People insulting the Texas Chainsaw Masscre remake.... [Archive]

Mr.HyDe807

10-26-2003, 01:57 AM

OK...I havent seen the Texas Chainsaw masscre remake but im sick of everyone ranting on some say "this movie ripped everything that was good from the original and made it trash".Hypothetically,what review would you give if the remake was just made and the original never existed. I have seened the original and thought it was a great horror move and im also very intrested of seeing the remake. I dont blame when someone who sees the movie constantly compares the original to a remake but try to have a very open mind and try to judge it by itself.:)

Briare Rabbit

10-26-2003, 02:53 AM

Everyone says this about sequels and such, but it's very difficult not to compare them to eachother. A remake in particular, mainly because it's well, a remake. Something that was derived from another movie directly. Not to compare it to the original would be like people juding the Psycho remake by itself- it is impossible.

Damned Martian

10-26-2003, 05:40 AM

I think that if you have seen the original, you'll be biased always. In one way or the other. It depends on what do you think the original made well, and what made bad.

The main problem is: if the remake makes something well, but this was already made that same way in the original, then it's just copying, and has no quality to add to the remake's list. If it does something that wasn't like in the original, then you compare which one made it better. If the remake made it worst, it's usual that you feel annoyed: after all, they had the opportunity to fix the possible mistakes of the original, not to make it even worst. That's why a remake will mostly lose against the original: it's needed much more talent, because what you ask for it is to improve the former movie.

The only way to avoid this is not to se the original. But then it'll probably happen when you finally see it after the remake, in the opposite way.

bob

10-26-2003, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Mr.HyDe807
I have seened the original and thought it was a great horror move and im also very

That is to say you have....SEEN the original?

The Incredible Nit-Picker strikes again!!!

The TZA

10-26-2003, 12:54 PM

Film critics and fans are nerds, they WANT to hate everything before they've even seen it. Now I can respect that everyone has different tastes, but all that bullshit I read about how The Ring sucked and didn't stand up to Ringu was just that, bullshit. If they found the crappiest low budget or foreign movie and Hollywood said they were remaking, all the geeks would start crying "It's gonna bomb, the original is a masterpiece and blah blah blah". Just ignore them, Chainsaw is probably my favourite horror movie and I'm really looking forward to the remake. If it sucks, then it sucks, but I'm not gonna have a grudge with Hollywood for at least trying to bring attention to classics that could do we a reinvention.

ANavissi500

10-26-2003, 02:36 PM

But WTF is wrong with Ebert??? "The filmmakers want to cause disgust and hopelessness in the audience." WTF else would they want to make horror movies? For the romance, comedy, and happy ending? My God man, Ebert has lost it!!!

TheDeadWalk

10-26-2003, 03:02 PM

ANavissi, you may have missed the "bigger picture" of things in Ebert's review. The quote that you have doesn't make sense, but when you read Ebert's review and digest it in it's entirety it becomes more clear. Ebert who has acclaimed Dawn of the Dead to be the "Greatest Horror Film of all time", I don't think looks down upon dispair and hopelessness in a story, as opposed to just poor production schemes. This is also the man that opted for the ending of 28 days later to just nuke the whole fucking country so the society wouldn't have to suffer anymore of that shit.

"Then we plunge directly into the formula of a Dead Teenager Movie, which begins with living teenagers and kills them one by one. The formula can produce movies that are good, bad, funny, depressing, whatever. This movie, strewn with blood, bones, rats, fetishes and severed limbs, photographed in murky darkness, scored with screams, wants to be a test: Can you sit through it? There were times when I intensely wanted to walk out of the theater and into the fresh air and look at the sky and buy an apple and sigh for our civilization, but I stuck it out. The ending, which is cynical and truncated, confirmed my suspicion that the movie was made by and for those with no attention span. "

The movie doesn't tell a story in any useful sense, but is simply a series of gruesome events which finally are over. It probably helps to have seen the original film in order to understand what's going on, since there's so little exposition. Only from the earlier film do we have a vague idea of who the people are in this godforsaken house, and what their relationship is to one another. The movie is eager to start the gore and unwilling to pause for exposition.

I like good horror movies. They can exorcise our demons. "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" doesn't want to exorcise anything. It wants to tramp crap through our imaginations and wipe its feet on our dreams"

I could not agree with Roger Ebert more.

Mr.HyDe807

10-26-2003, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by bob
That is to say you have....SEEN the original?

The Incredible Nit-Picker strikes again!!!

Yes i did say ive seen the original and im also very excited to seeing the remake. Yes it is pretty hard to not compare a remake to an original but you should think of what the movie would be if it was on its own, without the orginal. I havent seen the remake and i hope i get a chance to.

Mr.HyDe807

10-26-2003, 03:46 PM

I also made an error when i wrote my first post saying how i havent seen the texas chainsaw masscre. I forgot putting in the word remake my bad!:D

TheDeadWalk

10-26-2003, 05:30 PM

Remake or no, I can look aside all that bullshit. I watch the film for what it is, and TCM was a very mediocre at best. The original was decent in my opinion, but I don't recall seeing it in the last three years. Alone as it's own horror movie, it ranks somewhere below Wrong Turn, which was almost like this movie, only it told a story.

But please don't get me wrong, in thinking that I'm glorifying Wrong Turn... it's another mediocre at best film, but at least did more for me than the new TCM.

Duke Nukem

10-26-2003, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by ANavissi500
But WTF is wrong with Ebert??? "The filmmakers want to cause disgust and hopelessness in the audience." WTF else would they want to make horror movies? For the romance, comedy, and happy ending? My God man, Ebert has lost it!!!

Yeah, I'm really startled by his way-negative review of the remake as well. However, you shouldn't worry too much about Ebert concerning the TCM remake. He's probably the last person to turn to regarding the whole TCM series. He gave the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" only 2 stars; he apparantly only liked it because it was at least original material. I assume he was majorly disgusted with the pervertedness of it. So you can imagine his "eagerness" to see remake of that film. He also gave the first sequel, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2" one star. So you see, he isn't the critic to turn to regarding the TCM remake or the whole series. I wouldn't worry about Ebert here, although I'm still disgusted with his review. He seems to have zero-tolerance when it comes to disturbing elements in films. Oh well, whatever. It's his loss.

TheDeadWalk

10-26-2003, 09:37 PM

I think Ebert's point could analogized to a shadow puppet show.

Get some friends, and make some shadow-puppets on your wall, around a candle lit room, and ad-lib the puppets into your own horror film, and torture them to death.

While the experience was fun for you and your friends, make believe that the shadow puppet show was filmed, and made a wide theatrical release.

Here you have these lifeless, soul-less human beings that are the puppets. Just fucking puppets. One by one the puppets get killed off, or tortured, while there is basically no key plot elements or story-telling involved in any way, shape or form. (As the critics like to call exposition!)

You basically spent an hour and a half of everyone's time over-killing the torture of your shadow puppets while no one in the audience quite got the hang of what the hell was going on, why it was going on, or why it's killer and his family were doing these things to your shadow puppets. In the end, your favorite shadow puppet prevails and runs back to shadow puppetville and lives happily ever after.

At this point, me saying that your shadow puppet movie sucked doesn't mean that I don't understand or appreciate the genre, It just means your movie sucked.

I know the whole Hemingway "Iceberg theory" was probably in effect, but the things that we were left not knowing were the things that hurt us in our enjoyment and understanding of the TCM. The characters were mere shadow puppets, virtually identical to each other, as Leatherface N' Pals might as well of been shadowpuppets, because they were nothing but soul-less stereotypes that we were just left to assume how they are, and how they achieved their status in this realm, instead of feeding us something. Aerosmith videos have given better storytelling than this.

Mr.HyDe807

10-26-2003, 11:04 PM

You know what screw what ebert or anyone says about the damn movie, u see the movie on your own terms, not what a reviewer nitpicks at the movie

ANavissi500

10-26-2003, 11:11 PM

I totally understand your point, DeadWalk, but I am in general beginning to become frustrated with Ebert. He can be spot on sometimes, but Im growing increasingly frustrated with some of his reviews. To me, it seems like he is losing some semblance of reason in regards to newer movies. But since this isnt the Ebert rant, Ill shut up now.

adamjohnson

10-27-2003, 12:32 AM

You know what I hate? People judging others on knowledge that they have when they themselves have not been exposed to that knowledge. Confused? How can you say to peopple "stop judging the remake" when you yourself have not even seen it? Thats my question.

TheDeadWalk

10-27-2003, 04:15 PM

You know what screw what ebert or anyone says about the damn movie, u see the movie on your own terms, not what a reviewer nitpicks at the movie

You opened the topic up for conversation dude, not me. I'm just giving debating points to keep the thread alive, instead of having 500 replies saying "Yep, uh huh..." and "Rock on dude, fuck the critics". This is a movie message board about opinions, and I simply gave mine.

But as Mr. Adam Johnson stated, please see the movie and then get back with us. I thought it sucked because I paid four dollars for the ticket, four dollars for a bag of popcorn, sat down, and didn't walk away impressed at all and I've let that be known, just as SOME of the folks that paid to watch House of the Dead are now citing it as one of the worst horror movies of all time.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go bitch about some other movie I thought sucked dick.

Ebert side note: Anyone that wages war with Vincent "I must be on the camera every frame of the film though I'm a talentless hack" Gallo is cool with me.

Mr.HyDe807

10-27-2003, 08:22 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
[B]You opened the topic up for conversation dude, not me.

Dude i understand you totally. You give your biased opinion say what you want. IM just trying to state that you see the movie on your own self judgement and not everyone elses {unless all your friends say it was a really bad movie ;) My friend in school saw the remake and said it was 10 times better than the original. I hope i can see it this upcoming weekend

Mr.HyDe807

10-27-2003, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by adamjohnson
You know what I hate? People judging others on knowledge that they have when they themselves have not been exposed to that knowledge. Confused? How can you say to peopple "stop judging the remake" when you yourself have not even seen it? Thats my question.

Well buddy when i go see the remake and find out if its bad or good, ill come back and answer that for you.BUt why should people say this movie will suck when they havent seen it either. Thats one of the points im trying to make as well.

TheDeadWalk

10-28-2003, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Mr.HyDe807
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
[B]You opened the topic up for conversation dude, not me.

Dude i understand you totally. You give your biased opinion say what you want. IM just trying to state that you see the movie on your own self judgement and not everyone elses {unless all your friends say it was a really bad movie ;) My friend in school saw the remake and said it was 10 times better than the original. I hope i can see it this upcoming weekend

Biased wouldn't be the term, as opposed to just being subjective, which is what a review of any movie is. I didn't hold any pre-existing ill-will or predjudice towards the film before it came out.

I think in some past column I was debating with CountChocula, about how I was for the production of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake when people were blasting it before it's debut.

And I'm still awaiting the remake of Dawn... March 26th... D-Day...

blankpage

10-28-2003, 07:06 PM

Here's how I look at it (brace yourselves)....

The TCM re-make is terrible idea for many reasons. And they can be justified. I've heard both sides of both parties, my opinion on the whole thing hasn't changes because of someone's review (unless Bob gives it a 10/10 ;)). Anyway.

Why re-make a horror classic? Why? Let's set aside the fact that Michael Bay and his homosexual martini drinking friends want money. What is the fucking point? There's already ONE TCM movie, that is a classic (horror and film for me). Really. I'd like someone to answer it without giving me the "money" answer. NO FUCKING POINT.

Ok, the re-make maybe good, maybe. I still don't think it will. But look at the numbers. People went to go see it. Most of them were 9-22. Ok, now what % of them (besides us schmoes) had seen the actual TCM? Not too many. What kills me is that my friends come back from the weekend saying, "TCM was like the best movie ever, home slice." What? THIS, a re-make, the best movie ever? Fuck. Gore, Tits, Violence...now I'm not saying the original didn't have any of that -it only had the violence, really- but with this, it's looks as though it was been MTV-er-ized. It kills me.

Third, money. I know what I said before. Money, money, money. If this film is terrible, than, really it could ruin a horror classic. But that's ok, Mr. X and his boys get X amout of dollars. Shame, really.

That's my little view. This has got to be the stupidest fucking idea to come along in a while. I'm not one to judge before a movie comes out, and maybe I'm biased, but no one and I mean NO ONE will change my views on the subject.

Hey, I can be serious in one post....oh shit.

HeavyK

10-28-2003, 08:19 PM

I'll wait until it comes out on DVD and judge it then. It actually doesn't look that bad, at least not as bad as the Dawn of the Dead remake with looks terrible although i may be a little biased since i loved DOTD and thought TCM was just alright.

Carrieattheprom

10-28-2003, 08:35 PM

If they HAVEN'T seen it, then I can understand your complaint. But if they HAVE seen it then they have every right to say the movie sucked if they think it does. Opinions are like assholes-everybody has one.

vtadave

10-29-2003, 06:04 PM

Guys, this movie has Jessica Fuckinig Biel in a tight white tank top....nuff said.

10/10

blurofserenity

10-30-2003, 02:12 AM

You guys are missing the point. It doesnt matter how good it is, the fact is it never should have hit pre-production.

Mr.HyDe807

10-30-2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by blurofserenity
You guys are missing the point. It doesnt matter how good it is, the fact is it never should have hit pre-production.
Why not????

blurofserenity

10-30-2003, 09:06 PM

Well I think some movies should be untouchable.Just like some songs shouldn't be allowed to be covered,ie Stairway to Heaven.They're in that legend status and people don't want their awe of the original to be tained by a second rate remake.When a movie is as good as TCM, you know the remake is going to be a disappointment, that's just a given. Just based on the fact that it can't live up to the original.That's why some older greats just should not be touched.I hear they're thinking of doing a remake of Clockwork Orange....here's an idea, how about think of your own shit?Some movies should not be touched, Clockwork being one of them, and TCM being another.

TheDeadWalk

10-30-2003, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by blurofserenity
You guys are missing the point. It doesnt matter how good it is, the fact is it never should have hit pre-production.

That's a pretty shitty point. That's like a guy named Bob Smith not wanting his son to be named Bob, because in this generation, he's likely to be a horrible kid and grow up ruining the name of Bob Smith. The folks that are that radical about not wanting the film to be made should be the ones least affected by it.

Also, seeing that the film is already made and showing in theaters world-wide, we have to face the fact that it is made, it is viewable, and will soon be on DVD... That's a sunk cost, and to revel about it's production over and over again is like crying over milk that was spilt 8 months ago.

Viewing the film, and commenting on it isn't "missing the point". Being one dimensional about the movie, and never surpassing yourself past that stage is what I feel is "missing the point".

blurofserenity

10-31-2003, 05:39 PM

I guess that's a good point. This isn't a "Should it have been made"thread. My bad.

Golden Ghost

11-01-2003, 10:41 AM

I just think they should start remaking BAD films. Why tamper with the classics? I don't think they remake films to beat the original, because most of them are complete SHITE. I reckon it's all laziness. They need money, they have no ideas, so why not take someone elses? I think it's the dirtiest thing Hollywodd can do. Where has originality gone to! Cinema will die soon...

TheDeadWalk

11-01-2003, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Golden Ghost
I just think they should start remaking BAD films. Why tamper with the classics? I don't think they remake films to beat the original, because most of them are complete SHITE. I reckon it's all laziness. They need money, they have no ideas, so why not take someone elses? I think it's the dirtiest thing Hollywodd can do. Where has originality gone to! Cinema will die soon...

While this is a good concept, how high of a demand would viewers have to see such films?

I don't really believe that there will ever be an opening weekend box office take-in of $10 Million + on a remake of Critters.

http://www.joblo.com/arrow/arrowimages/arrowcritters.jpg

The TZA

11-02-2003, 07:38 AM

Whoa, calm down, he said remakes of BAD films, not BADASS films. Critters rules.

As for remakes of shitty films - I don't think Gone in 60 Seconds and Ocean's Eleven were considered classics were they? The House on Haunted Hill was a superior remake in my opinion too (until the CGI took over).

*tiny spoilers but nothing to ruin it*
I saw TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE last night and must say I was entertained. The original is probably my favourite horror flick and this version got a good blend of using the original material with their own ideas. I missed Franklin (was he supposed to be funny??) and the black guy with the spanner (was HE supposed to be funny??), but there were some badass moments (the blonde guy's leg in the garden, Biel being hot as a mofo and getting wet for no reason, the geek getting smacked with a bottle).

There were several "jump" moments and I don't normally jump in movies, but it started to drag a bit at the end. The performances were okay, and I was surprised by Biel in the final act because I bought her fear. Leatherface was more of a monster and less of a retard and the creepy dad was never gonna match up. Also I didn't like any of the shitty attempts at Leatherface backstory. The Blair Witch nods and Harry Knowles were shitty too (I actually laughed when that police investigation at the end concluded - lame). 7/10, wasn't disappointed.

BullockFan

11-03-2003, 12:30 AM

I never saw the original "Massacre" ... I like the new one -- a tad gorey in some parts but I was expecting that going into the movie. I have nothing bad to say about it. Definately worth my $8 to see it @ the theatre.;)

thedarklamb

11-03-2003, 06:20 PM

____Spoilers___
-
-
-
-
Any movie [TCM re-make] that has to justify why Leatherface wears a mask or why he is they way he is, is one of the many reasons why I completely disliked this flim. A skin condition....haha...WTF?? They pulled an Angela from Sleepaway Camp2 move when Leatherface held up his chainsaw while wearing Kempers face. Also, the so called "mutant Kid" Jedidiah had that whole Roach from People Under The Stairs feeling when they went through the basement. The Blair Witch beginning and end docu-footage is laughable and unbelievable. A big :rolleyes: moment for me. The Hewitt house was pretty immaculate, wasn't junky enough and would be considered a manison compared to the original '74 house. Erin the good girl, that was a juvenile delinquint in the past, just was not believable. Erin was a wimp compared to what Sally went through in the first film. Sally went through hell. The baby Erin kidnapped at the end [another rediculous plot point] would been a mess from all that speeding up, stopping, running Hoyt over and over, but no they come out clean.

I kept thinking it was going to get better while I was sitting there bored in my seat in the theatre, but it didn't. What a waste of my time and money.

Deathbox

11-19-2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by The TZA
I'm not gonna have a grudge with Hollywood for at least trying to bring attention to classics that could do we a reinvention.
classics should be left alone but being Hollywood is so unoriginal, they have to turn everything to shit.

Shockwave

11-19-2003, 11:19 PM

The TCM remake sucked for no other reason then because it wasnt the original!

Whats that u say? U liked it?

Too bad!

:)

Im starting to warm up to remakes, actually. Ive been impressed with TCM, The Ring and Dawn of the Dead looks to be pretty good as well.

The good remakes will be rememberd and the bad remakes(pshyco) will be all but forgotten.

And hell, the originals will still be there!:)

phallusinchains

11-19-2003, 11:24 PM

i think this remake is an insult to me and every other fan of the original.

The TZA

11-20-2003, 12:13 PM

I've already mentioned that I love the original (I'm a huge horror fan, and it's probably my favourite) but I did enjoy this remake. Even more shocking is the fact that I seem to hate modern horror films, particularly when pretty people are in them. But I'll give anything a chance, I'm not gonna prejudge something and force myself to hate it.

The same with Ringu, I thought the original was awesome but the American remake was great too (inferior, but only slightly). The House on Haunted Hill remake was better than the original too, and only started losing it near the end with all the shitty CGI.

If you're going to go in a new direction and add stuff then it's always interesting to see a different generation's interpretation of a script. The only films that need to be left alone are ones that are perfect and/or have nothing that can be added on to i.e. Personally I think Psycho could be given a decent spin in the 21st Century, but the screwed it up when they tried it (by adding nothing except a stupid masturbating shot).

ParileseMonster

11-20-2003, 08:32 PM

Well it is my right to insult it if I feel like it. It is crap and I feel that in the most passionate way.

Corpse Candle

11-21-2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by ParileseMonster
Well it is my right to insult it if I feel like it. It is crap and I feel that in the most passionate way.

Agreed ParileseMonster

Remakes are a disease and originality is the cure.....and anyone who disagrees with me is just another plauge enriched microbe :p

TheDeadWalk

11-21-2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Corpse Candle
Agreed ParileseMonster

Remakes are a disease and originality is the cure.....and anyone who disagrees with me is just another plauge enriched microbe :p

I don't feel that "originality" is the savior for horror, as opposed to downright good film-making. It takes a group of dipshits to have the rights to a classic film and totally fuck it up.

TCM wasn't fucked up by being a remake, it was fucked up because it lacked any depth for it's characters and story, as well as showing Leatherface's ass any time he puts the chainsaw to work, blocking the action in an abscure way. (Not that gore is necessary, but when you're going to scenes where the saw is going down on someone, don't irritate us by finding ways to block the the action out.)

I loved "The Thing", "House on Haunted Hill", and The "Night of the living dead" remake. I hated Ghost Ship, and felt jipped on Freddy Vs. Jason and Cabin Fever. Basically, I'm trying not to take one side or the other on these remakes, as opposed to judging them on a singular basis.

The Dawn of the dead remake is now coming up upon us, and the failure of this one could be the straw that breaks the camel's back for many horror fans... but I'm staying optimistic, and will give it a chance because I love horror films, zombies, and of course Dawn of the dead. If the creation of this film would mean that all copies of the original were to be shipped into outer space, then I would be against this remake, but its not, so I'm going to give it a chance. If it's horrible... so be it. But it will be horrible on it's own merits, and not by giving it the "Scarlet Letter" before it ever comes out.