Forums Horror Movie Talk
HorrorBid's 13 Day's of Halloween Part III: Remakes, Re-imaginging & Sequels. Difference?

Play me in Johhny

Ain't it true folks? I mean, it has to be true when a headless guy is rocking the message on a t shirt right? But what makes a remake "suck"?

And what exactly is the difference between a remake and a "re-imagining"?

Is a re-imagining just a cop out to take your creativity license and run a pretty

popular franchise into the ground?

Or would we prefer a sequel? Aren't sequels to movies that are way past their prime, timely remakes?

Can we conder Jason X a sequel to Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday?

I mean, It's not within the same continuity but it's made 9 years after The Final Friday, set in the future of the same timeline and it bares the roman numeral 'X'. Which stands for 10. Which technically means it's the 10th Friday the 13th.

Where do we draw the line between what's exceptable for film companies and producers to make and what we will actually to watch?

Just what is the next step in ruining a franchise?

*coughcough*

Horror franchises are the backbone of horror movies.

You may say I'm wrong.

But close your eyes and then think of the most iconic horror icons

Tell me that you won't say Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger, Micheal Myers, Charles Lee Ray etc etc?

It's not that one-off movies are bad or not worthy of a franchise but some filmmakers just like to leave their mark and move on. When fans demand more and money becomes a major factor then why would you not want to double dip your stick?

When I view movies such as Friday the 13th or A Nightmare on Elm street, I'm no longer looking for scares I'm looking for the next sequence in a bloody story. This is why franchises are also a rooted backbone.This is why companies take a look at an icon like Micheal Myers, Jason and Freddy and say:

"How can we make this character relevant again? How can we make them scary?"

Were you honestly not creeped out at the portrayal of Micheal Myers in Rob Zombie's 2007 remake of Halloween? Micheal's Gritty and ruthless portrayal by Tyler Mane, moved him from the lent but deadly "Shape" to a much more menacing cold character. His reasoning was still the same but he was cold and calculating. Still mysterious but even more menacing. He was faster, stronger, somewhat intelligent and deadlier than ever before. It just brought back the original mind of the guy behind the glove. But he's re-imagining a new storyline for the character. Bringing him into our world. It was truly a brilliant approach to a franchise I have ever seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV8za5nWxwo

The point I'm trying to make here is...

What do we really want?

Because once a film has been remade, the likelihood that the original series will see a sequel of its own is very low because the community becomes divided between people who want the second installment to the remake and people who prefer another installment of the original.

But why producers, writers and directors take that same approach of creating a somewhat decent remake and make it a great sequel?

Is it because we've demanded so much from them over the years that they feel the need to deliver crap like Halloween ending with a mask on a ground and UN-answered questions? Chucky with a child and Redman over for dinner?

Maybe we shouldn't be so hard on the film companies for greenlighting a somewhat good idea or at least something that will have fans coming in droves saying "haha Jason in space? Gotta see that!" Because I'll be the first one to admit, I love Jason X, but not because it's a good movie, but because he's in space.

See, to them we're just mindless automatons that just want blood, gore, violence, sex and repeat. They've lost respect for horror fans over the years. They don't try anymore. And when they do try, we shit all over them for making a remake that isn't up to par with an original idea what we grew up cherishing.

Who is to blame Platinum Dunes for their remakes?

Were they so horrible and uninspired that they should never be acknowledged in sentence as their predecessors?

No, they weren't.And as for a huge fan of slasher films, and the horror genre as a whole. I'm all for seeing someone take a stab at breathing air into a dying franchise. As long as that person understands that they aren't just giving a mindless character a new image they are giving an icon, and their fans, and all new reason to be excited about a franchise.

So let's band together, be heard about what we actually want. Because In a day in age where the original idea is faltering, why not make money off of our indecion and dere to see our faves back on the big screen? As wrong as it may be, we're not refung them. And if we had our hand in making them, some of us would hardly do better.



Source:

http://www.imdb.com/

http://www.youtube.com/

some remakes made up for the previous entries here is some examples RZ Halloween i'm sure alot of people would agree it was better than Resurrection or when is the last time a Friday the 13th made over 80 million at the Box office.

Well see that's the point. People complain about remakes when half the remakes that are out are better than the majority of films in the franchise. The only reason those movies really get grief is because people don't like their treasure chest messed with. But at the heart of it, at least they're trying. it's much better than just throwing something together and expecting people to watch it because we're familiar.

Well see that's the point. People complain about remakes when half the remakes that are out are better than the majority of films in the franchise. The only reason those movies really get grief is because people don't like their treasure chest messed with. But at the heart of it, at least they're trying. it's much better than just throwing something together and expecting people to watch it because we're familiar.

the term is "purist". Let's be honest, horror fans are some of the most fickle, sentive assholes on the planet. "Oh no, they remade Nightmare! My past has been raped! BOO HOO! FUCK HOLLYWOOD! HORROR IS SHIT NOW!"

So, what do the purists do, they avoid remakes/reboots like the plague; the films often fail financially, and then the purists want to blame the quality of the film, and not own up to the fact that thousands of close minded assholes just like themselves are the reason the films flop; they're too high and mighty to spend their money on a new vion to determine whether or not it was a decent flick or not. Ironically enough, a large chunk of those same assholes won't give a new idea a chance either because it "looks suspect", or "looks like (insert other film)" or "looks lame", or "it's all cgi!" (guess what fuckheads? CGI aint goin anywhere, and if you're gonna refuse to watch a film because of digital effects, then we can kiss the success of the genre goodbye). Horror "fans" are the first to shoot themselves in the foot, then blame it on filmmakers, I tell you.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. While I'm not a big fan of remakes/boots/imaginings, I try to give everything a fair chance. Not everyone thinks the same; they'd rather boycott a film, label it horrible without ever seeing it, and subsequently lend their little hand in the genre's slow decline.

I was the first to express my displeasure with the idea of a Fright Night remake, and while it was no means a great remake, I'll be the first to tell you it had it's moments, and it wasn't an utter failure. Some just can't open their minds. They see a remake surface, and in their mind it sucks immediately, long before they've even screened it.

This is off topic but... I really liked the Fright Night remake lol. David Tenant was great as Dr. Who, and his antics as Peter Vincent just had me laughing.

the term is "purist". Let's be honest, horror fans are some of the most fickle, sentive assholes on the planet. "Oh no, they remade Nightmare! My past has been raped! BOO HOO! FUCK HOLLYWOOD! HORROR IS SHIT NOW!"

So, what do the purists do, they avoid remakes/reboots like the plague; the films often fail financially, and then the purists want to blame the quality of the film, and not own up to the fact that thousands of close minded assholes just like themselves are the reason the films flop; they're too high and mighty to spend their money on a new vion to determine whether or not it was a decent flick or not. Ironically enough, a large chunk of those same assholes won't give a new idea a chance either because it "looks suspect", or "looks like (insert other film)" or "looks lame", or "it's all cgi!" (guess what fuckheads? CGI aint goin anywhere, and if you're gonna refuse to watch a film because of digital effects, then we can kiss the success of the genre goodbye). Horror "fans" are the first to shoot themselves in the foot, then blame it on filmmakers, I tell you.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. While I'm not a big fan of remakes/boots/imaginings, I try to give everything a fair chance. Not everyone thinks the same; they'd rather boycott a film, label it horrible without ever seeing it, and subsequently lend their little hand in the genre's slow decline.

I was the first to express my displeasure with the idea of a Fright Night remake, and while it was no means a great remake, I'll be the first to tell you it had it's moments, and it wasn't an utter failure. Some just can't open their minds. They see a remake surface, and in their mind it sucks immediately, long before they've even screened it.

you have spoken the truth. I like remakes but it depends of the original but i'm willing to give everything a shot. its quite stupid how people act when it comes to remake ex. Friday the 13th remake

people complained about it having alot of sex where Friday the 13th was known for that and IMO the remake was just like any Friday the 13th movie.

I'm always up for giving a movie/idea a try and it's no different when it comes to remakes. There are times that remakes are pretty much required. Not just for the "greedy producers and production companies and blah blah blah", but for the fans themselves.

Let's look at Friday the 13th for example. With the original series we'd come to a point where fans had two choices: 1.) Make another sequel and have it be utterly ridiculous because that series had been run into the ground and hit a dead end. Or 2.) Let the franchise end altogether and never have a Friday movie made ever again. Which do you think the fans would be happier with? In this case I think a reboot was not only welcome, but necessary. Halloween and NOES could have made another sequel or two, but then the purists, as Matt calls them, would complain about how they're killing the franchise because to make a sequel they would have to do something off the wall to make it fresh. I had my complaints about Halloween, but I still enjoyed it for what it was and I just flat out enjoyed A Nightmare on Elm Street altogether. We complain about Hollywood being out of ideas, but even when one is offered to us we shoot it down and tear it apart for its flaws. So they try to give us something we already know and love with a fresh twist, but then we complain about the lack of originality. The point is, horror movies are supposed to be fun and enjoyed for the 2 hours they're playing so just t back and enjoy the ride.

on the 4 films that was mentioned

H1 - great remake, it was fresh, very different and added the gritty element to the halloween films. Seeing a new micheal myers who was just huge added that bad-ass element but at the same time kept the element of mystery about the micheal myers character, the first remake is my second fave halloween film.

H2 is very well known there were

many problems with it but after a few showings I really do love this film. At times I did like the fresh approach to H2, but the handling of loomis and laurie who were so unlikable characters especially loomis, and how they were trying to explain how Micheal kills is something that would go through Jason's mind. H2 I think is the 3rd best Halloween film of the franchise, just because its new and very creative, and the kills are insane. The 2 Halloween films I do feel have that unique feel about them, and its better than the Halloween films 2 3 4 5 6 H20 and resurrection

I have not seen new nightmare still lol.

Now Friday the 13th, it is probably has good as the first 4 Friday films, and it blows all the other Jason slash Friday films away, but I love the old Friday films purely out of nostalgia. But the Friday remake brought nothing new to the series, some of the characters were annoying, the location of where the youngsters were staying made no sense on how the owner of that place was still alive, as jason would have covered every piece of ground of the lake. Bedes the first 15 minutes there was no tenon or even the thought of being on the edge of your seat. The only 2 things that I did love about the remake were, jason himself - this is the jason I wish was used in the first 4 Fridays and through out the series, and the first 20 mins of the film were just brilliant. It was a good remake but there was nothing new brought to the series, it was a very one dimenonal film that never thought outde the box like zombie done with halloween

Remakes some good some bad, but the sad reality is they are stopping the horror fans from getting new horror films and a new horror experience, hatchet tried, paranormal activity is doing that. But if filmmakers are not willing to make new idea's, we will never find the next micheal, jason, freddy, leatherface, pinhead, and even toby and Sam got to be added to the horror icons

The remakes for Halloween, Friday The 13th and ANOES have to be some of the best (if not THE best) remakes I've ever seen. Sure, they weren't perfect, Friday the 13th almost didn't show anything about Jason's mom. Freddy's make up could have been more exaggerated and well...... Rob Zombie made H2 But I really did enjoy them all, and I can't wait for Halloween 3D!

I've loved horror nce I caught the first glimpse Hellraiser and Scream when I was twelve. And I love some of the remakes just as much as their original. Yes I get it they changed the back story or changed a few of the characters. Just pretend you never saw any of the originals and you will enjoy the remake or re-imaging of almost any kind of movie. Honestly how can you enjoy a remake/re-imaging of anything if the whole time you're tting there pointing out all the differences?

Honestly yes I am guilty of tting there and pointing out everything they left out or added and so on and so forth. But then I usually go see it again so I can appreciate it after I've finished picking it apart.

Have an open mind peoples! I know you're all picky but give em a chance.

Honestly would love to see something along the lines of Wes Craven's new nightmare for the NOES series to be done to several different series. Not just where the actors connected to the movies are dealing with the villain but having the movies and the killer in the movies co-exist and someone discovers this only to find that the first movie in the series is mostly truth and the rest of the series is just hollywood making money.

Would be a fun creepy thing to do. Least I think so.

I am perfectly fine with remakes, re-imaginings, reboots... all of those "re's." Not every series or franchise is going to be great redone, or in sequel/trilogy form. But honestly some of my favorite movies ARE from sequels/trilogies and remakes/reboots. I don't see much difference in quality between those different movie stylings though.

The Saw franchise... those are my favorite movies ever, followed closely by the Paranormal Activity trilogy. Of course I love the clascs like the Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween franchises as well. And while I wasn't scared or very impressed by the newest Nightmare on Elm Street movie, I enjoyed the Rob Zombie Halloweens (though the visuals his mother and him as a child started to annoy me pretty quickly.)