Do Remakes REALLY bother you?
 

They annoy me a bit, yes. I find it annoying that writers have run out of ideas and so feel the need to simply tweak someone else's hard work but really, that's as far as it goes. I sometimes enjoy seeing old characters back on the big screen in a different light.

And as I think someone said here, unless they tape over every copy of the original to make the film it doesn't hurt the original. So long as people are aware (which they aren't always) that the original exists I don't mind. And even if people who see the remake first prefer it just because they saw it first, does that matter? Their opinions on films can't hurt you unless they shove your head in a blender until you agree with them.

Remakes bother me when movies with personal style get broken down and turned into something dull.

I would like to see new fresh movies. I'm getting tired of all these remakes coming out. Doesn't anyone have any new ideas? There are some awesome books out there that I think should be made into movies.

First of all, writers have not run out of ideas. Remakes are the products of the Hollywood money machine that has hit upon a marketing ploy that is easy and nearly foolproof. Take the title from a movie 10 or more years old that has some kind of audience recognition behind it, hire a writer who will churn out a rehash for a low wage, hitting upon the elements the marketing department says are what the audiences want to see, and the rest is easy, with at least a modest profit guaranteed.

As such, nearly all horror movie remakes are cynical bastardizations of far more original and interesting ideas. So, yes, that bothers the crap out of me. Hey Joe, we've got the rights to the title of this old movie- let's redo it and WE'LL MAKE IT IN THREE DEE!!! Well shoot me in the face and bury me six feet under- I thought filmmaking was about telling a story, not about mesmerizing brains with shiny toys flying off the screen.

Remakes are a pox on the market because precious resources go into making these knockoff inferior examples of filmmaking CRAFT, instead of financing original works of ART that could lead to the emergence of new original talent that could enrich the world in a far greater way than any number of lame-ass retread, inferior by the numbers remakes ever can.

YES, REMAKES BOTHER THE FUCK OUT ME.

I'm not one for plagiarism but I'm tempted to use this haha. Agreed 100%.

No, they don't bother me. I may not like it when a movie like Nightmare on Elm Street is remade, but it doesn't stop me from just enjoying it. I can't argue against a lot of the points that neverending brought up nor would I want to. I'm usually care free about the movies I see, maybe I'm a sheep or whatever but I just enjoy movies.

I think the problem actually rests with the people who actually are bothered by the remakes that still continue to shell out the cash to see it. Vote with your wallet, or your torrents if you wish, but if you don't like it, don't want to see more of it, don't pay for it otherwise it will continue to happen. What will they do without their money?

i like remakes for pretty much one reason and that is technological advancements. plus most of the time i havent seen the original....there was a lot of stuff before 1984

If you haven't seen the original, how do you know the remake has "technological advancements?"

Do these alleged "technological advancements" really make up for awful acting and lame storytelling?

Is the dazzle of an effect really worth shelling out your $10 for?

Well, I guess it's logical, really. If you've grown up on a diet of inferior product, that's what you come to expect, and you think it's good. Or at least acceptable.

If you grow up eating McDonald's, you have no idea what a joy a real hamburger can give you.

iv never seen the original wolfman but the remake looks kool

For me, remakes represent a saftey first style of cinema that doesn't really excite me. I can watch remakes and I can even enjoy the odd one here and there, but when I look at the budget of these productions all I see is millions of dollars worth of wasted opportunities. Of course they don't stop me enjoying the originals, but I can't help but wish the money would've been invested in original concepts and fresh ideas.

Try seeing the originals. Most of them cost as much to buy as you'd spend going to a movie. You can get the Wolfman and three other classic werewolf movies in the Legacy collection for about 20 bucks. Nowadays, that's your ticket, popcorn and a soda. Or get the movie by itself for about ten bucks. Or get on Netflix. Whatever. You can go to the movies and see something mediocre or you can do a little legwork and see something awesome. We have yet to invent a device that makes a shitty script awesome...unless you count weed.

Not to sound like I'm pandering to Doc, or anything, but I think I can use him to make a point here, because I'm familiar with his work. If they took just 1 million from the upcoming remake of The Blob, somebody could make an amazing original film from his Murderland book. It's got everything young horror fans would want- violence, rock music and plenty of gore. In addition, it's a fresh vision with social commentary and satire that would appeal to more serious minded film fans. It would be a surefire hit.

There is a wealth of great fiction available that could become new horror classics just the way Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, Hellraiser, The Exorcist, Night of the Living Dead and countless others have been. Give new ideas and new voices a chance. Quit retreading the past.

Biting tongue...information I cannot relay...hope, pray, knock wood, old friend. I've said nothing.

Wow. This could be great news (hopefully).

It could be. If there was news. Look, a bird!

I have no problem with remakes. While they will never compare to the original if they make money then they are going to be made.

I ll admit, when Grindhouse tanked at the cinemas and was severely panned by the critics, I lost all hope for the genre.

But then 2007-2008 happened and look how many originals struck gold. The last few years have seen some real gems coming out in horror - some domestic, some foreign. There is a lesson to be learnt in that, but money-hungry studios wont ever learn.

I think most remakes are checked out by kids who are used to hearing how awesome the originals are, from their parents or granpas etc...The teen audience is easy to cater to, and there's always a willing producer/director with a wallet who is willing to give it a shot. As long as the remake makes some money (at the BO or through DVD sales whatever), the studios are happy.

I am sure some of those cases stated above are teens who watch an original and are actually disappointed by it. "Whatever does Dad see in this? Its a hour long borefest, with outdated fashion statements and outlandish production values."

Remakes will only go out if teens started appreciating the originals. Sadly that doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. (Maybe...one fine morning when the sun rises in the west)

For the most part, I see NO need for them. But every once in a while a real gem emerges from a remake.


http://www.scifi.co.uk/the%20thing.jpg

Ooo! I like birds!
But not as much as the prospect of a film being made from y-
I mean...I like birds!

I understand why the idea of a remake induces eye-rolling, because too many producers out there are all too eager to capitalize on the popularity of a film to generate money, and very often deliver an inferior product.

I do think it's a mistake, however, to automatically assume that because a film is a remake it is destined for suckage. Shakespeare's plays have been performed countless times over centuries, in countless formats and variations, because of the strength of the source material. But like everything else, a poor production is a poor product, and a superior production is a superior product.

It's like you posted for me. :p

I agree with you all the way. But, I don't remember a good horror remake. Nothing comes to mind for some reason, or it's because I just woke up and can't think of any.

Well, Newb posted one a few posts back, and a lot of people think The Fly was a good one as well.

I'm not agreeing with them... I'm just saying.

A couple years ago I came up with the double remake. It's easy and everybody wins. Instead of remaking every successful title one at a time, take two successful stories and mix them together. Then add a catchy title that lets the viewer know what movies their seeing.
Example, Piranha Cop 2, Detective Jon Kimbal is sent undercover to a beach side resort to hunt down a suspect. Little does he know that the hotel is about to be invaded by a military science project gone wrong, it's 30 kindergarteners whose DNA has been mixed with piranha DNA! OMG! Cue blood, cue the breasts! It's not a tumor! Action!

See, everybody wins.

I think remakes are good because of the technological advancements and seeing the characters in a new way. The originals are always going to be my favorites, because the original is the way it was intended to be seen, and the way the story was to be told. In all id say I just love pretty much any horror movie...each one for different reasons.

That doesn't mean the directors got any better.

Its annoying when they try to re-create the almost perfection. Movies like halloween, or the omen (the remake was f--- annoying),its hard to make a statement if you try to re-create films like those ones, so its like an offensive treath to those ones that respect the untouchable movies. On the other hand i agree on the money factor, hollywood just tries to make it with remakes such as the crappy friday 13th or the sad copy of the spanish movie, Rec.

Well some remakes were better than the originals (or as an alternative version of the source material for you nitpickers):

The Thing was definally better than the The Thing from Another World (though still a good film).

I feel the 70's version of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers was better than the 50's one..

And the 40's remake of The Maltese Falcon beat the shit out of the earlier versions..

Yeah and i guess the atimyville and hills have eyes remakes are better but in those cases theres some room for improvement, specially hills have eyes. But the omen remake... Pleaseeeee! What kind of film is that?!

Wouldn't call the Hills Have Eyes remake better. Maybe a bit more disturbing, crude and offensive, but not better.

If its a good movie than no, if it sucks well if doesnt have to be a remake for me to hate it then.. but i prefer fresh idea's aswell.

American remakes can bug the hell out of me, like the remake of Spanish film [rec] which was released a year or something after the original film, and the rumored "Let Her In" remake of a Swedish vampire movie. Suck it up and read the subtitles, you little twerps.

I can see why they'd want to remake a film that's over 20 years old though, like with all the horror films that are being spewed out lately, and that doesn't bother me per se. Mostly I just don't watch them. Best way to avoid being annoyed.

I agree with you for a bit but, that was the whole idea of desert brutal people, to be crude and offensive, i guess, the idea was on the original one, but, it lacked almost everything beside the plot, and the remake, in this case, i think bought some few good solid points.

On the downside, Hills have eyes, tend to go on the "Wrong Turn" movie... and that kinda was a bit disappointing.

Because they make money...remakes fpr the most part are sure fire money makers...

Yeah, but they could have been less....tasteless with the whole rape thing.

Agreed, they could do the film without that part. Even so, i guess, it's a better remake than the Omen, again, lolol.

I don't mind remakes when they are done right and show the proper respect to the classic.

Contradiction in terms.

Yeah, I know. It's really quite sad.

It's a product of cultural illiteracy. Young people don't know about the original so go see a movie with a cool premise (which is why it got made to begin with) and think it will naturally be good because of said premise.