Quote:
While I can understand the orginalality aurgment, I still feel like alot of people think film makers are tampering with something "sacred". Theres nothing sacred about any movie. They made every movie with the hopes it would make them money. I refuse to belive anybodys ever made a movie, remake or otherwise and said "man, I sure hopes this movie sucks and nobody likes it".
Again, if you feel that strongly about it, dont watch it. But theres no point in complaing about it.
As far as younger viewers are concerned, your comparing the remakes to thier orginals. People who havnt saw the orginals cant compare. Besides that, those "CGI laden" movies must be doing alright, Hollywood keeps churning them out. Im not saying Im particularly wild about most remakes. Im saying, if you were to take a cencus, most old school horror fans probley wouldnt be in favor of remaking such classic movies. But old school, hardcore horror fans represent such a small amount of the population I dont think most film makers make a point to cater to them.
|
With over 25 spelling and grammar errors alone in a two paragraph reply, I'm having difficulty understanding
your argument at all :rolleyes: Your first two sentences alone contradict each other. I digress.
If "old school, hardcore horror fans represent such a small amount of the population" to begin with (according to you), then why do you think Hollywood even bothers to reuse the exact same titles as the originals to begin with ? There are thousands of murderous masked madmen movies out there so why use the title 'Halloween' rather than 'Rob Zombie's Killer X Movie' ? People would be less likely to see that I bet. If Hollywood was so concerned about doing justice to a remake, there were plenty of subpar slasher movies from the 1980s alone that could've been better with a little polishing. So why does Hollywood only keep grabbing the titles of movies that "such a small amount of the population" would identify ?
The correct answer: money.
I'll let you in on a little secret: Hollywood doesn't care if you enjoy a movie or not. They just want your paying ass in a seat. They might even get you again later with a DVD afterwards, especially if they slap something on the cover like "director's cut" or "unrated version". That's a great marketing ploy. It's almost like saying "new and improved movie with 10% more entertainment value" on it. The recent 'King Kong' movie costed a lot of money to make (CGI laden films usually do) and didn't make back the billions of dollars as expected. To date it's had 4 or 5 DVD versions already released of it. Why would Hollywood release what is in essence an incomplete version of the movie in the theaters only to release it on DVD later with even more footage if it made the movie better to begin with ?
The correct answer is: money.
By now you are probably screaming at your monitor "Mister Sadistro ! My God ! You're right ! I can't believe I haven't been able to see any of this before your enlightenment ! What can I do as a fan to help prevent this nefarious act of larceny commited by The Great Beast Hollywood ?"
Well, I'm glad you asked (and please, don't interrupt me when I'm on a roll).
Hollywood is much like an assembly line. Get a famous name for an actor, even if they can't act or wouldn't be correct for a part (that doesn't matter- this is about making money, not entertainment) like, say, Paris Hilton, add anybody as a director no matter how incompetent (let's say Uwe Boll), spend as much needed on advertising and CGI (this part hurts, but people are often distracted by shiny things- see Paris Hilton- and makes sure those paying asses are in seats and buy DVDs). Most importantly, use a title that people already know, even if they haven't seen or heard it in awhile (like 'House Of Wax'). Movie completed !
"But, Mister Sadistro ! You forgot them adding a story to these assembly line movies !" you are saying. I did NOT forget adding a story and please don't interrupt. We already spent money on advertising, Paris Hilton's name and CGI. This is about making money, not spending money. Do you know how much it costs for an original story ? Approximately 10-13% of the overall budget (I'm pretty sure Roderick Usher on here will back me up on this). Those CGI fx add up and a known name to boot ? Geez. 10-13% of all that ends up to be an awful lot (well, maybe not by Hollywood standards, but why spend more when they already have the key ingredients to assure them paying asses are in seats ?). Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to remake something they already own the rights to than to <gasp !> pay for something original ? Hell, people already know the title and that's a built in audience. This is like the loaves and fishes ! Back to the assembly line ! We can churn out a few of these each month easily !
Maybe these "filmmakers" don't go out of their way to "make a bad movie", but do you seriously get the impression that they're even attempting to make a good one ? It's a mass produced, mass marketed product and as long as paying asses are still in the seats, subpar horror movies will continue to be remade and rehashed. Don't see them, don't support them, don't enable them. If the money doesn't come, they will have to rethink their formula.
Class dismissed :D