Evil Dead remake AND Evil Dead 4 on the way...

[Guest The Beltster]

How can you not compare them though, when they share a name and largely the same plotline with an iconic, and in the huge majority of cases, massively superior film? Take the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre - not an awful film, I thought, but with a different name, at least it would be able to stand on its own two feet as an homage, rather than a carbon copy with all that made the original film unique sucked out of it. It worries me that a younger generation who want to see what all the fuss is about might pick up the remake, conclude that it's just another turd in the mire of middling horror films and never know what made the concept special in the first place.

 

I don't know about you but I don't want to spend the rest of my life on some kind of mobius strip where the same films come out every ten years, with upstart directors mistakenly thinking they're up to the task of improving on films that were perfect in the first place, rather than giving us something new and fresh and with the potential of standing alongside the classics they're ssytematically murdering. Money wins, creativity dies. Welcome to the 21st century.

A lot of the remakes I've seen are of films where I havent seen the original or have ended up seeing the original afterwards, so not comparing them in those instances comes pretty easily. And in other cases where I have seen the original, I find it easy to see it as a stand alone film. I'm not a huge movie buff, I dont take it at all seriously. Its a film, its going to be good or bad on merit alone, not compared to the original so it makes no difference to me whether I'm watching an original film or a remake of an already existing film.

 

Sounds like you take movies and the whole deal seriously which, if you do, is fine. I dont so I couldnt really give a shit whether a film is a remake or an original, all that matters to me is whether I enjoy it or not. Everything else is inconsequential.

 

Oh and for whoever said Superman Returns was a chore to watch, I thought it was great :lol

Edited July 15, 2011 by The Beltster

[Paul 584]

I agree 100% with Beltys post there. Even the Superman bit. :p

[etz 78]

My problem with Superman Returns is simply that he shouldn't have. If anything was ever crying out for a total reboot, it was superman.... so instead they do a sequel

[The Icon 152]

My only problem with Superman Returns was that it was too slow for anything to happen.

[DC 536]

With the talk of remakes/reworkings, here are some pics of a few doing the rounds...

 

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x165/dravencage/photo_033.jpg

The budget for the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie had been drastically reduced

 

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x165/dravencage/photo_042.jpg

News leaks that Seven is to me remade... with kids (like Bugsy Malone)

 

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x165/dravencage/hotgirlsweird036-1.jpg

Disney decided it was time to move into more adult themes with their reworking of Snow White

 

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x165/dravencage/BabyMagneto.jpg

After the success of First Class, we're going back even further with a cartoon spin off

called X-Men Kids (think Muppet Babies, but with superpowers)

 

 

Of course, none of these are real... or are they?

Edited July 17, 2011 by DC

[Guest Jaycey Baby]

As for the horror movie remakes, I wrote an article last year covering this very subject, why they aren't a bad thing and why they are just an extension of what has been happened for thousands of years.

 

I read the article and you've got a good point about classic tales like Dracula, Frankenstein etc. inspiring good films generation after generation, although I think you're using the exceptions, rather than the general rule, to prove your point. I can't help but question whether the list of films at the start of the article have had one decent, never mind genre or era-defining, remake between the whole lot of them. I mean, good on you if your tastes are so, uh, broad that you didn't think the new Nightmare On Elm Street was anything other than piss-poor (as fans and critics alike seemed to almost unanimously agree on at the time). To the rest of us, you're just sending out the message to Hollywood that they can get away with putting out any old sh*te and people will lap it up on the nostalgia factor alone.

[Guest The Beltster]

I forgot that we ALL have to agree and like or dislike the same shit, ESPECIALLY because the f*cking 'expert' film critics say so...

 

Who gives a shit what other people think? Only muppets and retarded, mindless sheep allow what other people think of something sway their own opinion of it.

 

I thought the new Nightmare on Elm Street was good and I'm a big fan of most of the originals, I couldnt give two shits what you or anybody else thinks, doesnt even factor in to my opinion because its MY OPINION! Nice snide insult though, that we have to have "broad" taste to enjoy it.

[Guest Jaycey Baby]

Sounds like you take movies and the whole deal seriously which, if you do, is fine. I dont so I couldnt really give a shit whether a film is a remake or an original, all that matters to me is whether I enjoy it or not. Everything else is inconsequential.

 

So you don't have much time for the sacred cows of film - fair enough, doesn't surprise me, as neither do the people involved in these remakes, and Hollywood doesn't really make films for film fans anyway (working in an independent cinema as I do has shown me that very clearly).

 

I take it you like a bit of the ol' rasslin', though, this being a rasslin' board as well. So just imagine if the WWE decided, one day, to do a remake of a classic feud, because they were 'struggling' in that way that only multi-million pound enterprises can. Maybe Vince had to replace all of his gold-plated back-scratchers with silver ones. Let's say Bret Hart vs. Shawn Michaels. They didn't present it as a continuation of the previous feud, rather, just pretended the first feud never existed. They bring in a new writer who has myriad 'brilliant' ideas on how the old feud could have been improved, such as showing more tits and having matches in 3D. Bret and Shawn would be played by younger, more attractive wrestlers with all the chemistry of a mackerel gateaux. I wonder how many WWE fans would be excited about that.

 

Problem is, they're remaking films that touched people and changed their lives, just so modern filmgoers who might not have seen the original can go and think "that was alright". It's not a good trade-off for powerful memories to be shat on just so the proles can experience the predictable mediocrity of a remake. You really have to question the motives behind a lot of them.

[Guest Jaycey Baby]

I forgot that we ALL have to agree and like or dislike the same shit, ESPECIALLY because the f*cking 'expert' film critics say so...

 

I'd say the great majority of NoES fans despised it as well, from the general reaction to it. The three people I went to the cinema with all said it was one of the worst films they'd ever seen. But hey, you and DC enjoyed it, so those million upon millions weren't badly spent after all.

[Maxximus 353]

I'd say the great majority of NoES fans despised it as well, from the general reaction to it. The three people I went to the cinema with all said it was one of the worst films they'd ever seen. But hey, you and DC enjoyed it, so those million upon millions weren't badly spent after all.

 

http://i53.tinypic.com/30nj7o7.jpg

[DC 536]

Hollywood doesn't really make films for film fans anyway

What an arrogant piece of bullshit that is.

 

I'd love to hear your definition of what a film fan actually is.

[Guest The Beltster]

Bro, you're so far up your own ass that taking the time to reply to you is likely going to be wasted time. You're welcome to your opinion but the way you look down your nose at people over what movies, of all things, they enjoy....thats sad as f*ck!

[Guest Reno]

I'd say the great majority of NoES fans despised it as well, from the general reaction to it. The three people I went to the cinema with all said it was one of the worst films they'd ever seen. But hey, you and DC enjoyed it, so those million upon millions weren't badly spent after all.

 

Not gonna lie, I absolutely HATED that film. What a waste of time that was.

[DC 536]

I'd say the great majority of NoES fans despised it as well, from the general reaction to it. The three people I went to the cinema with all said it was one of the worst films they'd ever seen. But hey, you and DC enjoyed it, so those million upon millions weren't badly spent after all.

Considering the film had a budget of US$35million and took over US$115million at the box-office (plus all the DVD sales), I'd say the money wasn't "badly spent" at all.

[Maxximus 353]

As much as I loved the NoES franchise, I have yet to make it all the way through the remake. Not by choice however. Something always comes up.

 

I will admit that it's not high up on my list of movies to see.

[The Icon 152]

I thought the NOES remake was ok, but it needed more Robert. He was missed.

[Guest Jaycey Baby]

Bro, you're so far up your own ass that taking the time to reply to you is likely going to be wasted time. You're welcome to your opinion but the way you look down your nose at people over what movies, of all things, they enjoy....thats sad as f*ck!

 

What, wasted time in that you're obviously not going to change my opinion about it? Of course you aren't, and I'm not expecting anything I say to change yours. I'm just offering an opposing opinion - in your mind, that of a snob. But if there's one thing worse than snobbery, it's this kind of inverse snobbery where people try to justify the existence of any old piece of crap, especially if it's not that well thought of by those professing to be 'experts', such as film critics.

 

Yeah, I read film reviews. I take into acccount the opinions of people who see hundreds of films per year, people who are well equipped to sort the wheat from the chaff. No, I don't always necessarily agree - I generally respect the quality of critique in Total Film, but still thought them giving Talladega Nights five stars was total bollocks. Still, they've convinced me to give some wonderful films a go, ones that would have completely passed me by otherwise. And I certainly didn't need them to tell me that the NoES remake almost completely lacked the je ne sais quoi that made the original a classic. You just sound bitter that it's not YOUR opinion that makes people go out and watch films. And thank f*ck for that, quite honestly.

 

And DC, it's nothing new that when something becomes big business, creativity suffers and people hedge their bets on blandness and safeness. You must have extraordinary faith in human goodness if you think that some films aren't thrown out there with the minimum regard for quality to cash in on, among other things, strong nostalgic feelings. What I take issue with is that you seem to see this as a good thing. Films aren't a meritocracy. Just because you've made money on something, doesn't mean it's good. It more often means it's marketed well.

[DC 536]

Just because you've made money on something

So you agree that the "millions and millions weren't badly spent after all" comment is actually a correct statement seeing as how the studio made money on their investment and, according to you, that was their only reason for doing so.

 

What I take offence (probably too strong a word, but it fits here) with is the "Hollywood doesn't make films for films fans" comment. Hollywood (and by Hollywood, you mean the US movie studios) has produced classic films, from 12 Angry Men to Saving Private Ryan. Movies like The Shawshank Redemption, Heat, Ben-Hur, The Godfather, The Thing, Gladiator, Some Like It Hot, Superman: The Movie and hundreds more that are both commercially AND critically acclaimed have all came from the "Hollywood" system. To say that this doesn't make films for film fans is a ridiculous statement and one that only makes you look stupid.

 

On the subject of not-to-great films; not every film needs to be a masterpiece of cinematic beauty. You need the "Goodnight brain, I won't be needing you tonight" slice of fun as well, which is something I think you've either forgotten or never had.

 

Truth is, I don't know which one I think is the worse condition to have.

[Maxximus 353]

Is this 'discussion' an Artistic Integrity vs. Box Office numbers thing? Because to be honest I've gotten kind of lost. I agree with a bit of what Jaycey is saying, as well as DC.

[DC 536]

Is this 'discussion' an Artistic Integrity vs. Box Office numbers thing?

Not really; it stemmed from Jaycey Baby's ridiculous comment that Hollywood (i.e. the studio system) doesn't make films for film fans.