A complaint about remakes that pisses me off!

[KillaMyers]

I was just reading a discussion about Rob Zombie's Halloween on another forum, and a couple of the comments really annoyed me. What they basically said, is that it seems that this film is going to be "too different" from the original.

Now in my view, the only valid reason to do a remake, would be to interperet the original story and characters in a whole new way, with a completely different vision if you will. Otherwise what's the fucking point, why do what's been done before?!

I think remakes like Psycho or The Omen are bad, not necessarily beacuse they were poorly done, but because they were absolutely pointless(especially Psycho). Because they contained nothing new or creative, just the same damn movie, made by different filmmakers.

[LordSimen]

I have to agree with this rant. If you're going to remake a movie, give it it's own creative juices, make it different enough to where it's it's own entity rather than relying on the original movie to make it's point.

Cape Fear, The Thing, The Fly, The Hills Have Eyes, The Magnificent Seven, all great remakes and all had their own unique energy that seperated them from their originals while still being great movies.

[X-Nightcrawler]

I'm yet to read more than a handful of complaints about remakes that don't piss me off.

[bigred760]

It amazes me how some remakes don't bring anything new to the first's original concept, like Psycho. A remake, or reimagining if you will, needs to be as creative and original as possible in my opinion; it doesn't have to be an exact duplicate of what it's trying to copy.

[The Heart Collector]

The reason people complain about a film deviating too much from the original is because the original film, or the original story, has at least a few things that are iconic, or characteristic of it. Sure, you can "have your own spin on the material", but there comes a point where the spin makes it something totally different, and if that's the case, what exactly are you doing?

In the case of Halloween, it's not so much a remake not having the exact structure / plot details of the original. It's that they're taking an iconic character, in this case Michael Myers, and removing a lot of the things that actually make him iconic.

I think a good example of what I'm talking about can be seen in comic books. Especially DC comics. Characters like Batman and Superman have existed for many many years, and different writers have interpreted them differently. A lot of these interpretations are different from the original, but people approved of them because they maintained the essence of the character while taking it in a different direction, as well as doing it competently. But if you were to make a Batman "interpretation" where he wasn't an orphan, and where he actually HAS powers, then what the hell is the point of that?

Yes, remakes are great when they offer a new "spin" on things. But there's a difference between a new spin on something old, and a new CORE.

Originally posted by bigred760
It amazes me how some remakes don't bring anything new to the first's original concept, like Psycho. A remake, or reimagining if you will, needs to be as creative and original as possible in my opinion; it doesn't have to be an exact duplicate of what it's trying to copy.

The remake of Psycho brings a lot of new things, not only to the film, but to the art of cinema in general.

[thedudeman69]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
The remake of Psycho brings a lot of new things, not only to the film, but to the art of cinema in general.


Are you fucking kidding me? Sant basically plagerized the original openly.

[The Heart Collector]

I don't think you "got it".

Your post doesn't even make sense. Gus Van Sant didn't "plagiarize" a fucking thing, he did a shot-for-shot remake of a movie, and it was always advertised as a shot-for-shot remake. So what, if I do a cover song, I "plagiarized it"? You need a dictionary.


The important part is that it's a shot-for-shot remake. Except for a few details.

So why is Psycho, the original, a great movie, while Psycho, the remake, is inferior?

The story is the same. The script is the same. The direction is the same. The music is the same. So why is one of them really good, and why does the other one feel really weird? What makes a movie what it is? What's the difference between the movies that makes one of them be good and one be bad? And if your argument is that it's bad because its unnecessary, then so what? That doesn't make it inherentl bad, intrinsically bad.

Personally, I think Van Sant probably had a few experimental ideas in his head. Something like Psycho is an experiment. What happens when you set out to make an exact clone of another movie (well, as exact as you can... I get the feeling if it weren't a studio film, Van Sant would have done it in black and white, but I'm speculating)? How does it end up playing?

I feel it's an interesting movie because if you want to criticize it, you can't just say "oh it was boring" or "oh the script was bad" or anything like that. I mean, you can, but it would just be incredibly shallow. And no, "not bringing anything new to the table" is not a criticism worth a damn.

I like the IDEA of what Van Sant did because it kinda makes you think about a bunch of stuff. About the components of a movie, about how the process of making it itself affects the output, about how the time period it was made at affects it, etc.

I'm not going to argue that it's a very good movie, because it's not. But the reasons why it's not are far more interesting than the reasons why, say, "The Truth About Charlie" isn't a very good movie or remake.

[The Postmaster General]

Well-put, THC. I hafta agree. To me, it was the actors in the original Psycho that gave it the extra bump - but I think it's more because they are so iconic in the roles.

However, I actually have always said that I never understood how Sant's Psycho was somehow so much worse than the original. It's not a movie I'm going to own, or even rewatch, but I hardly see how it's such an awful movie.

You're right about Sant's intentions - he wasn't trying to outdo, or even make as good as the original; it was what he said it was, an experiment. That is something new, albeit something not everyone wants to see.... that's obvious, now.

[Duke Nukem]

I can understand how they are making the new "Halloween" too different.

Look at the original.

One of the most vital things about Michael Myers was that he was literally represented as pure evil - as THE Boogeyman - a human being possessed by darkness. In the beginning, there was no major explanation for why he was what he was - he just was. Of course, later on, they did finally go in-depth with the origins of his evil, for better or worse. But regardless, he was a human being possessed by a supernatural evil.

Notably, there was very brief interaction between little Mikey and family in the original. But from what we see, they appear to be your average middle-class household family.

Now, look at the remake/prequel.

Going by the casting, it appears they are making Michael's family out to be that of trailer trash or something. They are either completely or particially making Michael's turn into "evil" having do with a bad upbringing - which doesn't mesh with the middle-class household Michael originally came from. Plus, IF they are eliminating the literal possession of evil within Michael, that's even worse. There are certain things you can change around in a remake, but changing around these things is pushing it.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Duke Nukem


Going by the casting, it appears they are making Michael's family out to be that of trailer trash or something. They are either completely or particially making Michael's turn into "evil" having do with a bad upbringing - which doesn't mesh with the middle-class household Michael originally came from. Plus, IF they are eliminating the literal possession of evil within Michael, that's even worse. There are certain things you can change around in a remake, but changing around these things is pushing it.

The Hills Have Eyes originally had crazy hilbillys running around killing people. The remake made them genetically mutated hillbillys due to nuclear testing. This change is very significant, and makes the two films very different films and allows the remake to stand on it's own two legs without relying on the themes presented in the original film.

That's the way I'm looking at the Halloween remake. It is different, it's a different myers with different motivation. It's not John Carpenters and I don't want it to be, because the John Carpenter movie was perfect and I'd rather a remake strive to be it's own being of perfection rather than John's.

[chinton]

Van Sant's Psycho never made any sense to me.

He takes the exact same script that was written ina very specific time yet the movie seems to be exisitng in a whole different time period. Whenever I see his version I feel like its in some loopy artificial world.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
You're right about Sant's intentions - he wasn't trying to outdo, or even make as good as the original; it was what he said it was, an experiment. That is something new, albeit something not everyone wants to see.... that's obvious, now.

What was he experimenting with then?

I'll give you that the cast made the original iconic, but it wasn't just the actors. It was Alfred Hitchcock. It was a major movie star getting killed in the first twenty minutes of the movie. It was the ending of the movie. If you already know the ending to this movie, a classic, what's the point of remaking it if you're not going to change or even "update" it?

[WhatsInaName]

It may be off-topic but I had to say this:

I never liked any of the 2 "Psychos", original or remake.

I feel so much better now.

[WhatsInaName]

Originally posted by X-Nightcrawler
I'm yet to read more than a handful of complaints about remakes that don't piss me off.

Thank you.

[inglourious basterd]

Originally posted by WhatsInaName
It may be off-topic but I had to say this:

I never liked any of the 2 "Psychos", original or remake.

I feel so much better now.

What you have to realize is that it set the stage for movies that you do like. BigRed did a good job of expressing why Psycho was revolutionary in its day. That you don't like it is because of the fact that its dated. But horror films are the great great grandchild of Hitchcock.

[WhatsInaName]

Originally posted by psudoazn
What you have to realize is that it set the stage for movies that you do like. BigRed did a good job of expressing why Psycho was revolutionary in its day. That you don't like it is because of the fact that its dated. But horror films are the great great grandchild of Hitchcock.

I don't see where we disagree! All that you, and Bigred have said is true. Yet, I still don't like it. To further explain my feelings regarding Psycho and many other "classics", let me illustrate with the following example:

The original b&w TV sets where great at the time. They are the great great grandfathers of today's amazing colorful HD highly advanced TVs. But I wouldn't keep using/watching them just out of respect for their role in the beginning of the industry.

To be honest though, Anthony Perkins' acting was phenominal.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by WhatsInaName
The original b&w TV sets where great at the time. They are the great great grandfathers of today's amazing colorful HD highly advanced TVs. But I wouldn't keep using/watching them just out of respect for their role in the beginning of the industry.

But b&w TVs were used because that's all technology would allow at the time. Filmmakers made b&w movies long after color was introduced (Psycho is an example, as well as Schindler's List). It's used for stylistic purposes; it changes the way the movie is presented and how the audience perceives it.

That's why I don't understand why the remake (back on topic :D) was made in color; that changed everything.

[APzombie]

This is my view on remakes...

- If its going to be so much like the original, then why remake it?
- If its going to be so dissimilar from the original, then why base it off another picture?

In the end, i'll throw either one at a remake. Why? Because fuck them.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by APzombie
This is my view on remakes...

- If its going to be so much like the original, then why remake it?
- If its going to be so dissimilar from the original, then why base it off another picture?

In the end, i'll throw either one at a remake. Why? Because fuck them.

I don't understand the hatred for remakes. To me, it's like going to see a play. One broadway show's version of Hamlet is still Hamlet despite not being the original broadway showing. That's how I look at Remake. The same thing as a play being done by a different director and cast.

[Duke Nukem]

I am countering this rant with another point of view. With every remake, people shrug and go, "Who cares if the remake sucks? The original is still sitting on your shelf and/or available at your local video store...". Wrong. Yeah, the original film physically remains unharmed, but it's the principal of the matter. There shouldn't be so many remakes of so many good movies to being with. There have been lousy remakes in the past, there are plenty of them now, and it seems there always will be in the future dawn of cinema. Why is it that Hollywood has failed to learn from so many catostrophic remakes? Why won't they ever learn from these mistakes? Yeah, $$$ and lack of original ideas, but screw those cop-outs. Maybe I'm pushing myself into a corner here, maybe Hollywood never will learn a thing, but regardless. With a fair number of remakes, the finished project has shown of promise from the often-newbie filmmakers. It makes you wonder why those filmmakers didn't try a different movie to display their talent instead. That is what's really a shame about the matter.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Duke Nukem
I am countering this rant with another point of view. With every remake, people shrug and go, "Who cares if the remake sucks? The original is still sitting on your shelf and/or available at your local video store...". Wrong. Yeah, the original film physically remains unharmed, but it's the principal of the matter. There shouldn't be so many remakes of so many good movies to being with. There have been lousy remakes in the past, there are plenty of them now, and it seems there always will be in the future dawn of cinema. Why is it that Hollywood has failed to learn from so many catostrophic remakes? Why won't they ever learn from these mistakes? Yeah, $$$ and lack of original ideas, but screw those cop-outs. Maybe I'm pushing myself into a corner here, maybe Hollywood never will learn a thing, but regardless. With a fair number of remakes, the finished project has shown of promise from the often-newbie filmmakers. It makes you wonder why those filmmakers didn't try a different movie to display their talent instead. That is what's really a shame about the matter.

A remake does not harm the original at all. Not one bit. If anything, a remake sparks interest in the original. Many times I've seen a remake commercial and someone I nkow says "Hey, I saw the original at the store. We should get it adn watch it," and we usually do. so in my experience, no, remakes do not harm the originals at all. Principle or not.

There are plenty of remakes that actually ARE as good if not better than the original, and many of them appear on people's top 10 lists all the time. But they don't care about that, because most of those remakes happend in the 80's and 70's thus they are new and couldn't possibly have been done to cash in on an old idea and make money... No way. :rolleyes:

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Am I the only one who's just completely indifferent to them altogether?

[WhatsInaName]

Originally posted by bigred760
But b&w TVs were used because that's all technology would allow at the time. Filmmakers made b&w movies long after color was introduced (Psycho is an example, as well as Schindler's List). It's used for stylistic purposes; it changes the way the movie is presented and how the audience perceives it.

That's why I don't understand why the remake (back on topic :D) was made in color; that changed everything.

I think you miss-understood my example :) . I was not referring to B&W movies. Just the invention and evolution of the technology behind TV manufacturing. Another example is the old cars of the 50's and modern cars. Many people are fascinated with the 50/60-ish models of chevies or buicks, but not me. I prefer the newer models all the way.

[APzombie]

Originally posted by LordSimen
I don't understand the hatred for remakes. To me, it's like going to see a play. One broadway show's version of Hamlet is still Hamlet despite not being the original broadway showing. That's how I look at Remake. The same thing as a play being done by a different director and cast.

Well its different when the vastly superior broadway play is sitting right next to a shallow remake at the video store, each the same price, and all the attention from studios are on selling the later.

I'm not entirely against them, but come on, The Departed is few and far between a sea of other high priced piss poor deja vu bullshit.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by APzombie
I'm not entirely against them, but come on, The Departed is few and far between a sea of other high priced piss poor deja vu bullshit.

Good movies in general are few and far between the sea of over priced bad movies...

And there are plenty of high quality remakes. The Thing, The Fly, The Magnificent Seven, Cape Fear, etc... Whether or not you like them better than the first, I don't know, but not many people would call these remakes bad movies... Although I'm sure some would.

[Duke Nukem]

Originally posted by LordSimen


And there are plenty of high quality remakes. The Thing, The Fly, The Magnificent Seven, Cape Fear, etc...

That is most cliche reply to the discussion of remakes ever. EVERYONE and THEIR THIRD COUSIN knows that those are among the rarest of good remakes. We're not talking about those ones. We're talking about the the many bad ones before them, in between them and after them.

[Digifruitella]

And Rob Zombie gets shit for trying something different with the new remake, being called a hypocrite because he is against remakes. Well, he said so himself if remake something - bring in something new.

Agreed with this rant.

[The Heart Collector]

How many HORRIBLE remakes were from a GREAT original movie? seriously.


All (or most) of the horror remakes suck because the originals were a pile of dog shit too. Unless you think The Fog by John Carpenter was right up there with The Third Man or something.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
How many HORRIBLE remakes were from a GREAT original movie? seriously.


All (or most) of the horror remakes suck because the originals were a pile of dog shit too. Unless you think The Fog by John Carpenter was right up there with The Third Man or something.

I love John Carpenter's The Fog. It's his third most suspenseful film in my view, the only problem I had with it was the ending was too quick. I'd still give it a 9/10, easily. Great horror movie, great ghost story. One of Carpenter's most under appreciated gems.

Originally posted by Duke Nukem
That is most cliche reply to the discussion of remakes ever. EVERYONE and THEIR THIRD COUSIN knows that those are among the rarest of good remakes. We're not talking about those ones. We're talking about the the many bad ones before them, in between them and after them.

Yeah, and great classic movies are also the rarest kind of movie. Typically most movies are bad, a lot movies are STV, a lot of movies released by studios are studio-friendly fodder, lots of really bad made for T.V. movies, lots of really bad indie films before, after and inbetween the indie classics. So it's only natural that most remakes would be bad too.

[Preston_79]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Am I the only one who's just completely indifferent to them altogether?

No shit.

I get sick of people getting their panties in a bunch over a remake, or will it do justice to the book? Shut the fuck up already. The original will always be there for to enjoy, the book will always be on the shelf. The new version doesn't erase the old. If you're so upset about a remake or whatever here's a thought, don't watch it.

[jbar1026]

imo if a good movie is remade than you judge that movie on its own merits dont just say "well its a remake its gonna suck" watch the movie then decide.
presonaly i think they should make more remakes. so long as the studio is willing to put forth the effort to try and make it enjoyable and not just a quick cash in on an old movie.