Remakes...

[MadmanMARZ]

I don´t actually mind retellings or reimagines of stories like The Thing, TCM03, Dawn of the Dead, The Fly etc that makes it its own, but making a remake of a movie that allready has alot of sequels like Friday the 13th, Elmstreet, Halloween, Evil dead, Jaws, The Exorcist is crazy...I rather see a direct sequel or a prequel than that they remake it, but take Dawn of the dead for instance...It only has the name and the mall from the original and makes it its own...That is OK by me...
T.C.M 03 I loved because that movie was what I always wanted a chainsaw movie to be...scary and nasty and yes...I´m 30 years old...not a teenager...:D

[MadmanMARZ]

Sorry...this was going to be an opinion in the "remakes...what do you think" post...


***Sorry***

[Shadow Whisper]

I always view remakes as a win win situation.

If you like the original then the remake serves free promotion for the original, and if a special edition has not been made for the original yet then having the remake increases the odds of it happening. Example, Dawn of the Dead (2004) release helped to serve Dawn of the Dead (70s) Ultimate Edition release. If there already is a special edition then useualy other stuff about the original ends up coming out.

If the remake turns out to be better then I end up with another movie to enjoy.

Of course there is the worst case senerio of hating both the orignial and the remake.

[ParileseMonster]

I am wondering why in the hell we need so many remake threads. I hate them from the last 15 years, they are not done well and they are not needed. They suck. The stupid makers of that movie, um
"Morning of the fast moving jaguar sounding zombies"
tried to tell us all it was a remake of DOTD and that was a spit in my face. I know better and I wish others would know the same. To just take a few small elements of an original movie and then slap on the same title is not OK to me, it is a cheap and tarnished piece of brass plated shit to me. Oh there are remakes and then there is shit like
"Morning of the fast moving jaguar sounding zombies" running around.
Lately, I see an awful lot of shit reeking the screens of my local movie theater. I notice. The ones with the cell phones don't really notice but that is their problem. :D

[the dead one]

Originally posted by ParileseMonster
"Morning of the fast moving jaguar sounding zombies"


LOL!:D Nice one PM! :)

[Shadow Whisper]

Originally posted by ParileseMonster
I am wondering why in the hell we need so many remake threads. I hate them from the last 15 years, they are not done well and they are not needed. They suck. The stupid makers of that movie, um
"Morning of the fast moving jaguar sounding zombies"
tried to tell us all it was a remake of DOTD and that was a spit in my face. I know better and I wish others would know the same. To just take a few small elements of an original movie and then slap on the same title is not OK to me, it is a cheap and tarnished piece of brass plated shit to me. Oh there are remakes and then there is shit like
"Morning of the fast moving jaguar sounding zombies" running around.
Lately, I see an awful lot of shit reeking the screens of my local movie theater. I notice. The ones with the cell phones don't really notice but that is their problem. :D

Were you also upset with the release of Dawn of the Dead Ultimate Edition 4 disc DVD set? Or would have prefered that it was not released as well?

[ParileseMonster]

That DVD set of the great original would have been released regardless of a crappy remake and it did not upset me. Why the hell would a dvd set of the original upset me????
I do not like it when the same damn movie has tons of different editions on dvd. Just do a good dvd the first time, do not make me rebuy the damn thing four fucking times.

[Shadow Whisper]

Yes they could have released it at any time and without the remake, idealy they should have done it with the originaly DVD release, but that is not what was done. The distributers waited untill the name Dawn of the Dead was back in the front of the minds of the general public and not just horror fans.

Time has a way of burying titles no matter how good they are. Each year has more titles to compete against for a finite amount of shelf space and for a finite amount of programing hours in a year. Even a genere classic is not immune its just better able to fight it out for longer.

Rental stores start off with dozens of copies when its a new release. Then it stops being a new release and only one copy is available in the store. Then comes time for the rental store to clear space for more new titles and if that classic title is not pulling in the cash (or if they just perceive that another title will do better) it gets yanked.

The same thing happens with titles on TV. When its brand new it gets shown sveral times a month. Then it slides into couple times a year. Then one day you realise that it has been years since it was last time it was on.

Of course most of the fans of a film will have their own copies so that is not the problem. The problem is that when a title starts losing its presence it also starts losing its potential fan base. These are poeple who would like that title and would become fans of it but simply are unaware of its existance. This is already starting to happen. We have seen our fellow schmoes talking about poeple who went the remakes and where unaware that there was an original. Now when the original fans have finshed buying and there are not enough new fans to buy enough copies keep the title in print it ends up becoming lost.

Horror suffers enough from titles going out of print over anoying reasons like when a publisher goes under and nobody knows who has he rights. Its even worse when titles are lost becuse they were simply forgoten about. At least when people are arguing about versions of a film it is at least getting talked about, its being kept in peoples minds. This is where remakes, and sequles for that matter, can benefit the original.

I am not saying you have to like or even respect a remake. I am am not going to tell you that you are going to someday find the remake you like or that they will get better for you any other crap like that. All I am arguing is that a remake can not hurt an original and in some cases it can be of help to the original.

Just my thoughts.

You can

Take it

Leave it

Laugh at it

Spank it with a battle axe

Or wait till after xmass to exchange it for one that works

[ParileseMonster]

You do argue your points well and have offered some insight to the fucked up remake craze. Still, most remakes are done so badly with retarded actors, stupid music, dialogue and crap cgi that they still spit in the face of the original to a major degree. This is what I see, and this is what I do not like. It is number one on my list right next to fucking douche bags who can not go 90 minutes without using a fucking phone.

[MadmanMARZ]

If you don´t like any remakes at all, why watch them then?
Just ignore them and live on the memory of the original, instead of getting pissed by a bad remake...
I don´t like the ideas of making a remake only for cash inns, but this is Hollywood we´re talking about...they don´t care of us viewers, only about the $$$$$$$
The original doesn´t lose it´s flavour because they make a remake for me...

[ParileseMonster]

I do not watch them, and I can get pissed off if I want to. :D

[the dead one]

Originally posted by ParileseMonster
You do argue your points well and have offered some insight to the fucked up remake craze. Still, most remakes are done so badly with retarded actors, stupid music, dialogue and crap cgi that they still spit in the face of the original to a major degree. This is what I see, and this is what I do not like. It is number one on my list right next to fucking douche bags who can not go 90 minutes without using a fucking phone.
Quote-
"I can get pissed off if I want to"

Amen, ParileseMonster!

Remakes like "DOTD" are just fast buck cash-ins on a film that set a standard in the industry, respect for another creators vision is something that I firmly believe in. There is a fine line between creativity and fast buck hacks, when some asshole says "I was just paying homage to so and so's film" that is a fucking joke! Sam Raimi has been quoted, that he was paying homage to Romeros NOTLD 68', when he created "Evil Dead"...he didnt rip him off, he just did his own thing and was influenced by another creative individual...that is a homage! Remake does not equal homage!!!

[ParileseMonster]

Damn Strait Dead One! Keep on speaking the truth!!!

[Psychocandy]

Originally posted by the dead one
Quote-
"I can get pissed off if I want to"

Amen, ParileseMonster!

Remakes like "DOTD" are just fast buck cash-ins on a film that set a standard in the industry, respect for another creators vision is something that I firmly believe in. There is a fine line between creativity and fast buck hacks, when some asshole says "I was just paying homage to so and so's film" that is a fucking joke! Sam Raimi has been quoted, that he was paying homage to Romeros NOTLD 68', when he created "Evil Dead"...he didnt rip him off, he just did his own thing and was influenced by another creative individual...that is a homage! Remake does not equal homage!!!

So do you think that the many schmoes who enjoyed the Dawn of the Dead remake are wrong to do so? It seems that the very least you can be suggesting is that they are stupid sponges who are quite happy to soak up any pish that Hollywood sprays in their direction. I thoroughly enjoyed DOTD 2004. I thought it was more entertaining than the original. That doesn't mean that I think it's a better movie. Just more entertaining. It was also more superficial and had a little less depth (although I do think that people tend to exaggerate the worth of the original as allegory...it's not that smart). I would say that if you take both movies and weigh up their various pros and cons they come out about equal. Here's the deal as I see it. Every movie irrespective of it's nature should be judged solely on it's own merits to entertain. A good movie is a good movie even if it is a remake. If you're going to direct your ire in any direction you should direct it at the deluge of mediocre bilge that Hollywood puts out in general. The targets are plentiful.

[TheDeadWalk]

I love zombie films, but god-damnit if I would rather watch a remake of dawn of the dead than the piece of shit return of the living dead films! They are a disgrace to the dead series!

Fucking running and talking zombies that drive cars and talk on CBs. Fuck that noise.

[TheJadedGamer]

Hey, don't diss the 'Return' movies. They are suppose to be cheesy, funny, and gory (well....sans the second one) films that have nothing to do with the 'Dead' series.

Talking about the 'Dead' series, I loved the remake of Dawn of the Dead, and I think both of the movies are great in their own right. Hell, at least it varied from the orginial, unlike Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which was basically the same story with a couple of diffrent kills, characters, and plot points. If you seen the orginial, you knew how the movie was going to turn out to begin with.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by TheJadedGamer
Hey, don't diss the 'Return' movies. They are suppose to be cheesy, funny, and gory (well....sans the second one) films that have nothing to do with the 'Dead' series.



I know what the return series is supposed to be. Instead of enjoying it for what its supposed to be, I rather thought that it sucked a fat dick.

It doesn't have anything to do with Romero's movies, though it would fool a general audience by naming itself "RETURN of the living dead". Return of course meaning that this would be the second or third go around for the living dead.

These films make zombies and the zombie genre look stupid. Some people may be a fan of cheesy shit, and for me sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. They also came up with the slang term cheese for a reason. It's synonymous with overacted and stupid.

There are general movie goers, critics, and fans of film out there who have seen these films, or as much as they could stand of it, and associate it with George Romero. They think zombies are supposed to walk around and shout "Brainnnnnnnnnnnnnns!" and question why zombies eat brains, yet you have to shoot them in the head to kill them. (Yes, it's ignorance being bred, but these are older films that people have to actually invest research into, and before proper research they are only given what they are experienced)

It would be like me creating "Return of the saw: a musical!" and have a bunch of intentional goofy shit, and then call it a homage and tell people that it's not meant to be a part of James Wan and Leigh Whannell's story. Also I would note to the fans that they should like "Return of the saw: a musical!" because I made it intentionally stupid, and that it is in no way discrediting the film saw or its upcoming sequel.

[ComeNightfall]

I can do without horror remakes, I wish filmakers would be original when it comes to horror now. But let's face it, everything has been done and if people want to watch remakes and they're entertained, that's cool. Different strokes for different folks.

[Dignan]

I can stand remakes, as long as they aren't just blatant cash-ins. For example, Savini's take on Night of the Living Dead , Cronenberg's The Fly , Gln Morgan an James Wong's Willard . But remakes made strictly to bring in the young blood, such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre '03, The Ring , and Van Sant's Psycho. TCM was way to glitzy and glossy on the eyes and had horrible casting, sans R. Lee Ermey. The Ring and Psycho were just downright fucking lazy. If you're going to remake something, at least mix it up a bit, you rich bastards.

Also, Japanese remakes are getting ridiculous. Talk about cash-ins if there ever were some...

[the dead one]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
It doesn't have anything to do with Romero's movies, though it would fool a general audience by naming itself "RETURN of the living dead". General movie goers, critics, and fans of film out there who have seen these films, or as much as they could stand of it, and associate it with George Romero. .

For the record, John Russo co-authored "Night of the Living Dead" along side George Romero. Later, Russo took it upon himself to write a sequel, which took the form of a paperback novel titled...yep! You guessed it..."Return of the Living Dead".

Apparently, this novel was published back in the 70's, it was strictly Russo's alone. Seems he wanted to continue the events following NOTLD, but the problem lies between Romero's vision and that of Russo's. If you have had the displeasure of viewing "Children of the Living Dead", there are elements based on Russo's ROTLD novel. However, the novel of ROTLD has nothing to do with the film. Russo had even taken it upon himself to produce that piece of shit "Night of the Living Dead 30th anniversary edition" which is a total abomination!!! Avoid it at all costs!!! Talk about a taking a steaming shit on a classic and on Romero's vision!!!

A friend of mine had attended a seminar with George Romero, after he spoke, Romero was fielding questions from the audience, when somebody had asked 'What did you think of Russo's NOTLD 30th anniversary version'?

Romero, smiled and said:
"Jack, (Russo) and I had been friends for many years, and I'll leave it at that". Seems like a nice way of saying...If I ever see Russo again, Ill kill that no good son of a bitch!!!


Another note of interest: Russell Streiner (Johnny from the original NOTLD), Rudy Ricci and John Russo wrote the story for the film ROTLD and the screenplay is written Dan O' Bannon...who has stated with great respect and admiration, that he didnt want to step on Romero's toes with his screenplay. For more on O'Bannons comments regarding this matter check out the "Dead and Buried" 2-disc DVD!

[the dead one]

Originally posted by ParileseMonster
Damn Strait Dead One! Keep on speaking the truth!!!

Thanks...You always have my respect ParileseMonster.
Just keep em' flying...the flags of discontent...I got your back! ;)

[Mr-Blonde]

Man-- I'm getting teary-eyed at all the Romero love in the room.

-sniff--

Seriously though I can agree with the Dead One and ParileseMonster's sentiments to a point. It is depressing to see that there is virtually no creativity in Hollywood these days. I agree that guys like Zach Snyder and others who make horror remakes are definitely riding the coat tails of the folks who invented these franchises in the first place.

That being said I don't think all remakes are necessarily a bad thing as long as they at least attempt to bring something new and fresh to the table. In the case of the DOTD remake I think of it as a remake in name only. While I enjoyed the movie on a completely different (albiet stupider) level, I'd have been more pleased if Snyder had simply tried to make an original zombie movie than simply cashing in on Romero's legacy. If DOTD'04 had been taken out of the mall, it could've been a strong zombie flick in it's own right.

Then there is the other side of the coin in that one could argue that the interest generated by the remake is what led to the studios taking a chance on Romero again. There can be little doubt that the remake and the critically acclaimed Shaun of the Dead is what is allowing George to make his final Dead film and as a lifelong fan I for one am grateful for this.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde

Then there is the other side of the coin in that one could argue that the interest generated by the remake is what led to the studios taking a chance on Romero again. There can be little doubt that the remake and the critically acclaimed Shaun of the Dead is what is allowing George to make his final Dead film and as a lifelong fan I for one am grateful for this.

I agree with this sentiment.

With Hollywood supposedly being "You are only as good as your last film", Georgie Porgie was on rock bottom with his flops dating all the way back to Day of the Dead in 1985. Sure, many of us enjoy it as a cult classic or for our own personal reasons, but in pure cinematic standards, what became of Day was a film disaster. Horror fans still find a way to enjoy it, but to the masses it will go down as the worst of the three released Romero dead films, by far.

He's lucky to be making another dead film today, and I for one am grateful. However, as Romero states in the "The Dead Will Walk" documentary, zombies are the horror fad of today, and that's why he's getting another crack at it. Some may believe that the demand for Land of the dead would still be thriving whether or not these zombie films came about, but I don't.

Resident Evil, RE2, 28 days later, Shaun of the dead, and the Dawn of the Dead remake are all good reasons why Land of the dead is being produced right now. Granted I don't like Resident Evil and have refused to watch its sequel, I'll try to give credit to where I think it is due. The slasher has gotten tired, and Hollywood has given us zombies. Enjoy them now, because it looks like the supernatural is starting to take over again as the new horror fad.

[ParileseMonster]

I agree with that. The supernatural genre is rising from it's deep sleep once again. Mmm I wonder what is going to come after Reality TV and CSI crap? I guess I just will have to wait and see.