|
|
Post by BrodietheSlayer on Jun 28, 2014 19:56:15 GMT -5
Inspired by the recent Rob Zombie "Halloween" remake thread, I decided to ask this question....what do you prefer your horror remakes (and removing the choice of just nor remaking them at all, which I'm sure would be a common answer for some) to be, saying they ALL had to be remade?
1. Almost the same exact movie as the original, but with updated FX, actors, ect. (The Omen, Gus Van Sant's Psycho)
2. Mostly the same, but with new twists thrown in. (1990 Night of the Living Dead, The Hills Have Eyes)
3. Using the same basic idea/concept, but made into an entirely different movie. (Rob Zombie's Halloween, Dawn of the Dead)
Which type of remake do you prefer, guys and gals?
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Jun 28, 2014 20:11:12 GMT -5
Whatever the "The Thing" & "The Fly" fall under
|
|
|
|
Post by BrodietheSlayer on Jun 28, 2014 20:19:19 GMT -5
Whatever the "The Thing" & "The Fly" fall under The Thing remake would probably be in the second category, and The Fly remake would be in the third. |
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Jun 28, 2014 20:27:14 GMT -5
Honestly I like remakes from both 2 and 3. Not a fan of 1 cause if you are gonna just throw a coat of paint on a movie and re-release it cause it's a classic....why not just leave the classic alone. There's just more movies I enjoy that would classify under option 2 with just the twists then the total remake based on an idea.
(Do gotta say your example of Dawn of the Dead is spot on. As much as I loved the original DotD, the remake was excellent in it's own ways and to me is a classic also)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2014 20:32:14 GMT -5
2 is good, 3 is ideal for me.
I don't need to see the first one again, though I think 1990 NotLD falls more into 3 than 1, but its borderline.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrodietheSlayer on Jun 28, 2014 20:39:37 GMT -5
2 is good, 3 is ideal for me. I don't need to see the first one again, though I think 1990 NotLD falls more into 3 than 1, but its borderline. Well, the reason I wound up calling it a 2 is that other than Barbara being different, it's kind of the same movie until the last ten or so minutes, even with a lot of the story beats being the same. It deviates slightly at times due to Barbara, but the other characters play basically the same roles as they did in the original. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2014 21:38:48 GMT -5
Whatever the "The Thing" & "The Fly" fall under |
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Jun 28, 2014 22:56:27 GMT -5
I'm happy with three because it allows for freedom making a movie while also using the original's name in a way that may bring others to view it.
Basically, the only reason I ever knew of "The Thing From Another World" was "John Carpenter's The Thing." And that's a good thing because I really enjoy both.
|
|
|
|
Post by eDemento2099 on Jun 29, 2014 0:09:02 GMT -5
1. Almost the same exact movie as the original, but with updated FX, actors, ect. (The Omen, Gus Van Sant's Psycho) FX should be a key term, as it almost always looks more convincing than CGI. |
|
|
|
Post by BrodietheSlayer on Jun 29, 2014 0:17:14 GMT -5
1. Almost the same exact movie as the original, but with updated FX, actors, ect. (The Omen, Gus Van Sant's Psycho) FX should be a key term, as it almost always looks more convincing than CGI. I was talking about the same thing when it comes to modern movies, as they're often blended together. For example, I remember watching the remake of both the Omen and Carrie, and noting that they were almost the same exact movie.(even down to the dialogue in Carrie....hell, it almost seemed like someone got the script to the DePalma version, and just script doctor updated it to include IPhones and other modern things), save for cgi fx for the deaths. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Jun 29, 2014 3:26:49 GMT -5
Basically the same but with new twists and modern updates.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joker on Jun 29, 2014 6:54:08 GMT -5
Whatever the "The Thing" & "The Fly" fall under The Thing remake would probably be in the second category, and The Fly remake would be in the third. I'm fairly sure they both fall under 3 not 2. The thing went from a standard 1950s monster movie v the Army to a isolated, paranoia body horror while the Fly is in the same boat. Completely different movies, not just new twists. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Jun 29, 2014 9:08:02 GMT -5
prefer them not to be remade at all.
|
|
Talent Name
Ozymandius
Got fined anyway.
Possibly a Moose
James Franco is the white Donald Glover
Posts: 63,695 
|
Post by Talent Name on Jun 29, 2014 11:25:20 GMT -5
What ever the new Evil Dead was because that is my favorite horror movie of the last 5 years
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Jun 29, 2014 14:02:59 GMT -5
What ever the new Evil Dead was because that is my favorite horror movie of the last 5 years That too I was really surprised on how much I liked it |
|
|
|
Post by BrodietheSlayer on Jun 29, 2014 22:54:36 GMT -5
The Thing remake would probably be in the second category, and The Fly remake would be in the third. I'm fairly sure they both fall under 3 not 2. The thing went from a standard 1950s monster movie v the Army to a isolated, paranoia body horror while the Fly is in the same boat. Completely different movies, not just new twists. I get your point....it's been a long time since I've seen the original Thing.....like probably a good 20 plus years, so, my comparison with the remake is admittingly hazy. 3 it is. |
|
|
|
Post by BrodietheSlayer on Jun 29, 2014 22:55:58 GMT -5
What ever the new Evil Dead was because that is my favorite horror movie of the last 5 years I would probably say more of a 3, but 2 could also be debated. |
|
ERON
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,825
|
Post by ERON on Jun 29, 2014 23:38:42 GMT -5
If the original film was an adaptation of a novel, short story, etc., and deviated significantly from the source, then I want the remake to be closer to the source. The Thing is a good example of this. Carpenter's version was a lot closer to the original short story than the original. Otherwise, I'd rather they just not remake it at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jun 30, 2014 4:55:11 GMT -5
Updating the concept without betraying what the entire movie is about. Rob Zombie's Halloween movies didn't just update the FX or add a new twist. They sacrificed what is literally the core concept of the movie and the reason for why it's scary. Michael Myers didn't even have a name in the original script because he was meant to be that scary and motivation free. It'd be like doing a Nightmare remake where no one sleeps.
|
|
