..

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (color remake)

WILLARD

THE RING

DAWN 04 ( this SHOULD have been named something else it was so different!)

TCM (hate the original)

THE BLOB

THE THING

THE HILLS HAVE EYES (hate the original)

Ect, ect, ect. Its all a matter of opinion, but if its good ill love it. If its bad i forget it,.....and life goes on.:)

[Monotreme]

Do I have permission to hate THIS remake:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425320/

[floydtheater07]

I think remakes can be cool. I mean, recent ones have been atrocities. The remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was in no way, shape or form even close to being as awesome as the original, but movies like "The Thing" and "The Fly" are excellent examples of a remake surpaccing its original inspiration.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by NCarter
I think people are unhappy with remakes because in a way remaking a movie is kind of saying to everyone that "the original isn't relevent anymore".

In a way, I think people get offended by that unspoken admission.

In that respect I can see the argument against remakes.

I don't think any filmmaker ever who has made a remake has made a statement like that. So you are basicly talking about an illusion insisted by people who are against remakes. They are fighting against something which exists only in their own minds.

Making a remake isn't any different from covering a song. When Joe Cocker made "With a little help from my friends", I doubt he ever stated that the Beatles version, which came out a couple of years before, wasn't relevant anymore.

When Johnny Cash remade NIN's "Hurt", I never heard him say that the original wasn't relevant anymore and that's why it needed to be remade.

If anything, it seems to me that when musicians do covers of earlier songs, they are making a statement that the original is still relevant - That's why it's worthy of a remake. Same goes for movies.

[echo_bravo]

Originally posted by Monotreme
Do I have permission to hate THIS remake:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425320/

Permission granted

[RustyRazor]

Originally posted by Cronos
if it ain't broke, don't fix it.....well, attempt to at least

if they were remaking crap films and turning the stories into somthing good then i wouldnt have a problem with remakes....but they arent, they're taking classics/great foreign films and butchering the stories into piles of garbage. The Ring, The Grudge, TCM03, The Omen 666, The Fog, The Haunting, Psycho etc....the originals are all excellent films, but the remakes are terrible

there are some remakes i dont mind though such as the Amityville Horror, mainly because i never thought the original was that great to begin with

How about tapping some of the thousands of original ideas from starving screenwriters out there?

Nah! Let's remake "Gone with the Wind"! We'll have Jim Cameron direct, Leonardo DiCaprio will play Rhett, Angelina Jolie can play Scarlett and for a TWIST, as Rhett begins to say "Frankly, Scarlett...I don't give a damn"....BOOM! The Terminator appears and tries to kill them both! But then here comes Vin Diesel to the rescue!

A remake won't kill the original for me.
It's a pitiful attempt that makes me realize Hollywood is phoning it in half the time.
It's still lazy and just plain sad that they'd go to these lengths to get a movie made.

Should they have remade "The Wicker Man"?
If you answered yes, honestly, tell me why.

[starcat]

well they SHOULD remake enter the ninja...sorry, i just felt that needed said....

[NCarter]

Originally posted by Tuukka
I don't think any filmmaker ever who has made a remake has made a statement like that. So you are basicly talking about an illusion insisted by people who are against remakes. They are fighting against something which exists only in their own minds.

Making a remake isn't any different from covering a song. When Joe Cocker made "With a little help from my friends", I doubt he ever stated that the Beatles version, which came out a couple of years before, wasn't relevant anymore.

When Johnny Cash remade NIN's "Hurt", I never heard him say that the original wasn't relevant anymore and that's why it needed to be remade.

If anything, it seems to me that when musicians do covers of earlier songs, they are making a statement that the original is still relevant - That's why it's worthy of a remake. Same goes for movies.

I don't really agree with this.
A song is different. Anybody can cover a song. I see terrible bands in my town covering (trying to cover) classic songs.

A movie on the other hand requires the backing of a studio and millions upon millions of dollars. It's not a "cover".
The studio is saying, "okay, this was a good idea, but it's outdated and it's time we make a new one".

Which I'm not saying is awful, but I can see where people might feel personally hurt or angry. As in, "why are they fucking with my favorite movie? It's still good."

[Monotreme]

I sort of agree with Tukka's comparison. Look at it this way. When a band covers a song and actually changes/updates it, I have no qualms with it as long as it sounds reasonable. For instance, I think that the Scissor Sisters' cover of Comfortably Numb is one of the coolest cover versions of any song! On the other hand, when someone like Britney Spears covers "I love Rock & Roll" and doesn't change ANY aspect of the song except the voice that's singing it... that I can't stand. So for instance, when David Cronenberg re-makes The Fly, he completely changes it, and that's cool. But when a re-make of every anonymous horror movie from the 70's comes out, it's usually not very different from the original, save for some better effects and higher quality (physical quality, not quality of product).

There are also many movies that deserve a re-make. I think, for instance, that pre-Star Wars science fiction was, to say, lacking. Not in terms of special effects or the look of the films, but in terms of the attention to detail, the design of the dystopian world, the characters, etc. Movies from the 60's, 70's and 80's like Farenheit 451, Logan's Run, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and various others are extremely out-dated and seem (to me, at least) very poor by today's standards of characterization, production design and filmmaking. I mean, look at pictures from Logan's Run. In the 70's, it was cool that everyone wore these neat outfit-type things. But now, this type of costume design seems very cheesy for a futuristic world, and things would be done more in the style of Blade Runner or Minority Report. All three of the films I mentioned are up for a re-make over the next few years, and I say bring 'em on, I'm all for it.

But then you have countless movies that worked so well the first time, so why do you need a re-make?

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by NCarter
I don't really agree with this.
A song is different. Anybody can cover a song. I see terrible bands in my town covering (trying to cover) classic songs.

A movie on the other hand requires the backing of a studio and millions upon millions of dollars. It's not a "cover".
The studio is saying, "okay, this was a good idea, but it's outdated and it's time we make a new one".

Which I'm not saying is awful, but I can see where people might feel personally hurt or angry. As in, "why are they fucking with my favorite movie? It's still good."

Anybody can make their own version of a movie, as well. In fact when teens start out making their first short movies with the video cameras, they usually tend to make homages and parodies of Hollywood movies. That's what me and my friends did back in the day.

But when a big musician does a cover song, it's a very expensive process. Big albums costs millions of dollars, sometimes dozens of millions.

So we are talking about almost an identical situation here, when comparing remakes of movies and remakes of songs.

[Shockwave]

Well said TUKKA.

I agree that its pretty much the same thing. I was about to post as such but it appears i am once again late to the party.:p

[BigSugar]

Studio or artist motives aside, my point is this; remake a song, remake a movie, the original material is in no way affected by a "reinterpretation," or what have you. Johnny Cash does "Hurt" and nothing on the "The Downward Spiral" changes. nor do my feelings about the song or the album. People whose persrective on a piece changes just because someone decides to remake it are making a claim that's not only completly invalid, but disingenuous to boot.

[NCarter]

Originally posted by Tuukka
Anybody can make their own version of a movie, as well. In fact when teens start out making their first short movies with the video cameras, they usually tend to make homages and parodies of Hollywood movies. That's what me and my friends did back in the day.

But when a big musician does a cover song, it's a very expensive process. Big albums costs millions of dollars, sometimes dozens of millions.

So we are talking about almost an identical situation here, when comparing remakes of movies and remakes of songs.

I see what you mean, sure.
But at the same time, you can't see how a movie is a much bigger deal than a song?

And you've never heard somebody say "Oh man, they're butchering this song. It's my favorite!"

ex. Most people have never heard Stevie Wonder's original version of Higher Ground. They only know the Chili Peppers version. Most kids can't name a Stevie Wonder song.

So, you can't understand why a Stevie Wonder fan wouldn't be pleased with a cover of that song? The Chili Peppers have completely changed the song and now nobody remembers the old "irrelevent" original.


I could care less about most remakes, but I can understand the hate.

I just wanted to put into perspective how protective people are about their favorite, books, movies, and even songs
If you start to mess with something that somebody loves, you shouldn't be all that shocked when people feel somewhat offended.

[Badbird]

At first I didn't care... and to a degree I still don't care that much.

But it is getting tired. If it's not a remake, it's a sequel or based on a book (or TV show). It's just the lack of originality in general that's getting tired.

I probably won't get enraged until some movie I love gets a shitty remake though.

Same goes with music. Used to be a cover was kind of a unique thing to do. Now bands become famous for doing a cover (no one remembers their original songs). And now you got shit "paying homage" to other actual album covers (see Kid Rock's live album cover cover of Bob Seiger's live album cover).

And then I turn on the TV and all I see is news about Jonbenet Ramsey - fuck, even the NEWS is getting remade!

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by NCarter
I see what you mean, sure.
But at the same time, you can't see how a movie is a much bigger deal than a song?

And you've never heard somebody say "Oh man, they're butchering this song. It's my favorite!"

ex. Most people have never heard Stevie Wonder's original version of Higher Ground. They only know the Chili Peppers version. Most kids can't name a Stevie Wonder song.

So, you can't understand why a Stevie Wonder fan wouldn't be pleased with a cover of that song? The Chili Peppers have completely changed the song and now nobody remembers the old "irrelevent" original.


I could care less about most remakes, but I can understand the hate.

I just wanted to put into perspective how protective people are about their favorite, books, movies, and even songs
If you start to mess with something that somebody loves, you shouldn't be all that shocked when people feel somewhat offended.

Yeah, but this point was already adressed. The original remains the same, it's not changed.

If someone get's upset, that's their problem. They are allowed to bitch about it, if they want to, but that bitching has no logic at all to it. Because every single person who has ever existed, and who bitches about remakes, has previously liked at least one cover song, or a movie remake. so there is no consistency in the "remakes suck" argument. It's just bitching for the sake of bitching.

Besides, why would a Stevie Wonder fan care if some people think that Red Hot Chili Peppers' cover version of "Higher Ground" is the original? That implies to me that the music fan in question doesn't really care about the music itself, he only cares about the trivial stuff surrounding the music. "This is not a RHCP song! Stevie Wonder did it first! Stevie Wonder did it first!!!" Who cares? Because the original still remains the same, and isn't affected in any way. If you love a song, you should still love it no matter what someone else somewhere is doing. If your love and enjoyment of a song is diminished by something so trivial as a new cover version, then you probably didn't truly love the song in the first place.

Being "protective" about a song is pretty much the dumbest thing anyone can do, because you don't own the song in the first place, so you can't protect it in any way. And nobody is coming to your house to burn your record collection, so the "protection" makes little sense.

Besides remakes, whether they are songs or movies, always bring up the original as well. Foreign movies suddenly find DVD distribution, when there is a Hollywood remake coming. When a cover of an old song becomes a hit, the original also gets more radio play and people find out about it. That's how it always goes.

Usually people are being protective about these things when they are living under the illusion that they somehow "own" a song or a movie. It's their own property, their own litle "secret" that the mainstream doesn't know about. Well, the sooner someone kicks them out of that illusion, the better.

Borrowing, stealing and recycling have always been essential to art of all forms, since the beginning of time. People nowadays seem to be under an illusion that recycling the things of the past is a new phenomanom. It's not. It's always been like that. In movies, 80's was an extremely remake- and sequel heavy decade. In the 60's artists were doing cover versions of songs that were just one year old. If you look at the weekly top 10 hits from the period, it's one cover after another.

[The Postmaster General]

Art is a freedom of expression by the artist, not something to be materialized and claimed by a fan.

As Tyler Durden may say, "You are not the movies you like."

[Dead Halloween]

It's not that I hate remakes, what annoys me is that there are so many of them lately. It seems that every horror movie that comes lately it's a remake or a sequel. I don't care much if they're better or worse that the originals, I want to see something new.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Dead Halloween
It's not that I hate remakes, what annoys me is that there are so many of them lately. It seems that every horror movie that comes lately it's a remake or a sequel. I don't care much if they're better or worse that the originals, I want to see something new.

Something to think about -

The trailer for Pan's Labyrinth has a 1.1/5 Joblo user vote here at Joblo, while Feast has a 1.6/5

Grudge 2 has 5/5 (1 vote) on Trailer 2 and 2.6/5 on Trailer 1.

[sAtAn666]

Originally posted by LordSimen
I don't see the big deal with remakes. I mean think about it, plays are usually written and performed and done by multiple different casts and directors, yet the moment you try to touch or remake a movie you're evil and satan.

A play isn't "permanent", like a film is - it's not recorded, once the play is over, you'll never see the exact same performance again. they're meant to be made over and over. i think the theatre equivalent would be to re-write the plays completely, including dialogue and stuff.

I always get extremely pissed off when a favourite is being remade, but i NEVER watch it, and a few months later, i'd forgotten it ever happened. i havent been angry about a remake in a long time, just bored of them because they're so endless and there hasnt been anything new.

one of the things that still frustrates me though is when someone has no idea its a remake. movie fans know better, but the average person will go on believing that one of his favourite films is a true original, and its not. its just a copy. its true that remakes dont really harm the original film, but they are forgotten about by anyone that isn't a film buff. if i were to say to someone my favourite black comedy was Little Shop of Horrors, there's a 9/10 chance that they'll assume i'm talking about the 80s musical, which is, well, shit. (in my opinion)

[stickmangrit]

alright fuck-mooks, this is rumor control, and here are the facts:

remakes have gotten severely out of hand as of late. the problem is not so much that they are being re-made, but the motives behind these re-makes. whereas Jackson's King Kong was clearly something he was extremely passionate about, this is the exception rather than the rule. most of these movies are being cranked out by third rate hacks for a quick buck(Rollerball, Wicker Man, Pulse). there is no passion behind these movies, siply phoned in bullshit. yes, The Thing is an amazing piece of cinema. yes, remakes do have the potential to improve on aspects of a film. but i need merely direct you to those wonderful stories of Predator, RoboCop, and Wild Bunch getting re-hashed to indicate the creative bankruptcy that is fueling this fire. and some of these things are so rampantly different from the originals(New Dawn, anyone) that there's no fucking reason to slap the old name on them in the first fucking place.

and TCM03 blew farm animals, BTW.

[stickmangrit]

and another fucking thing, let's discuss the whole goddamned "redo foriegn film for the american audience" bullshit. yes, let's do Oldboy in english, but take out the brutal violence. and the incest, because the PTA's 'll be all over our ass for that. fuck, let's just turn it into a motherfucking robin williams comedy while we're fucking at it. i realize that this is a long-standing practice, but it never ceases to be sickening. because getting the fucking distribution rights and giving the origional a state-side run is entirely too much fucking trouble, because all americans despise subtitles like they despise Al-Quaeda, since we all have the god-given collective IQ of a retarded schitzophrenic turnip. we'll just get Tim Story or Brett Ratner to crank out a shitty little dumbed-down english-language version for the inbred mutant retard crowd in Alabama. it'll make fucking millions, it'll be brilliant. fucking intollerable is what it fucking is.

[BigSugar]

Okay, since you brought it up, let's talk about it. I've seen "Oldboy" and I love it. I hate the fact that they're remaking it. But I don't think it'll change one frame of the original film, so why the fuck do you care so much? If you own a copy, I think you've pretty well covered the bases as far as being able to watch the flick whenever you like, so where's the harm in stripping the inbred Alabamans of some coin. Hey, here's a novel thought; what if some of them, God forbid, turn out not to be inbred retards but rather a potential group of fans for the original. "Hey, that 'Oldboy' wuz pertty good."
"Ever seen the original?"
'No."
"You should check it out."
"Ah will."
("Dueling Banjos" plays)

If you hate remakes that much, just do what any self-respecting afficianado would do and keep your money in your wallet while passing along your knowledge. Whining about Hollywood making money is beneath you, man.

[stickmangrit]

ugh. just uch. my argument boils down to a simple "why?" why the fuck can't we just get Oldboy screened in wide release in america? why does hollywood feel the inescapable urge to slap the name on some inevitably inferior piece of shit? why can't that money be spent on a new movie, an origional movie? hell, why not give that money to Park and see what he does with it, seeing as they're so enamored with Oldboy? because that requires risk and effort, two concepts that seem to scare most studio execs shitless. remakes are not the disease, they are the symptom. unfortunately, remakes do tarnish the original, as many never know that it is a remake(this problem is espescially prominent in foriegn remakes), thus causing a crap copy to be considered the only version by far too many. i've come to call this LXG syndrome, and the result is that people are so adverse to the crap on the screen, that they aviod the very name and anything related to it, or they're so enamored by the popcorn garbage butchery that they think the original is crap. my problem is with the total creative bankruptcy on display here, compounded by the tarnishing of great and original work by the dickless accountants who're running tinsel-town these days.

[robk]

I've learned to give remakes a chance, but I can understand the skepticism since the bad ones seem to outweigh the good ones. Hence, for every War of the Worlds that comes along, we get about 10 House(s) of Wax.

[shoe1985]

Whatever happened to being original? People used to be willing to take chances on new products, now with piracy at all time highs, movie companies think they need to put out material people know. It is working too. Look at original work, and remade work, which is grossing bigger?

Halloween, my favorite movie, is perfect as is. I would rather let the series die than have it remade. I don't care if there will be changes, this is a movie that should never be touched. You can't replace Dr. Loomis or Laurie.

I agree with the statement of remaking crappy movies. Although they could become worse with a worse remake.

With foreign films, I don't mind as much because I hate having voice overs and I don't mind subtitles, but I would prefer hearing the actual voices.

Plays are different also. Most are changed and only have small things here and there that represent the play. Plus most are not distributed on video.

[BigSugar]

We can't get "Olboy" i theaters here because it's the kind of flick that has a SMALL following, no matter how rabid. You want to talk about foriegn films, then perhaps you shoudl start by lamenting the fact that we can't get people to watch them in the first place. Still and all, "Olboy" is a great example of what I'm talking about; I don't care how homogenous or tepid any remake of that film might be, the original's impact and power wil always outwiegh it on its own terms. For the poor bastard that don't know any better, why do you care what they think? Is it a personal affront to you that someone may not be aware of a source material? If so, that seems a little silly.

One of the warcries that always seems to be around is this "where's the originality in Hollywood?" argument. I have no problem with that, but then when someone writes an original script, people immediately start looking for obscure films to make refferences to it. "Slither" rips off "Night of the Creeps." And so on and so forth. Originality is subjective to the point of being something ethereal. It could very well be that the looming digital revolution has studios worried about heads rolling on being stuck on our pitchforks, but that can't account for all of it. All you have to do is look at the last half of the eighties to see a time when sequels and remakes ruled as well.. Times changed then, and will again.

[leprechaun]

Originally posted by Dead Halloween
It's not that I hate remakes, what annoys me is that there are so many of them lately. It seems that every horror movie that comes lately it's a remake or a sequel. I don't care much if they're better or worse that the originals, I want to see something new.

Could not agree more. I want to see something that I havent already seen..

[Undead Fish]

The way I see it, movies are stories to be told on the silver-screen, whether or not that story was originally in book form, play form, comic book form, video game form, from another movie, or based on some historical event. Anyway you slice it, unless someone has pumped out a completely original script, a movie's story has roots in some other medium that has already told the tale.

So, realizing that most of the movies I watch these days probably aren't based on completely original material, I take each film individually for what they are - a way to tell a different version of the same story. So, if I were to start getting judgemental on films based solely on the facts that they are remakes, then I would have to be overly-critical of everything I watched, making constant comparisons to every version of the story that came before them.

[The Postmaster General]

Oh, look at me! I'm making people happy! I'm the magical man, from Happy Land, living in a gumdrop house on lollipop lane!


As I said, even Joblo voters are giving the Grudge 2 higher marks than Pan's Labyrinth and Proof - two original movies. Stop belly-aching about Hollywood and start bellyaching about yourselves. Or better yet, chill the fuck out and instead of spending time crying bloody murder, use that time to watch these movies that you claim to hold so dear.