The Thing remake....sob

[porkchopexpress]

Ok, ok I'm gonna join a loooooong list of people who think that this remake is a bad idea.

" Well, you see it's a companion piece to the orignal film"

SO, IT'S A REMAKE THEN!!

" Well, its a re-imagining of a masterpiece "

SO, ITS A REMAKE THEN!!!

"Well, its an homage to a horror classic and a dedication to the groundbreaking special effects and expertly crafted paranoid horror"

SO, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IT'S A FUCKING REMAKE THEN!!!

They have officially crossed a line here, it'll all end in tears i promise thee

:mad:

[therealjohng]

You know, a straight foward remake I'd have a problem with. But if they take the storyline from the PS2 game, then I'm all for it.



BUT





They need Carpenter to direct.

[porkchopexpress]

Carpenter saw the success of the game and wanted to do a sequel but he asked for a ridiculous amount of money to do it with, they just brought up Ghosts of Mars and Carpenter went sobbing out of the room

It's going to be an actual remake

[Tuukka]

Then again, Carpenter's "The Thing" was also a remake. I hope you guys bitched back in the early 80's as well.

[Criminal Rock]

Exactly...

[thedudeman69]

Originally posted by Tuukka
Then again, Carpenter's "The Thing" was also a remake. I hope you guys bitched back in the early 80's as well.

This message board didn't exist in the 80's but yeah, that is true.

[porkchopexpress]

I know it was it was a remake of " The Thing from Another Planet" which was based on the book " Who Goes There"

The Thing is considered a classic rather than its predecessor, Carpenter didnt copy the entire storyline of the old film as there are major differences. The Thing was known for it's effects which at the time were state of the art and it succesfully generated pure terror for most who went to see it, I'm not saying the original didn't but Carpenter's version is more highly acclaimed.
As far as I'm aware, they are going to replicate the entire plot from the 80's version which Im sorry, Carpenter didn't do!!!

Even so, the fact that The Thing is a remake itself should be another reason why it shouldn't be made again.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by porkchopexpress
I know it was it was a remake of " The Thing from Another Planet" which was based on the book " Who Goes There"

The Thing is considered a classic rather than its predecessor, Carpenter didnt copy the entire storyline of the old film as there are major differences. The Thing was known for it's effects which at the time were state of the art and it succesfully generated pure terror for most who went to see it, I'm not saying the original didn't but Carpenter's version is more highly acclaimed.
As far as I'm aware, they are going to replicate the entire plot from the 80's version which Im sorry, Carpenter didn't do!!!

Even so, the fact that The Thing is a remake itself should be another reason why it shouldn't be made again.

Carpenter's version of the film was actually much closer to the book, than the 50's version.

I'm just pointing out how ironic it is that people bitch about someone making a remake of Carpenters's The Thing, when it was a remake in itself. And the 50's version WAS a recognized classic, before Carpenter made a new version.

Your reasoning seems to be that Carpenter's version was justified, because it was a good film. Well, maybe this new version will be a good film as well? Nobody has seen it yet, so it's hard to tell.

I'm sure that a lot of people bitched 25 years ago how the beloved 50's classic of psychological horror, The Thing, was going to be turned by Hollywood into a special effects filled splatter movie, ignoring the subtlety of the original.

[LordSimen]

The original was a remake. Defending it while bashing remakes makes no sense in my mind, because you are basically being a hypocrite to say that you can't make a good remake and then say that The Thing was an awesome movie, when it was a remake.

[ParileseMonster]

I remember my parents being excited over The Thing remake in the 80's. They were fans of the original but also remakes were not a popular trend back then. It was actually a newer concept and they were done at a time when people cared about the entire project and not just the check. I doubt many people bitched back then because they were not really given any reason to.
We have reason to bitch now, it is a money making trend now. Everywhere you look there is a remake and most of them have been so bad and so thrown together all shitty.
If remakes were once in awhile like they used to be, and done with some love maybe there would not be so much hate for them now.

[porkchopexpress]

Originally posted by LordSimen
The original was a remake. Defending it while bashing remakes makes no sense in my mind, because you are basically being a hypocrite to say that you can't make a good remake and then say that The Thing was an awesome movie, when it was a remake.

Jesus, you seem to think I'm having a go at the original and remakes in general. I'm not, I'm just having a go at this remake.

Think about this, if someone was going to remake Reservoir Dogs in twenty years time I'll bet you would be up in arms or at least a lot of people would be. It was in itself a remake of City on Fire but alot of people don't even realise that. Most people who do don't usually look past Reservoir Dogs, always recognising the Tarantino version but not slating the Ringo Lam version.

All I'm saying is, The Thing was a superb film, one of a kind and should just be left alone. If you are going to pay homage, make a sequel but there is no need to retread old ground when a sequel would be just as respectful if done correctly......is that so hard to ask? I'm not doubting the original's success, but Carpenter's version was quite simply a better movie and closer to the original book. It was a remake of the book and not the 1951 movie in my opinion, a more accurate retelling of the original story and not loosely based on it.

[RustyRazor]

Originally posted by ParileseMonster
I remember my parents being excited over The Thing remake in the 80's. They were fans of the original but also remakes were not a popular trend back then. It was actually a newer concept and they were done at a time when people cared about the entire project and not just the check. I doubt many people bitched back then because they were not really given any reason to.
We have reason to bitch now, it is a money making trend now. Everywhere you look there is a remake and most of them have been so bad and so thrown together all shitty.
If remakes were once in awhile like they used to be, and done with some love maybe there would not be so much hate for them now.

That's it in a nutshell.
How many of these "remakes" ARE well done?
How many actually deviate from what made the original good and just toss in the popular actors / actresses of the time to make a buck?
And whether it is believed or not, a shitty remake CAN ruin the film it tried to emulate.
Watch the new version of "The Omen" and let me know what you think.
The only time the word "classic" has any meaning is if it means they can plunder an idea that worked in the past and cheapen it with a poorly constructed "remake / interpretation".
They need to leave "The Thing" alone.
But they won't. I can see the trailer now with the "Here Comes The BOOM" song playing in the background and Josh Lucas or Paul Walker in the lead role.
Now THERE'S quality movie making for ya!

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by porkchopexpress
Jesus, you seem to think I'm having a go at the original and remakes in general. I'm not, I'm just having a go at this remake.

Think about this, if someone was going to remake Reservoir Dogs in twenty years time I'll bet you would be up in arms or at least a lot of people would be. It was in itself a remake of City on Fire but alot of people don't even realise that. Most people who do don't usually look past Reservoir Dogs, always recognising the Tarantino version but not slating the Ringo Lam version.

All I'm saying is, The Thing was a superb film, one of a kind and should just be left alone. If you are going to pay homage, make a sequel but there is no need to retread old ground when a sequel would be just as respectful if done correctly......is that so hard to ask? I'm not doubting the original's success, but Carpenter's version was quite simply a better movie and closer to the original book. It was a remake of the book and not the 1951 movie in my opinion, a more accurate retelling of the original story and not loosely based on it.


No, I would not really care if they decided to remake Reservoir Dogs. Why? Because if it turns out it sucks, I could always go and watch the original. Nothing in the world is stopping me from going down to a movie store or a best buy or a target and buying Quentin Tarrantino's original right off the shelf- It's not as if these remakes are removing the original films from existense. Hell, half the time these remakes tend to PUT the original movie BACK on the shelf in a special addition with more features... Which I'm all for.

And everytime you mention Carpenter's movie as a "better movie" and a "classic" further prooves my point that not all remakes are bad and being up and arms about them before you've even had a chance to see them is just silly. "Oh no, you can't remake this film, it's too sacred!" Well that film already in and of itself is a remake, so it's simply silly to say you can't remake it.

To me, remaking a movie is just as if you were going to go see a play done by two different directors and a different cast. Think... Romeo and Juliet or The Phantom of the Opera... Each time somoone does their own version of it in a huge, classical theater they chose to either do their own rendition of it or do it by the book as it is originally written. Some turn out good, some turn out bad. But the idea is the same. Which is why I have no problem seeing another movie attempted by a different director. It's the same as doing a play with a different director.

Besides, a lot of these remakes have turned out great, some have even turned out better than their originals in my opinion. The Dawn of the Dead remake was good, not as a good as the original, but still good. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake really was on par with the original in my opinion. I really liked how gritty the remake was, really took the idea to a whole new level. The Hills Have Eyes remake was ten times better than the original movie. The Omen and The Amytiville Horror remakes didn't fair too well in the long run, but like I said... That doesn't mean you can't simply go and watch Donner's original Omen or the original Amytiville. Just like how a movie adaptation of a book does NOT ruin the book if the movie doesn't turn out well, another adaptation of a movie does not ruin the original movie. So even if you don't like either Amytiville movies you could go and buy the book.

The Ring remake was really good in my opinion, and had aspects that were better than the original as well as some that were on par. I can't decide which one I like more, but both are definitely great movies. The Grudge remake was pretty much the same movie, nearly shot for shot... But I didn't care too much for the original Ju-On in the first place.

Overall most of the recent remakes have turned out fine for me... And even if they havn't for you, like I said, that does NOT stop YOU from putting on that original classic into the DVD player (or, I guess, the HDDVD AND BLUE-RAY players of the future) and enjoying the original as you did before.

[ZenDude]

Originally posted by Tuukka
Then again, Carpenter's "The Thing" was also a remake. I hope you guys bitched back in the early 80's as well.

My sentiments as well. For those who are complaining about a remake, should do the right thing and throw out Carpenters version and only keep the 50s original..oh and do the same with The Ten Commandments 50s version which is a remake, ben Hur 50s version which is a remake, Wizard of Oz 30s version which is a reimagining..um, you get the point.

[vesaker]

Originally posted by therealjohng
You know, a straight foward remake I'd have a problem with. But if they take the storyline from the PS2 game, then I'm all for it.

I agree that the PS2 game story line was cool (didn't get al the way throught mind you but a firend who did gave me the low down)

hte only real problem i see with a Sequal as opposed to a remake is that there are several comic book limited series of what happenes after the credtis roll in Carpenters version which were released so where in the early 90's i think.

[RustyRazor]

Originally posted by ZenDude
My sentiments as well. For those who are complaining about a remake, should do the right thing and throw out Carpenters version and only keep the 50s original..oh and do the same with The Ten Commandments 50s version which is a remake, ben Hur 50s version which is a remake, Wizard of Oz 30s version which is a reimagining..um, you get the point.


Not if it was done right.
John Carpenter did a great job with his remake.
Hollywood is totally guilty of rushing through a plethora of remakes (not EVERY remake they've ever made. The problem is the most recent ones.) and they're pumping them out for a quick dollar and not for what a remake is supposed to be.

You want to remake "Gone With The WInd"?
As long as you adapt a story that is close to the original OR takes the story somewhere the original didn't, it compliments the original and THAT is what a remake is.

Product placement in a movie, reworking the story to fit today's audience, and putting together a "killer soundtrack" is NOT what a remake is. But take a look at the long list of remakes and tell me those three things aren't prevelant.

This is a tough issue because people's tastes vary.
I won't say ALL remakes suck, even into today's flims but there are more sucky ones than there are decent ones.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Tuukka
Then again, Carpenter's "The Thing" was also a remake. I hope you guys bitched back in the early 80's as well.

Yeah but the original movie sucked.

[echo_bravo]

Lets hope The Rock isnt it. I agree with the thread starter this is an awful idea.

[porkchopexpress]

Originally posted by RustyRazor
Not if it was done right.
John Carpenter did a great job with his remake.
Hollywood is totally guilty of rushing through a plethora of remakes (not EVERY remake they've ever made. The problem is the most recent ones.) and they're pumping them out for a quick dollar and not for what a remake is supposed to be.

You want to remake "Gone With The WInd"?
As long as you adapt a story that is close to the original OR takes the story somewhere the original didn't, it compliments the original and THAT is what a remake is.

Product placement in a movie, reworking the story to fit today's audience, and putting together a "killer soundtrack" is NOT what a remake is. But take a look at the long list of remakes and tell me those three things aren't prevelant.


I agree, remakes are starting to become ten a penny and most of them are thrown together with no real care and attention. It's simply a case of how can we make a few bucks fast, easy ( considering the core material and storyline is already there ) and guarantee asses in seats come opening day by throwing in the obligatory pretty boy ( and most likely whatever random hip hop artist )
It's a shame because most remakes tend to suck and that affects any directors who have high ambitons and really do try to pay the greatest respects to the original material and it tars them with the same brush. Ok, its feasible that this version might not be too bad and in that case I will eat my hat but all I'm saying is that I doubt it will be.

Whoever signs on helm this movie better have a damn good understanding of the challenge he faces, i still think it's a bad idea but good luck to him.....he's gonna need it.

[vesaker]

Originally posted by RustyRazor
You want to remake "Gone With The WInd"?
As long as you adapt a story that is close to the original OR takes the story somewhere the original didn't, it compliments the original and THAT is what a remake is.

Exactly, while the Remake should in ways hold true to the original it needs to go some where else to really be its own sucess. 2 examples that come to mind (even though they are horror movies and it seems that horro its the taste of remakers mroe then others or so it seems) is the TCM (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) and Night of the Living Dead.

Both of those orginals were great awsome and classics in their own rights but the Remakes of them them in a bit of a different direction.

The TCM orgignal was great cuase it seemed so real and possible and quite frankly looks almost like some kind of sick home movie where as the remake was a bit of a Grander story with richer characters.

The NotLD is the same in that the remake when to other places and changede some of the characters to make it its own movie almost.

So like everyone most remakes suck because they are just put out to cash in on the name and what not but there are some good ones out there, i think the real challenge is to make a remake that the pubils loves more then the orginal ;)

[stickmangrit]

LordSimen:

listen son, you and me need to sit down and talk, because you're obviously not fucking getting it. let's put this shit in perspective, shall we? The Thing is not an old movie. it was released just under 25 years ago. it's extremely well known, it's brilliantly paced, and it's still creepy as hell. and the studios are likely exploiting these qualities for a quick buck. that's fucked up. end of discussion.

now as for your examples of "good recent remakes," i cry bullshit. the TCM remake blew farm animals. they turned the great and unstoppable Leatherface into a whiny retard who manages to lose his arm to a goddamned co-ed. my buddy was so disgusted with that scene that he hurled his coke at the screen, stormed out, and pissed on the free mini-posters they were handing out in the parking lot. as for new Dawn, yes it was a great movie that had FUCK ALL TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL. there was really no reason not to give it a different name and release it, but then they wouldn't be able to capitalize on the success of the original. the Hills Have Eyes and Amityville re-makes were just as bad, if not worse than TCM.

the real problem here is not just that the studios are shamelessly raping these beloved films, but that they're doing so whilst ignoring a plethora of great ORIGINAL stories or adaptations that *gasp* NO-ONE'S DRIVEN INTO THE GODDAMNED GROUND YET!!! fucking shocking, i know! so, in closing, yes these god-forsaken remakes tarnish the original, because in the minds of this generation, the original is forgotten, and a cadre of impressionable retards believe that Leatherface was real.

[DaveyJoeG]

There's nothing wrong with wishing Hollywood made more films that appealed to your own personal tastes. I'm in agreement with many fine schmoes who feel like all of these remakes are a major waste of money and talent(well... sometimes).

If I was in charge I'd put more resources into coming up with original ideas. Maybe the whole IF thing is futile, but isn't that the whole point of the Rant, Rant, Rant forum?

These days remakes tend to suck. Phew I feel better now.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by stickmangrit
LordSimen:

listen son, you and me need to sit down and talk, because you're obviously not fucking getting it. let's put this shit in perspective, shall we? The Thing is not an old movie. it was released just under 25 years ago. it's extremely well known, it's brilliantly paced, and it's still creepy as hell. and the studios are likely exploiting these qualities for a quick buck. that's fucked up. end of discussion.
.

25 years is a long time ago. That's 2 and a half decades. Not only that, by the time the movie is completed and released into theaters, it'll be close to 3 decades. That is a long time. Yes. The Thing is a well paced movie and still is creepy as hell, but, just because the movie is good doe not mean there's something wrong with someone else taking the idea for a spin.

Originally posted by stickmangrit

now as for your examples of "good recent remakes," i cry bullshit. the TCM remake blew farm animals. they turned the great and unstoppable Leatherface into a whiny retard who manages to lose his arm to a goddamned co-ed. my buddy was so disgusted with that scene that he hurled his coke at the screen, stormed out, and pissed on the free mini-posters they were handing out in the parking lot. as for new Dawn, yes it was a great movie that had FUCK ALL TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL. there was really no reason not to give it a different name and release it, but then they wouldn't be able to capitalize on the success of the original. the Hills Have Eyes and Amityville re-makes were just as bad, if not worse than TCM.


Disagree, disagree, disagree. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake was fine, well done remake. It was dark, gritty, violent and took the ideas of the original and emphasized them. The Dawn of the Dead remake was good because it didn't TRY to completely remake the original, but rather take a new direction. It was well done. The Hills Have Eyes remake was GREAT, one of my favorite horror movies ever at this point (right up there in my opinion with the original Thing, Exorcist, Halloween, Nightmare on Elmstreet and many more of the classics). The original Hills Have Eyes SUCKED BALLS. I love and respect Wes Craven for the most part, but the original movie was just shoddy and uninteresting knock off of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The remake gave it it's own blood, gave it it's own style, switched things around. It was brilliant. King Kong, another remake, was a fucking MASTERPIECE. WheN I saw that movie afterward I thought to myself "You see, THIS is why I go to the movies, to have an experience like this one!" It was almost like a religious experience. The Ring was just as good as Ringu, I never liked Ju-On to begin with so naturally I did not enjoy The Grudge, and The Departed was just as good as Infernal Affairs, if not better in some cases. I do think that the Omen and the Amytiville remake were failures, I did not enjoy them. But like I said, that doesn't stop me from watching the originals. :)

Originally posted by stickmangrit
the real problem here is not just that the studios are shamelessly raping these beloved films, but that they're doing so whilst ignoring a plethora of great ORIGINAL stories or adaptations that *gasp* NO-ONE'S DRIVEN INTO THE GODDAMNED GROUND YET!!! fucking shocking, i know! so, in closing, yes these god-forsaken remakes tarnish the original, because in the minds of this generation, the original is forgotten, and a cadre of impressionable retards believe that Leatherface was real.

"The studios shamelessly raping these beloved films," I cry complete and utter bullshit. One of the silliest statements I have ever read. They have not raped ANYTHING. They have not taken your film and gutted it and not alloud you to place it in your VHS or DVD player and enjoy the original movies as you always have. No one has forced you to go out the the movie theater and watch the remakes, YOU have chosen to. There's no reason why you can't still like the original movies, only a moron would not enjoy watching the originals only because they didn't enjoy the remake.

The remakes do not tarnish the original, people thought Leatherface was real all the way back in the day of the original movie (Which were marketed as a true story as well). 90% of those movies people have heard of. I havn't meet anyone who didn't know that The Omen or the Amytiville or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Dawn of the Dead were remakes. The only times I've met someone who didn't know a movie was a remake is when it has been a remake of a film that wasn't an american film to begin with. The Departed, The Ring and The Grudge are examples of this. And that's mostly because those movies weren't classics here, but rather in other countries. Hell, when it comes to the remakes of American classics they ALWAYS end up releasing a special eddition of original film... Do you know what this actually does? This actually REINTRODUCES the ORIGINAL FILM to the NEW GENERATION. Thus it does the exact fucking opposite of what you said it does. As I aid earlier, I call complete and utter bullshit on your statements.

In closing of my statement, I'll say that the only one really "tarnishing the originals" is you and your own mind thinking that one bad movie ruins yours or anyone else's movie experience with the original movies. If anything, it should make you enjoy and appreciate the original movie more.

[stickmangrit]

[i] Hell, when it comes to the remakes of American classics they ALWAYS end up releasing a special eddition of original film... Do you know what this actually does? This actually REINTRODUCES the ORIGINAL FILM to the NEW GENERATION. Thus it does the exact fucking opposite of what you said it does. [/B]

wow, and naive as fuck to boot, aren't we? because the fact(and this is fact mind you, i see it every goddamned day) is that most of these impressionable retards never even know about the re-release. they have no idea that there was ever an original in the first place. the only people aware of the re-release are the ones paying attention to the fucking DVD releases: the fucking geek fans of the original. Joe Fuckwit Average hasn't the foggiest of clues that this was a re-make in the first place. so no, these are not attempts to re-introduce new audiences to this film. if they wanted to do that then they could do what New Line did with the original TCM and GIVE IT ANOTHER GODDAMNED THEATER RUN!!!! i mean GOD FUCKING FORBID we re-release the classic, that would just be terrible.

and here's the fucking difference between The Thing and The Re-Thing. The Thing got made because Carpenter wanted to make it. he thought he could do something interesting with the material and he went forward with it. The Re-Thing is getting made because Universal wants it made. they hire a workhorse director to get it done so they can get easy box-office receipts. and know that i will be first in line to laugh my ass of at you when they throw a team of OC-rejects in for the cast and hurl tits at the screen. because i give you my word that they will fuck this up.

and King Kong was a piece of shit. it was Attack Of The Clones all over again, a fuckload of sound, fury, and over-wrought FX signifying nothing. we want to talk about movies that make me happy to be a geek, let's discuss the Fountain, or The Prestige, two movies that, *gasp*, i hadn't fucking seen already!!!! again, shocking and terrifying, i know. but occasionally people can come up with brand new ideas that make for new, great movies. but no, that can't be allowed. we can't have another Pallauhnuk(sic) adaptation, cause then how could we finance the re-make of Robocop???

[vesaker]

Originally posted by stickmangrit
now as for your examples of "good recent remakes," i cry bullshit. the TCM remake blew farm animals. they turned the great and unstoppable Leatherface into a whiny retard who manages to lose his arm to a goddamned co-ed. my buddy was so disgusted with that scene that he hurled his coke at the screen, stormed out, and pissed on the free mini-posters they were handing out in the parking lot.

Are you fucking dumb or something?

1. Leather face IS a whiney retard and that one of the aspects of his character. Sure he's crazy and swings his chain saw but he really is nothing more then a big twisted kid. I meen have you forgotten him in the entire dinner scene from the original? he's wearing a fucking dress and make-up on his mask and is a sniviling twit when ever the Cook (later named Dreten in TCM 2) bitches at him, unstopable indeed. Hell the only reason he was probably even able to kill the others is he either surprises them or like Franklin can't acctaully get away under his own power.

2. Yeah he looses his arm, which if you remeber (although it may have only been in the DVD deleted scenes i can't be sure) him loosing his arm is a plot divise to set up a sequal to the remake. And your pissed at him loosing his are to a crazed chick with a cleaver, i don't know about you but imo thats a bit better then him tripping and his OWN FUCKING CHAINSAW falling and cutting his leg open..... whinney retard yes..... unstopable no.

3 And as for your idiot friend who obviously is to full of himself and his own opinions that he resorts to throwing shit at the screen (like anyone but you or him fucking even remeber it) just cause he thinks it sucks for the reasons you have stated and that i have now countered as being full of shit makes him as much an idiot as you. Oh an one other question, did you friend feel like a Big Man when he pissed on the miny posters? i hope so cause in my eyes and i'm sure the eyes of some others he ain't.

Now before any reply to this at all, if at all, i want to be clear that i am not saying the remake of TCM is better then the original but that they are BOTH good for their own reasons, which i also have stated in an earlier post.

[Scorpio24]

My oh my, the insults are FLYING round.

[JackassFan]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
My oh my, the insults are FLYING round.
Too right.

As long as they're not directed at me, I'm happy.

[porkchopexpress]

I think I've started something here!!!

:D hehehehe

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by JackassFan
Too right.

As long as they're not directed at me, I'm happy.


Don't get me wrong. I AM enjoying it all. :D

[JackassFan]

Aren't we all? I'm loving it.

:D

[RustyRazor]

"Can't we all just get along...my friends?"

SEE! I just remade the famous Rodney King speech!
Sucked, didn't it?!




:p

(Just kidding! Just jokes!)

[EVILxxx]

Silly noobies. :p

[stickmangrit]

Originally posted by vesaker
Are you fucking dumb or something?

1. Leather face IS a whiney retard and that one of the aspects of his character. Sure he's crazy and swings his chain saw but he really is nothing more then a big twisted kid. I meen have you forgotten him in the entire dinner scene from the original? he's wearing a fucking dress and make-up on his mask and is a sniviling twit when ever the Cook (later named Dreten in TCM 2) bitches at him, unstopable indeed. Hell the only reason he was probably even able to kill the others is he either surprises them or like Franklin can't acctaully get away under his own power.

2. Yeah he looses his arm, which if you remeber (although it may have only been in the DVD deleted scenes i can't be sure) him loosing his arm is a plot divise to set up a sequal to the remake. And your pissed at him loosing his are to a crazed chick with a cleaver, i don't know about you but imo thats a bit better then him tripping and his OWN FUCKING CHAINSAW falling and cutting his leg open..... whinney retard yes..... unstopable no.

3 And as for your idiot friend who obviously is to full of himself and his own opinions that he resorts to throwing shit at the screen (like anyone but you or him fucking even remeber it) just cause he thinks it sucks for the reasons you have stated and that i have now countered as being full of shit makes him as much an idiot as you. Oh an one other question, did you friend feel like a Big Man when he pissed on the miny posters? i hope so cause in my eyes and i'm sure the eyes of some others he ain't.

Now before any reply to this at all, if at all, i want to be clear that i am not saying the remake of TCM is better then the original but that they are BOTH good for their own reasons, which i also have stated in an earlier post.

perhaps i misspoke. the original Leatherface was a whiny retard, but he was a nigh-unstoppable whiny retard. it took Dennis Fucking Hopper with three chainsaws to even put up a fight, and the best he could do was pull a Kamikaze. the remake tried too fucking hard to give Leatherface personality and sympathy, both of which undermine the character. as Hooper has been quoted as saying: Leatherface had no personality. the mask was his persona, there was nothing underneath. he wore the mask to become someone else, not to hide his fucking skin disease. and of course we can't have the goddamned hallmark of the original(leaving things to the imagination). we have to show that damned meathook in close-up slow-motion Bayvision(TM). and what fucking sequel were they setting up? because clearly that suffered a nice case of SIDS on it's way to screens, being passed up for the chance to hop from the re-make bandwagon to the prequel bandwagon. but of course we can't actually come up with any meaningful insights into the character's creation, other than the fact that Leatherface just happened across a chainsaw one day, then on to the exact same movie as the first remake, only with different characters and no hope of survival for any of the victims. and let's talk about the dinner scene. let's talk about that particularly magnificent piece of character growth that the re-make completely passed on in favor of bear-traps and severed legs. fuck the remake. Bay declared himself that the only reason he made it was the name value, and that's a shit reason to make a movie. it was a cheap cash-in on an important piece of cinema, and for that principle alone it sucks, let alone the piss-poor execution of that premise.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by stickmangrit
wow, and naive as fuck to boot, aren't we? because the fact(and this is fact mind you, i see it every goddamned day) is that most of these impressionable retards never even know about the re-release. they have no idea that there was ever an original in the first place. the only people aware of the re-release are the ones paying attention to the fucking DVD releases: the fucking geek fans of the original. Joe Fuckwit Average hasn't the foggiest of clues that this was a re-make in the first place. so no, these are not attempts to re-introduce new audiences to this film. if they wanted to do that then they could do what New Line did with the original TCM and GIVE IT ANOTHER GODDAMNED THEATER RUN!!!! i mean GOD FUCKING FORBID we re-release the classic, that would just be terrible.

Alien already got that treatment, the classic was re-released into theaters, so it's not uncommon for that to happen to movies. As for you saying I'm naive to believe that the average person does not know about the re-release is once again a silly comment. When King Kong, as one example, came out I saw commercials packed with mention of the original King Kong. I saw a similar campaign with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (And in the case of a movie like this if you don't know the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a remake you are probably ignorant to most things in life anyway. I heard about the original TCM when I was in elementry school. Never saw it, but I had heard about it. So did most people. At one point they had heard about it even if they hadn't seen it.) and The Amytiville Horror. You also couldn't walk into a video store (blockbuster, hollywood, local store, whatever) without seeing the original HILLS HAVE EYES plastered all over the walls when that movie came out. Same with the Omen.

Let's face it, buddy, the people who you speak of probably would never have saw the original movie TO BEGIN WITH. They probably would have lived their lives just fine knowing about these movie without ever seeing them. Then, they see that a remake is being made (through trailers before movie or on T.V. or through poster) and they decide "Hey, I remember hearing about the original... Maybe I should rent that and then go see this." Or they decide after seeing the movie "I wonder what the original was like" and decide to go rent it afterward. Or netflix it. The remake actually HELPS boost interest in the original movie, it does not hurt it at all.

Originally posted by stickmangrit

and here's the fucking difference between The Thing and The Re-Thing. The Thing got made because Carpenter wanted to make it. he thought he could do something interesting with the material and he went forward with it. The Re-Thing is getting made because Universal wants it made. they hire a workhorse director to get it done so they can get easy box-office receipts. and know that i will be first in line to laugh my ass of at you when they throw a team of OC-rejects in for the cast and hurl tits at the screen. because i give you my word that they will fuck this up.


Really? That's the difference between these remakes? Well I call bullshit on that one. Alexander Aja, for example, was a huge, HUGE fan of Wes Craven and of The Hills Have Eyes. He made the already classic horror movie Huate Tension, and is hardly what I'd call a "workhorse" director. He has style, he has skill and a great eye for the genre. He's on his way to being one of the greats. He WANTED to make that movie. He felt he could do it justice, and he did. He surpassed it by a mile.

Halloween is currently being remade as well. And who's remaking it? Rob Zombie. Now you're going to tell me that HE is a workhorse director? it's very clear that he's also becoming quite the horror mastermind. The Devil Rejects was one of the best horror movies I've seen in years, well made and unique to boot. Rob Zombie is also a big fan of the original Halloween movie. It's one of his biggest inspirations as a horror fan. He love the original probably just as much as any horror fan out there. And you're saying they only hired him because he's a "director-for-hire-easy-to-control" studio pet? I don't by that. The man would sooner say "fuck you" and quit the job before letting them ruin the movie. It's clear that he WANTS to make this movie, just like JOHN CARPENTER wanted to remake The Thing.

King Kong (which I consider a horror/monster movie) was remade by Peter Jackson. The mastermind behind the Lord of the Rings series, a man who has complete control over EVERY ASPECT OF HIS MOVIE. He was the one who PUSHED for this movie in the first place, he is the one who WANTED to make this movie. And he did. He made another masterpiece that surpassed the original by miles.

So tell me, knowing those three examples, what makes you think there isn't some chance that another horror-savvy-up-and-comer won't get his shot on The Thing and won't wow us or amaze us in some way?

Originally posted by stickmangrit

and King Kong was a piece of shit. it was Attack Of The Clones all over again, a fuckload of sound, fury, and over-wrought FX signifying nothing. we want to talk about movies that make me happy to be a geek, let's discuss the Fountain, or The Prestige, two movies that, *gasp*, i hadn't fucking seen already!!!! again, shocking and terrifying, i know. but occasionally people can come up with brand new ideas that make for new, great movies. but no, that can't be allowed. we can't have another Pallauhnuk(sic) adaptation, cause then how could we finance the re-make of Robocop???

King Kong was a masterpiece in filmmaking. It took the original and put it on a whole new level in terms of heart and story. It did way more than just upgrade the effects. That's merely scratching the surface of what it did. It enhanced the emotion between Anne and Kong. It made Kong a living, breathing creature with emotions. It made you feel every moment Anne and Kong were together, and see exactly the connection between them and know that it's more than just simply a "oh god, a scary monster is upon us let's run and hide." It also made Kong thrilling, giving you edge of your seat, gripping entertainment ontop of all this heart. It was not "Attack of the CLones" as you put it. It was King Kong... But with heart. Something I always felt the original was lacking, and the 70's version attempted at but failed miserabley (I prefer the old one to the 70's one though, it was just better made).

I find it funny how you speak about original stories and then mention the Prestige, which is an adaptation. That, by definition, is not an original story but rather simply telling another person's story. And I loved The Prestige, but I don't think picking that as one of your choices was a good one to help your case.

[stickmangrit]

firstly, i know that the Prestige is a fucking adaptation. i even called for more adaptations in my fucking post. my favorite movie of last year, Batman Begins, was a goddamned adaptation. adaptations are alright, because we're transferring the story to a new medium. not shamelessly aping someone else's work.

and as for directors wanting to make re-makes, i've obviously gone right the fuck over your head. that Zombie and Aja knew of these re-makes and pushed hard to helm them is irrelevant. they would have been made anyway, by far less talented directors. the studios were churning these abominations through regardless, so the minor miracle that someone with half a fucking brain managed to hop on and steer it away from total disaster is largely irrelevant.

oh, and yes, giving Alien a rediculously limited theater run totally ruins my argument. name me one horror classic that's received a wide release for more than a fucking day. ONE. oh, you can't? that's because there are none to name. but hey, don't feel bad. you go cry yourself to sleep with those New and Improved(TM) versions of The Fog and When A Stranger Calls you seem to treasure so much.

[porkchopexpress]

I think what made the King Kong remake so special is the fact that the original was made so long ago. Back then they were pushing their technology to the limit and it paid off, no-one had ever seen anything like this before and were shocked and in complete awe of what they were witnessing.
Everyone knows now that it's a classic, and it could be better made now due to the technological advancements of today. Jackson did everything that Merian C Cooper wished he could have done and knew what todays audience wanted....and he delivered. The film goer of today was appropriately dazzled by it and still appreciated the original for what it was.

The Thing, however, is another story. By comparison, the Carpenter version is much more recent and set new grounds in terms of the special effects of Rob Bottin. So many movies tried to outdo the movie in terms of gore but failed miserably, todays audience still remember The Thing vividly and many alien/monster/horror/gore movies that proceeded it and to be honest we have seen it all before. The writers won't be able to come up with something new and creative because Carpenter and Bottin already did it and were the inspiration of many of todays effects artists. We are not going to see anything new here, it going to be a stale, half assed, poorly constructed and above all infinitely inferior version. I don't care that I'm judging it before it's even been made, it is going to suck balls.
I don't rate the TCM remake that much, it was fun movie which gave an old formula a little update to appeal to todays kids who want to see films about other kids getting brutally murdered. King Kong was an opportunity to answer all those questions " I wonder what it would be like if someone made that today " but The Thing was too recent, the director will have no choice but to copy the effects of the 80's version cos let's face it that's what made the movie so great. Techology hasn't really advanced a hell of a lot since then ( I imagine they will go CGI crazy with this one )
Ok, I await your criticisms everyone....don't really care though.

[mutesaint]

Originally posted by RustyRazor
"Can't we all just get along...my friends?"

SEE! I just remade the famous Rodney King speech!
Sucked, didn't it?!




:p

(Just kidding! Just jokes!)


Hilarious. Just hilarious.

We are so negative here. I can just see the spittle flying across the room. I for one am not to terribly insulted to see the Thing remade. Lets face it, most of middle america has not seen this movie. They have not heard of this film. To many people who do know of its existence it seems dated. I showed it, it is my favorite horror film of all time, to a friend and he absolutly hated the flick. Now, the idocy of my friend aside, I see room for improvement and enhancement in the film. If the right person is chosen to helm it, one who respects and loves the source material, it could be one hell of a fucking film. Something that honors the what made Carpenters version so excellent, while making it more accessable to the people of today. Granted it could just as easily turn into the fog, but the potential is there. I for one remain hopeful that some genius, some auteur, will step foward and make this into a remake I can be proud to love. Scorcese did it with the departed(one of the few remakes I have scene that was hands down better than the original IMO).

On a side note, I don't know if I would necessarily call Carpenter's version a remake. It is much more like Cronenburg's fly, or Tim Burtons Chocalate Factory. They are a second, more faithful adaptation of the same source material. He wasn't trying to remake the 50's film. He was trying to make the short story into a movie...again. There it is. My opinion. Bring on the hate.

[porkchopexpress]

Originally posted by mutesaint


On a side note, I don't know if I would necessarily call Carpenter's version a remake. It is much more like Cronenburg's fly, or Tim Burtons Chocalate Factory. They are a second, more faithful adaptation of the same source material. He wasn't trying to remake the 50's film. He was trying to make the short story into a movie...again. There it is. My opinion. Bring on the hate. [/B]

My sentiments exactly