|
Remakes
The way I see it, in stage and theatre the same stories are told 100 times over by different actors in different ways on different stages. Hamlet, for example. There are a dozen film adaptations, and it's been told on stage thousands of times over.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a great film. And I enjoyed seeing it retold in 2003. The Amityville Horror. If I hated anything about the remake, it's that the end "explained" shit. When, in fact, what makes the story so great is that there IS no explanation. In any case, I was able to enjoy it. I hear Near Dark is getting a remake. I highly doubt they can pull anything off better than the original. But Near Dark is a fantastic story that I could appreciate seeing retold. Bill Paxton IS Severen, but I can't help but be curious to see other adaptations of the character. Or Jesse, Mae and Homer for that matter.
I don't see the downside of seeing a great horror film reenvisioned. It doesn't take anything away from the original film. The worst a bad remake of a great film can do is... be bad. (The Fog)
Often the only reason some of these films are remade are for... financial gain. Film production companies raking in dollars recycling old ideas. Not a lot of people really, actually care about retelling the story so much as they do about using an old, fan-favourite moneymaker to make even more. Freddy vs. Jason was a terrible movie by most standards. I love it, but it was such a hack production it hurts my abdomen. Ronny Yu didn't know what he was doing, with FvJ OR Bride of Chucky. But that's "the biz". It didn't matter. The names Freddy, Jason and Chucky would be enough to ring in ticket sales. But I don't believe that's always the case. Based on interviews I've seen, articles I've read, etc., the makers of 2003's TCM were really, truly attempting to retell the story effectively. Whether they pulled it off successfully or not, I can't help but commend a fan of the original story for trying.
Thoughts to expand on?
|