Remakes [Archive] - Horror.com Forums

Elvis_Christ

02-12-2005, 07:22 PM

I've been enjoying all the comic book adaption movies (I fucking loved Spiderman in particular). But yeh it seems like a real bad time originality wise for Hollywood even tho I have enjoyed a lot of the remakes they've done that I thought would be shit (TCM and Dawn Of The Dead). The remake that's gonna totally fuck me off is Assault on Precinct 13.......what the fuck are they thinking??!! :eek:

majorbludd

02-12-2005, 07:42 PM

no need to mess with the original precint 13....i wont even rent the new one....besides, i don't watch movies with john leguizamo in em'...i get real sick and break out all over....i saw a preview somewhere for a fantastic four movie.....didn't look disgusting...shit, its gotta be better than daredevil.

BH14

02-12-2005, 07:46 PM

i too enjoyed the dawn of the dead and TCM re-make.

The STE

02-12-2005, 08:18 PM

I haven't had to do this to any non-spamming people ("noobs" count, I consider that whole folder spam) in a while, but

Fuck You

How many "Hollywood has no originality, they're just remaking and sequelizing and adapting everything!" threads do we REALLY need? Hey, they're remaking a lot of things, and making quite a few sequels, and adapting books and comic books, big fucking revelation. Next you'll tell me that, GASP, they're out to make money!

X¤MurderDoll¤X

02-12-2005, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by The STE
I haven't had to do this to any non-spamming people ("noobs" count, I consider that whole folder spam) in a while, but

Fuck You

How many "Hollywood has no originality, they're just remaking and sequelizing and adapting everything!" threads do we REALLY need? Hey, they're remaking a lot of things, and making quite a few sequels, and adapting books and comic books, big fucking revelation. Next you'll tell me that, GASP, they're out to make money!

hahaha yes. I'm tired of hearing this crap aswell.

Chainsaw Guy

02-12-2005, 08:50 PM

don't care about any of those movies

Sedated_replica

02-12-2005, 09:42 PM

TCM remake was horrible and it had no purpose. but no one seem too explain that.

But The Hills Have Eyes remake.....

(I might get bashed) but that MIGHT be good

IDrinkYourBlood

02-12-2005, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by The STE
How many "Hollywood has no originality, they're just remaking and sequelizing and adapting everything!" threads do we REALLY need? Hey, they're remaking a lot of things, and making quite a few sequels, and adapting books and comic books, big fucking revelation. Next you'll tell me that, GASP, they're out to make money! maybe members of this forum dont have any original idead for threads.

AUSTIN316426808

02-13-2005, 03:04 AM

I don't see the problem with adapting books/comic books to films and as for remakes I thought Dawn of the Dead was great and TCM was mildly entertaining as well IMO.

And remakes do make sense, take a film that made alot of money and was popular, change some things around to bring it up to speed with the times and release it and odds are it'll do well. So maybe Hollywood as run out of ideas or maybe they're just doing what everybody else for the most part wants to do and that's make money.

Tat2

02-13-2005, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by ItsAlive75
Aight...

So we got a remake of House of Wax (with Paris Hilton??), we got remakes of Amityville Horror, The Hills Have Eyes, The Fog... Got an adaptation of War of the Worlds, and a rumor of an Exorcist remake.

Is there any originality in Hollywood left? Comic book movies? Remakes and adaptations? Unnecessary sequels?

If you don't care for remakes...don't watch them. Keep in mind however, that there would be very few movies out there for you to see. They have been doing remakes from the beginning! Really consider this. If it wasn't for remakes, there wouldn't be Boris Karloffs' Frankenstein because T. Edison made it first. No Christopher Lee's Dracula because Bela Lugosi made it first. No John Carpenters The Thing, because it was a remake of one in the 50's. Think about it...very rarely does a completely original-never before heard of or seen movie get made. Spiderman was nothing more then a remake of a cheesy Made for TV movie/series from the 70's.

I say let them make all the remakes they want. I, for one, am glad that Hammer films remade Dracula. That Universal remade Frankenstein and that Carpenter remade The Thing. Sure, it's nice to see brand-new ideas come to the screen, but If that is all we watched, we wouldn't have the thousands of good films that we have now...would we?

They're not always good remakes, but I for one, enjoy watching them take an older movie, add new technology and more money and see what they can do with it. Compair The original Thing to the remake. While I really liked the original because it was good and is a classic, James Arness basically played a living carrot from space. John Carpenter took that old film and turned it into a one hell of a Sci-Fi/Horror film, with never before used special effects that nearly all horror buffs like.

I'll keep watching the remakes....thank you very much.

Sedated_replica

02-13-2005, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by IDrinkYourBlood
maybe members of this forum dont have any original idead for threads.

This is coming from a guy, who makes two threads for the same thing.

The_Return

02-13-2005, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Sedated_replica
This is coming from a guy, who makes two threads for the same thing.

So it has been established that IDrinkYourBlood is a guy? Cause Im still confused about that, lol

Sedated_replica

02-13-2005, 04:08 PM

I'm not sure either

ItsAlive75

02-13-2005, 05:36 PM

The STE

02-13-2005, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by ItsAlive75
Right back at ya, buddy.
I can say whatever I want, if you think its been said before then just keep your mouth shut and let the folks who wanna reply do it.

Sorry you feel that way, but fuck you too.

Yes, you're right, you can say whatever you want, even if it makes you look like a whiny moron. And I can say whatever I want in response. It works both ways.

And "keep your mouth shut and let the folks who wanna reply do it" is a huge contradiction, by the way

bloody_ribcut

02-13-2005, 08:42 PM

:D horror.com is filled with the rudest people i have ever witnessed, ahh but who cares about all that garbage. i love me an ocasional remake movie, if infact the whole movie was shown and not leading to believe the sequal will be coming soon to a theater near us. i want a start, a middle, and an end. So , i dont recall any movie that's meeting these requirements. i dont think i like remakes.

Sedated_replica

02-13-2005, 08:46 PM

Leave

Gojira

02-14-2005, 10:19 AM

I have been in horror movie chat rooms and I will see about 4 or 6 people bashing remakes saying they all stink etc etc. Anyway I asked a couple of those chat room regs if they liked the 1931 Frankenstien movie with Karloff and I asked another chat room guy if he liked Dracula 1931 with Bela Lugosi and they said Hell yeah those movies rule!! Then I said those movies are Remakes. They must have been kids who didnt know when the 1st or original Frankenstien and Dracula movies were made. There are alot of very good remakes that some fans to this day think they are the originals. Now not all remakes are good and not all originals are good either. What matters is if the movie your watching is good it doesnt matter if its a remake or an adaptation or an original just as long as the movie is good.

AUSTIN316426808

02-14-2005, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Gojira
I have been in horror movie chat rooms and I will see about 4 or 6 people bashing remakes saying they all stink etc etc. Anyway I asked a couple of those chat room regs if they liked the 1931 Frankenstien movie with Karloff and I asked another chat room guy if he liked Dracula 1931 with Bela Lugosi and they said Hell yeah those movies rule!! Then I said those movies are Remakes. They must have been kids who didnt know when the 1st or original Frankenstien and Dracula movies were made. There are alot of very good remakes that some fans to this day think they are the originals. Now not all remakes are good and not all originals are good either. What matters is if the movie your watching is good it doesnt matter if its a remake or an adaptation or an original just as long as the movie is good.

I dare you to post something that doesn't contain a film made before 1960.

Gojira

02-14-2005, 10:50 AM

LOL thats it Austin only movies made after 1960 thats going to be sooo easy. Thats not much of a dare but I will post movies made from 1961 to present. And I dare you to post something about the very 1st Werewolf movie ever made. Now I can post Hammer Dracula movies and lots of other stuff Yahoo!!!

Vodstok

02-14-2005, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Gojira
Yahoo!!! Hey, buddy! Careful how you use that word. Its a registered trademark and they will own you if they find out you are shouting it witout written permission (implied is not enough)

Gojira

02-14-2005, 10:59 AM

LOL hey Vod I doubt if Yahoo will go after me besides the term Yahoo comes from Texas where I live. Hmm Maybe as a Texan I should sue Yahoo LOL.

AUSTIN316426808

02-14-2005, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Gojira
And I dare you to post something about the very 1st Werewolf movie ever made.

ok here it is......................It was ok but it wasn't better than American Werewolf in London or Dog Soldiers, well Dog Soldiers is just my opinion but I honestly think American Werewolf in London was a better movie.

Gojira

02-14-2005, 02:42 PM

Austin I kind of figured you wouldnt know what the very 1st Werewolf movie was LOL. And you say your a horror fan shame on you. I would tell ya but It was made before 1960 LOL. Btw My fave Werewolf movie is the Howling 1981.

EXTR3MIST

02-14-2005, 03:11 PM

If you don't care for remakes...don't watch them. Keep in mind however, that there would be very few movies out there for you to see. They have been doing remakes from the beginning! Really consider this. If it wasn't for remakes, there wouldn't be Boris Karloffs' Frankenstein because T. Edison made it first. No Christopher Lee's Dracula because Bela Lugosi made it first. No John Carpenters The Thing, because it was a remake of one in the 50's. Think about it...very rarely does a completely original-never before heard of or seen movie get made. Spiderman was nothing more then a remake of a cheesy Made for TV movie/series from the 70's

So you're saying films should be remade and remade until they get it right, or even better?

When this money could instead be put into new, innovative ideas struggling to get off the ground?

Sounds to me like you favour safe familiarity over risky originality.

Perhaps ItsAlive75 subscribes to my idea of thwarting these endless remakes/re-imaginings by not paying to watch or rent them in the first place - tempting as it may be to see the carnage for yourself.

The influx of dumbed down, "target audience" re-makes/re-imaginings/re-ejaculations will only be stopped if you stop funding it and making fat oily men very rich.

AUSTIN316426808

02-14-2005, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Gojira
Austin I kind of figured you wouldnt know what the very 1st Werewolf movie was LOL. And you say your a horror fan shame on you. I would tell ya but It was made before 1960 LOL. Btw My fave Werewolf movie is the Howling 1981.

The Werewolf
1913
Henry MacRae

Gojira

02-14-2005, 03:46 PM

I didnt say all horror movies should be remade I just said I dont think there is anything wrong in remaking a movie 10 or 20 years later. I like original horror movie ideas what I dont like as many horror fans dont are cruddy movies. If you want to know why film makers keep remaking old classics like Dracula Frankenstien Mummy Wolfman etc. Its real easy to figure out those horror characters are monsters people like so it can only be a good idea to remake a movie about one of those characters because the studio know the movie will probley make a profit. and who knows maybe 10 years later another remake might be in the works or better yet maybe a series of movies about a character. Here is what I predict will be the next best remake this year in december fans will get inline to watch a KingKong remake. They will go see kingkong not because he is popular with fans. Hell most have forgotten who KingKong was. The reason people will line up to go see this remake is because the Director Peter Jackson the best movie director in the world today is directing the movie. Another reason is that Adrian Brody best actor a few years ago will be in it. So good director good actors good script= good movie. And thats why people will go see Kingkong next december.

EXTR3MIST

02-14-2005, 04:01 PM

Gah, you talk like you're living in the Matrix -

This plus that equals this equals entertainment?

Again, remakes that trigger familiarity in audiences may make money (unless they all listen to me, which some of them might not) but independent, original films with heart at their centre despite their rough exteriors are being eclipsed by the glossy remake juggernaut.

Unless you want to keep watching the latest fucking Wolfman and Dracula in 30 years time then this is wrong.

A lot of new horror movies - non-commercial, amature efforts - are wasted opportunities and indeed often crud, but they are the way forward in this genre and discovering something special like Buttgereit's Nekromantik, Muro's Street Trash and of course the seminal BWP is far preferable to occasionally witnessing a remake which "hey, actually, wasn't all that bad!".

urgeok

02-14-2005, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by EXTR3MIST
Gah, you talk like you're living in the Matrix -

This plus that equals this equals entertainment?

Again, remakes that trigger familiarity in audiences may make money (unless they all listen to me, which some of them might not) but independent, original films with heart at their centre despite their rough exteriors are being eclipsed by the glossy remake juggernaut.

Unless you want to keep watching the latest fucking Wolfman and Dracula in 30 years time then this is wrong.

A lot of new horror movies - non-commercial, amature efforts - are wasted opportunities and indeed often crud, but they are the way forward in this genre and discovering something special like Buttgereit's Nekromantik, Muro's Street Trash and of course the seminal BWP is far preferable to occasionally witnessing a remake which "hey, actually, wasn't all that bad!".

you mentioned the best of the oddities ... you have to go through heaping mountains of crud to get to one or two of something watchable.

I'd rather watch a remake of Dawn obviously made by a fan with decent actors than some back yard piece of shit made by a bunch of friends with a video camera and no clue of what they are doing.

there have been some good remakes ..there have been some bad ones ..

there have been good origional films and there have been bad ones ...

just give me something made with some degree of skill in all of the important departments - and hopefully if it is remade the new version will have a little personal spin of its own.

i feel the same way about music covers .. doing the same song verbatim is pointless, but make it your own while retaining the flavour of the origional and i usually like it ...

AUSTIN316426808

02-15-2005, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by Gojira
I didnt say all horror movies should be remade I just said I dont think there is anything wrong in remaking a movie 10 or 20 years later. I like original horror movie ideas what I dont like as many horror fans dont are cruddy movies. If you want to know why film makers keep remaking old classics like Dracula Frankenstien Mummy Wolfman etc. Its real easy to figure out those horror characters are monsters people like so it can only be a good idea to remake a movie about one of those characters because the studio know the movie will probley make a profit. and who knows maybe 10 years later another remake might be in the works or better yet maybe a series of movies about a character. Here is what I predict will be the next best remake this year in december fans will get inline to watch a KingKong remake. They will go see kingkong not because he is popular with fans. Hell most have forgotten who KingKong was. The reason people will line up to go see this remake is because the Director Peter Jackson the best movie director in the world today is directing the movie. Another reason is that Adrian Brody best actor a few years ago will be in it. So good director good actors good script= good movie. And thats why people will go see Kingkong next december.

Peter Jackson is the best director in the world- are you out of your mind?

and as far as Adrian Brody winning that oscar, there's no way you're going to convince me that Adrian Brody is a better actor than Nicholos Cage-Jack Nicholson or Michael Caine (I haven't seen Gangs of New York yet so I can't commment on Daniel Day Lewis' preformance.)

Gojira

02-15-2005, 01:18 AM

Austin I said Peter Jackson is the best director in the world and I agree if Nick Cage was in the new KingKong movie he would be another reason movie goers would go because both Adrian Brody and Nick Cage have been voted best actor. I doubt if Peter Jackson was not directing Kingkong the movie would not make as much money and the reason Brody wanted to be in the movie is because he wants to work with Peter Jackson. Peter Jackson wants to make KingKong because he is a bigtime Kong fan and its a dream come true for him. At least I am happy that KingKong will be 15 meters tall and not 25 ft tall. It would be awesome if KingKong were to open at Radio City Music Hall this december and the Roxy just like the original KingKong movie did back in 1933.

AUSTIN316426808

02-15-2005, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by Gojira
Austin I said Peter Jackson is the best director in the world

I know you said peter jackson is the best director in the world I was wondering why.

Martin Scorsese(probably spelled wrong)
Clint Eastwood(I'll admit I'm bias)
Tim Burton

all better IMO, there's probably more that I just can't think of at the moment. I don't think he's that great of a director don't get me wrong I know he's good but I just think he got a dream job with Lord of the Rings.

Vodstok

02-15-2005, 04:15 AM

PJ isnt THE best, but he is great.

You forgot Ridley Scott and Jim Cameron. The list of great directors is endless. Unfortunately, the list of shitty ones is even longer.

urgeok

02-15-2005, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by Vodstok
PJ isnt THE best, but he is great.

You forgot Ridley Scott and Jim Cameron. The list of great directors is endless. Unfortunately, the list of shitty ones is even longer.

i think i'd take coppola over Cameron.

He dosent have the range and he kind of painted himself into a corner.

coppola is my all around favorite i think ...

Vodstok

02-15-2005, 05:00 AM

Cameron is a bit of a niche director, but he has done wonderful things with/for science fiction.

I wish he would come out with a nother movie, though (godammit)

If i hate Titanic for any reason, its because he stopped making movies after it....

urgeok

02-15-2005, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Vodstok
Cameron is a bit of a niche director, but he has done wonderful things with/for science fiction.

I wish he would come out with a nother movie, though (godammit)

If i hate Titanic for any reason, its because he stopped making movies after it....
i didnt like it because he proved himself to be too top heavy and formulatic.

The terminators were brilliant - but as with M. Night Shamaylan, i think he blew his load.

AUSTIN316426808

02-15-2005, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by urgeok
i didnt like it because he proved himself to be too top heavy and formulatic.

The terminators were brilliant - but as with M. Night Shamaylan, i think he blew his load.

where do you think Shamalan fell off? Sixth Sense?

urgeok

02-15-2005, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
where do you think Shamalan fell off? Sixth Sense?

no i thought unbreakable was brilliant too .. very origional ..

i think signs had one effective moment and the rest was bad , including the casting.

the village was ont of the poorest films i ever saw in any respect

AUSTIN316426808

02-15-2005, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by urgeok
no i thought unbreakable was brilliant too .. very origional ..

i think signs had one effective moment and the rest was bad , including the casting.

the village was ont of the poorest films i ever saw in any respect

I forgot about Unbreakable I thought that was great too.

as for signs the only thing that freaked me out was when they first showed the alien, I thinks that's the hardest I've ever jumped at a movie. even though I knew what was about to happen just couldn't help it.

urgeok

02-15-2005, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
I forgot about Unbreakable I thought that was great too.

as for signs the only thing that freaked me out was when they first showed the alien, I thinks that's the hardest I've ever jumped at a movie. even though I knew what was about to happen just couldn't help it.

yeah the video footage of the birthday party in Brazil .. on the news ?

that was the best and only effective part in the movie (in my opinion)

it reminded me of the 2 excellent frights in The Exorcist 3.

Other than that - i think he's plumb run out of gas.

X¤MurderDoll¤X

02-15-2005, 06:09 AM

You know he doesn't direct horror movies and isn't trying to scare anyone right?

AUSTIN316426808

02-15-2005, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by urgeok
yeah the video footage of the birthday party in Brazil .. on the news ?

that was the best and only effective part in the movie (in my opinion)

yeah that's it, I thought the rest of the movie was dull.

AUSTIN316426808

02-15-2005, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by X¤MurderDoll¤X
You know he doesn't direct horror movies and isn't trying to scare anyone right?

whatever he's trying to do it's not working.

urgeok

02-15-2005, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by X¤MurderDoll¤X
You know he doesn't direct horror movies and isn't trying to scare anyone right?

i agree and disagree -

..the village was sold as a horror .. there was more than one attempt to scare the audience ....

but thats not how i judge a filmmaker anyway -
I thought 6th sense and unbreakable were good films .. really good films.

i thought the next 2 were bad..in any genre

slasherman

02-15-2005, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
where do you think Shamalan fell off? Sixth Sense?
no..."the Villiage" is just pure shit..."The Signs" isnt very good either..

Gojira

02-15-2005, 09:25 AM

Austin the reason I said Peter Jackson is the best Director in the world is because he was nominated best director. And who ever is voted best Director this year at the Oscars will be best Director.

AUSTIN316426808

02-15-2005, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Gojira
Austin the reason I said Peter Jackson is the best Director in the world is because he was nominated best director. And who ever is voted best Director this year at the Oscars will be best Director.

The oscars have fucked over so many people that sometimes I don't even take to much from them, I watch just for the hell of it and if one of my fav. celebs win something great but other than that you can't go by the oscars. If you're a real movie buff(for lack of a better word) you know who is suppose to win a oscar for any certain category and you know who's not suppose to win.

for example when Martin Scorsese got screwed out of his best director oscar for Raging Bull.

And an example of someone who shouldn't have won a oscar- Adrian Brody, he didn't do better than Jack Nicholson or Nick Cage.

Gojira

02-15-2005, 10:42 PM

I agree with you Austin I think Peter Jackson should have been best director for 3 years but the acadamy frowns on scifi and horror movies and fantasy movies. Thats why George Lucas never got best pic for Starwars in 1977. I saw that Oscars that year and everyone the whole country knew Starwars had best picture in the bag it made the most money people were seen it 10 times. The specail effects were awesome you could not say enough about the movie. And this movie that nobody even heard about that didnt even make 10% of what Starwars did got best picture the movie was The Good bye Girl. I think the reason Jackson won best director was because like Starwars the whole world liked LOTR but in Jacksons case he had 3 movies made back to back and the acadamy just could not ignore the success of LOTR so he was voted best Director. And he deserved it bigtime.

AUSTIN316426808

02-16-2005, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by Gojira
I agree with you Austin I think Peter Jackson should have been best director for 3 years but the acadamy frowns on scifi and horror movies and fantasy movies. Thats why George Lucas never got best pic for Starwars in 1977. I saw that Oscars that year and everyone the whole country knew Starwars had best picture in the bag it made the most money people were seen it 10 times. The specail effects were awesome you could not say enough about the movie. And this movie that nobody even heard about that didnt even make 10% of what Starwars did got best picture the movie was The Good bye Girl. I think the reason Jackson won best director was because like Starwars the whole world liked LOTR but in Jacksons case he had 3 movies made back to back and the acadamy just could not ignore the success of LOTR so he was voted best Director. And he deserved it bigtime.

you think he should've won all three years?

I'll admit he waited three years so he deserved to sweep the oscars last year, but all three I don't think so.

2002 oscars-Ron Howard for A Beautiful Mind and Ridley Scott for Blackhawk Down.
Peter Jackson didn't do a better job than either of these guys.

2003 oscars-Martin Scorsese for Gangs of New York, Stephen Daldry for the Hours and Roman Polanski for The Pianist.

Peter Jackson wasn't even nominated in '03, he didn't do a better job than any of the three I mention and the academy thought he didn't even do a good enough job to nominated.

say what you want, but Peter Jackson isn't that great of a director. You can't tell me you think he's a better director than Martin Scorsese, cause if my memory is correct than when Scorsese was making one of at least the top five greatest movies of all time Jackson was doing some shit called the Village.

AUSTIN316426808

02-16-2005, 03:02 AM

and the way I feel about it is if a best picture nominee doesn't have a best actor and/or actress nomination as well then all the credit goes to the writer.

AUSTIN316426808

02-16-2005, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by urgeok
i think i'd take coppola over Cameron.

his daughter isn't to bad either, Lost in Translation was great and she did the whole thing director/writer/producer.

not to sure about the producing though.

urgeok

02-16-2005, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
and the way I feel about it is if a best picture nominee doesn't have a best actor and/or actress nomination as well then all the credit goes to the writer.

i'm starting to have more and more appreciation for the editor ...
who in many cases is the director.

urgeok

02-16-2005, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
cause if my memory is correct than when Scorsese was making one of at least the top five greatest movies of all time Jackson was doing some shit called the Village.

That wasn't Jackson ...

AUSTIN316426808

02-16-2005, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by urgeok
That wasn't Jackson ...

sorry...

it was the Valley.

slasherman

02-16-2005, 06:23 AM

not a remake but...
have anybody seen "Alligator II: The Mutation" (1991)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101309/
I just bought the first one and have seen it before :)

zwoti

02-16-2005, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by slasherman
not a remake but...
have anybody seen "Alligator II: The Mutation" (1991)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101309/
I just bought the first one and have seen it before :)

yes it's a sequel

not as good as the first, probably due to the absence of john sayles

p.s. harry lime lives

urgeok

02-16-2005, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by zwoti
yes it's a sequel

not as good as the first, probably due to the absence of john sayles

p.s. harry lime lives

there's about 4 people here that are gonna get that

zwoti

02-16-2005, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by urgeok
there's about 4 people here that are gonna get that

so who are the other two :D

slasherman

02-16-2005, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by zwoti
p.s. harry lime lives
hmmmm :confused:

zwoti

02-16-2005, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by slasherman
hmmmm :confused:

so you're not one of them then

slasherman

02-17-2005, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by zwoti
so you're not one of them then
can you explain :D

zwoti

02-17-2005, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by slasherman
can you explain :D

well you've seen alligator.......did you see the graffiti on the sewer wall

urgeok

02-17-2005, 06:33 AM

question 2,

do you know who orson wells is ?

or graham greene ?

AUSTIN316426808

02-17-2005, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by urgeok
question 2,

do you know who orson wells is ?

or graham greene ?

Orson Wells was Citizen Kane right?

never heard of graham greene.

slasherman

02-17-2005, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by zwoti
well you've seen alligator.......did you see the graffiti on the sewer wall
Of course...remember now....Its late in the movie.. ? ;)

zwoti

02-17-2005, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by slasherman
Of course...remember now....Its late in the movie.. ? ;)

yes

urgeok

02-17-2005, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
Orson Wells was Citizen Kane right?

never heard of graham greene.

graham greene wrote an excellent book called The Third Man
It was made into an excellent movie ... with a small but important performance by Wells ..

Check IMDB for the Third Man and all (most) will fall into place

slasherman

02-17-2005, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by zwoti
yes
But what does it mean ? Is he well known ?

zwoti

02-17-2005, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by slasherman
But what does it mean ? Is he well known ?

see urgeok's post above

slasherman

02-17-2005, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by zwoti
see urgeok's post above
Ok...:cool:

babygirl20

02-17-2005, 07:48 AM

AUSTIN316426808

02-17-2005, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by babygirl20
I'm not a big fan of remakes but Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Dawn of the Dead remakes are pretty bad ass!:cool:

you say you're not a big fan of remakes but in the ''5 best'' thread you're top film is a remake.

babygirl20

02-17-2005, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
you say you're not a big fan of remakes but in the ''5 best'' thread you're top film is a remake.

Exactly, i 'm not a fan of them but Texas Chainsaw Massacre just happened to be the best and only remake i liked. Only reason i liked it better than the original was because of the ending.:cool:

BH14

02-17-2005, 10:35 AM

i too enjoyed the TCM re-make and Dawn of the Dead re-make.

babygirl20

02-17-2005, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by BH14
i too enjoyed the TCM re-make and Dawn of the Dead re-make.

that's cool man! i must say that Texas Chainsaw Massacre is the better of the too by far!:cool:

Vodstok

02-17-2005, 10:48 AM

wun, too, tree, for.....

AUSTIN316426808

02-17-2005, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Vodstok
wun, too, tree, for.....

LMAO

you can't help yourself can you:D

AUSTIN316426808

02-17-2005, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by babygirl20
that's cool man! i must say that Texas Chainsaw Massacre is the better of the too by far!:cool:

I thought the Dawn remake was ridiculously better than the TCM, but that's just me. ''To each his own''

babygirl20

02-17-2005, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Vodstok
wun, too, tree, for.....

I know, i know. I can't spell worth a shit today. I've done went 'tarded!!;)

babygirl20

02-17-2005, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
I thought the Dawn remake was ridiculously better than the TCM, but that's just me. ''To each his own''

Just wondering why you think this?:D
I did like the soundtrack from Dawn of the Dead but that wasn't enough to make me like it better than the first!:p

AUSTIN316426808

02-17-2005, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by babygirl20
Just wondering why you think this?:D
I did like the soundtrack from Dawn of the Dead but that wasn't enough to make me like it better than the first!:p

I didn't say it was better than the first because it's not, but unlike most remakes it's a really well written and acted film that doesn't make you say ''why did they have to fuck this up with a remake'' I like the TCM remake also wasn't great but wasn't bad either just not as good as the Dawn remake. Once again that's just my opinion.

babygirl20

02-17-2005, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
I didn't say it was better than the first because it's not, but unlike most remakes it's a really well written and acted film that doesn't make you say ''why did they have to fuck this up with a remake'' I like the TCM remake also wasn't great but wasn't bad either just not as good as the Dawn remake. Once again that's just my opinion.

I wasn't criticizing your opinion, just curious. I've put my opinion on here many times and got bashed, so i ain't gone be like that. N e way everybody keeps talking about The Fog remake. I haven't heard of it. Any details?:D :confused:

AUSTIN316426808

02-17-2005, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by babygirl20
I wasn't criticizing your opinion, just curious. I've put my opinion on here many times and got bashed, so i ain't gone be like that. N e way everybody keeps talking about The Fog remake. I haven't heard of it. Any details?:D :confused:

it starts production in march. it's being directed by the same guy who did Stigmata(can't remember his name)

IDrinkYourBlood

02-17-2005, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by The_Return
So it has been established that IDrinkYourBlood is a guy? Cause Im still confused about that, lol what would you like me to be;)

slasherman

02-18-2005, 03:38 AM

Anybody who knows anything about the remake of "Prom Night" ?.....dont think I have seen the originale either.....(maybe on video in the early 80's :confused: )

blackknight

02-18-2005, 09:45 PM

I dont understand why people bash remakes. In some cases I think they turn out better than original. The Thing and Dawn of the Dead IMO both surpassed the originals in every way. TCM IMO was as good as the original. Assault on Precinct 13 sucked but oh well. Overall I think the remakes have had a pretty good success rate.

Elvis_Christ

02-18-2005, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by slasherman
Anybody who knows anything about the remake of "Prom Night" ?.....dont think I have seen the originale either.....(maybe on video in the early 80's :confused: )

Remaking Prom Night?! :eek:

Gojira

02-19-2005, 12:03 AM

I bet you most fans here who bash remakes are under the age of 30 and probley dont know that the Hunchback of Norte Dame 1923 Count Dracula 1931 Frankenstien 1931 are all remakes. I bet if you ask them what they think of these 3 classics I just typed they will say they are awesome. I have no problem with remakes when done well. Its a real credit to the film maker when fans think the movie he remade is the original.

slasherman

02-19-2005, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by Elvis_Christ
Remaking Prom Night?! :eek:
yes...are you suprised ? :)

AUSTIN316426808

02-19-2005, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by Gojira
I bet you most fans here who bash remakes are under the age of 30 and probley dont know that the Hunchback of Norte Dame 1923 Count Dracula 1931 Frankenstien 1931 are all remakes.

you've been here for a about a month(I think) so trust me everybody knows this by now.

Gojira

02-19-2005, 08:35 AM

Austin if every board member knew that remakes are not bad then there would not be any bashing comments on remakes. You just have to remind those who dont know every once in a while. Of course not all remakes are good but some are very good. You know I would like to see posts about remakes that are good

Wolfenbabe666

02-19-2005, 10:09 AM

I think remakes are sometimes cooler than the original, but I always have the urge to be loyal to the first one. If you think of them as being two completely different movies, it helps.

Gojira

02-19-2005, 03:29 PM

I think a good reason for a movie to be remade is if the original was not very good. Or in the case of the KingKong movie in 1976 that was not so much a remake as it was an adaptation a retelling of the Kong story. The question is why remake a movie at all if the original is a masterpiece like Kingkong 1933. I know many Kong fans are excited about Peter Jacksons remake of KingKong that opens next december. But why remake the movie in the 1st place? Dont get me wrong I like Kong and I think a remake might be a good idea then again someone thought a few years back a remake of Mighty Joe Young was a good idea was it?