The Pumpkin King
Sophomore
"Just because I cannot see it, doesn't mean I can't believe it!"
@splattermatter
Posts: 261
Likes: 271
 
|
Post by The Pumpkin King on May 16, 2019 6:22:38 GMT
I agree with all of the movie opinions here, mostly.
I noticed no love for "The Grudge", from 2004? I really liked the movie, I seen it and "Ju-on" nearly back-to-back. And I don't know why, but it's not easy for me to get into some foreign horror movies. The remake just has a much more gritty, horror look and feel to it, similar to the remake of "The Ring". My opinion. Sadly, the franchise never went anywhere after the first movie.
No love for "Night of the Living Dead", from 1990? Not original, and it feels more like a TV film, at least that's how I first caught it. I thought director Tom Savini gave a respectful stab at the remake. Any other "Dead" spin-off or remake, aside from director George A. Romero's movies and the 2004 "Dawn of the Dead" remake, are completely a waste of time in my opinion.
biker1 ... I actually think the Dark Castle Entertainment Films of the early 2000's, kick-started the need for horror movie remakes. You had "House on Haunted Hill" in 1999, "Thirteen Ghosts" in 2000, "Ghost Ship" in 2002 and "House of Wax". Although that last one came out in 2005, after "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" in 2003. You also had "The Haunting" in 2000, which wasn't good by any means. I actually like things from these other mentioned remakes above. They were made for entertainment value only, not plot. They really remade the entire plots to each film, for a younger teenage crowd. But I think they had some good horror moments to them. By then, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was released and made a respectable amount of box office cash. Horror remakes since then have been made ever since.
I think a horror remake for the most part, can offer something cool to watch. Some you can't help but really like, even when you know the original is often the best. However, there are those remakes that can suck real bad, real quick. "Night of the Demons" from 2009 and "Cabin Fever" from 2016 are pretty bad. Even "Day of the Dead" from 2008, simply because it took the name of a great '80s horror film.
I know one thing, I rather watch a horror remake once, or a couple dozen times over... before I watch a live-action "Aladdin" movie. Lol. 
|
|
egon1982
Sophomore
@egon1982
Posts: 994
Likes: 268
|
Post by egon1982 on May 16, 2019 6:41:14 GMT
The Hills Have Eyes.
The Fly.
The Blob.
Toolbox Murders.
The Crazies.
Maniac.
Cat People.
Night of the Living Dead.
Dawn of the Dead.
Suspiria.
Piranha 3D.
My Bloody Valentine 3D.
I don't really consider The Thing to be a "remake" of The Thing from Another World, there is no such film called "The Thing" in 1951, just The Thing from Another World. They little in common but they are 2 completely different films, and people only call it a "remake" because of the earlier film but fans of Carpenter's film and the book know it's not a remake but rather a new adaptation of John W Campbell's Who Goes There. The name The Thing comes from the star in the book yet Carpenter's film has only 1 homage to the earlier film like the title card of the earlier film which was called The Thing from Another World and this one being called The Thing and that is it. Everything like the location (one in the north pole and the other the south), the nature/methods of the alien (the monster in Hawk's film has only one form being a vampiric bloodsucking vegetable humanoid Frankenstein who can reproduce itself but it wasn't the imitator from the original source material) where the other monster is a shapeshifting being that can imitate any living creature it touches, the characters and their background, the origin and discovery of the spaceship and all that are very worlds apart from each other. I consider them to be 2 separate adaptations of the book, Hawks film is a very good movie but in reality its a poor adaptation of the original 1938 source material just like The Lawmower Man where Carpenter's film is it's own entity that is an excellent adaptation of the source material. Carpenter may had grew up with the earlier film then later on in college he read the original novella Who Goes There which was different than the film he grew up and liked the original story more as he said when he set out to do his film he didn't want to remake the earlier film as it would be foolish to compete with Howard Hawks as instead he returned back to the original book that started it all.
Somebody who makes a film based on the novel Moby Dick is not "remaking" John Huston's film. They're making a new film based on the same literary source material and that's what The Thing is. he definition of a remake is "a motion picture based on a film produced earlier" which is not the case with the John Carpenter film. A scene by scene copy of the original film (as Gus van Sant did uselessly with Hitchcock's Psycho), updated with more F/X or more gore and based on the screenplay of the earlier film or even on a screenplay not based on any existing source material like books like say The Blob or Ocean's 11 are true remakes. If The Thing was a remake then the writer of the earlier film's screenplay would had been credited he wasn't.
To call The Thing a "remake" of The Thing from Another World would be like saying that every Dracula movie is a "remake" of the Bela Lugosi film or the silent film Nosferatu which is factually incorrect. Obviously they are all separate adaptions of the Bram Stoker novel, same for Mahunter and Red Dragon or IT as a "remake" of the miniseries. Another good example are the films I Am Legend, The Omega Man and The Last Man on Earth all based on the Richard Matheson novel I Am Legend. None of the films have anything to do with each other aside from all being based on the same source material. Calling a new film based on a novel filmed before a remake cheapens it a bit, when like i said they are separate adaptations.
differences between remakes and adaptation.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Thing, Stephen King's The Shining, Lord of the Rings, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Omega Man/I Am Legend/Last man on Earth, Romeo and Juliet, A Christmas Carol, True Grit, IT, War of the Worlds, Casino Royale etc. are adaptations of source material being books and novellas. Including being separate adaptations.
Night of the Living Dead, The Fog, Halloween, Maniac, Hills Have eyes, A nightmare on Elm Street, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Freaky Friday, House on Haunted Hill, Ocean's 11, King Kong, Father of the Bride, The Nutty Professor, Ocean's 11, Thomas Crown Affair, Godzilla, Angels in the Outfield, The Fog etc. those are remakes even the ones i mentioned on horror remakes you prefer over the originals in every sense of the word and credits the screenplays of the earlier films.
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on May 16, 2019 10:49:03 GMT
The Hills Have Eyes. The Fly. The Blob. Toolbox Murders. The Crazies. Maniac. Cat People. Night of the Living Dead. Dawn of the Dead. Suspiria. Piranha 3D. My Bloody Valentine 3D. I don't really consider The Thing to be a "remake" of The Thing from Another World, there is no such film called "The Thing" in 1951, just The Thing from Another World. They little in common but they are 2 completely different films, and people only call it a "remake" because of the earlier film but fans of Carpenter's film and the book know it's not a remake but rather a new adaptation of John W Campbell's Who Goes There. The name The Thing comes from the star in the book yet Carpenter's film has only 1 homage to the earlier film like the title card of the earlier film which was called The Thing from Another World and this one being called The Thing and that is it. Everything like the location (one in the north pole and the other the south), the nature/methods of the alien (the monster in Hawk's film has only one form being a vampiric bloodsucking vegetable humanoid Frankenstein who can reproduce itself but it wasn't the imitator from the original source material) where the other monster is a shapeshifting being that can imitate any living creature it touches, the characters and their background, the origin and discovery of the spaceship and all that are very worlds apart from each other. I consider them to be 2 separate adaptations of the book, Hawks film is a very good movie but in reality its a poor adaptation of the original 1938 source material just like The Lawmower Man where Carpenter's film is it's own entity that is an excellent adaptation of the source material. Carpenter may had grew up with the earlier film then later on in college he read the original novella Who Goes There which was different than the film he grew up and liked the original story more as he said when he set out to do his film he didn't want to remake the earlier film as it would be foolish to compete with Howard Hawks as instead he returned back to the original book that started it all. Somebody who makes a film based on the novel Moby Dick is not "remaking" John Huston's film. They're making a new film based on the same literary source material and that's what The Thing is. he definition of a remake is "a motion picture based on a film produced earlier" which is not the case with the John Carpenter film. A scene by scene copy of the original film (as Gus van Sant did uselessly with Hitchcock's Psycho), updated with more F/X or more gore and based on the screenplay of the earlier film or even on a screenplay not based on any existing source material like books like say The Blob or Ocean's 11 are true remakes. If The Thing was a remake then the writer of the earlier film's screenplay would had been credited he wasn't. To call The Thing a "remake" of The Thing from Another World would be like saying that every Dracula movie is a "remake" of the Bela Lugosi film or the silent film Nosferatu which is factually incorrect. Obviously they are all separate adaptions of the Bram Stoker novel, same for Mahunter and Red Dragon or IT as a "remake" of the miniseries. Another good example are the films I Am Legend, The Omega Man and The Last Man on Earth all based on the Richard Matheson novel I Am Legend. None of the films have anything to do with each other aside from all being based on the same source material. Calling a new film based on a novel filmed before a remake cheapens it a bit, when like i said they are separate adaptations. differences between remakes and adaptation. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Thing, Stephen King's The Shining, Lord of the Rings, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Omega Man/I Am Legend/Last man on Earth, Romeo and Juliet, A Christmas Carol, True Grit, IT, War of the Worlds, Casino Royale etc. are adaptations of source material being books and novellas. Including being separate adaptations. Night of the Living Dead, The Fog, Halloween, Maniac, Hills Have eyes, A nightmare on Elm Street, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Freaky Friday, House on Haunted Hill, Ocean's 11, King Kong, Father of the Bride, The Nutty Professor, Ocean's 11, Thomas Crown Affair, Godzilla, Angels in the Outfield, The Fog etc. those are remakes even the ones i mentioned on horror remakes you prefer over the originals in every sense of the word and credits the screenplays of the earlier films. I don’t agree with if a movie was a remake they would credit the original screenwriters. A lot of times remakes never credit the original in the production credits. Also Carpenter himself has considered his “The Thing” as a remake. Just one that follows the original story more. |
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🦞 on May 16, 2019 12:17:30 GMT
The Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes remakes were much more enjoyable to me than the originals.
|
|
|
|
Post by sostie on May 16, 2019 12:57:24 GMT
I don't really consider The Thing to be a "remake" of The Thing from Another World........ I don’t agree with if a movie was a remake they would credit the original screenwriters. A lot of times remakes never credit the original in the production credits. Also Carpenter himself has considered his “The Thing” as a remake. Just one that follows the original story more. Carpenter has said in quite a few interviews/books I've read that he set out to make an adaptation of the book not a remake of the film (which as an adaptation is frankly shit..my words not Carpenter's). His love of Hawks is well known and there are a few nods to TTFAW, but it wasn't the source he used to make his film. He may at times lapsed into calling his film a remake because it was just easier, much like Alan Moore giving up pointing out Watchmen wasn't a graphic novel and just going along with the term.
|
|
egon1982
Sophomore
@egon1982
Posts: 994
Likes: 268
|
Post by egon1982 on May 16, 2019 14:23:37 GMT
I don’t agree with if a movie was a remake they would credit the original screenwriters. A lot of times remakes never credit the original in the production credits. Also Carpenter himself has considered his “The Thing” as a remake. Just one that follows the original story more. Carpenter has said in quite a few interviews/books I've read that he set out to make an adaptation of the book not a remake of the film (which as an adaptation is frankly shit..my words not Carpenter's). His love of Hawks is well known and there are a few nods to TTFAW, but it wasn't the source he used to make his film. He may at times lapsed into calling his film a remake because it was just easier, much like Alan Moore giving up pointing out Watchmen wasn't a graphic novel and just going along with the term. Indeed, Carpenter's film is it's own entity just like IT 2017 is a separate adaptation of the novel same for Lord of the Rings, now The Blob is an actual remake based on the motion picture
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on May 16, 2019 19:42:00 GMT
That's the one. You beat me to it. I like both actually.
John Carpenters The Thing
and I didn't hate Halloweeen H20
|
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on May 16, 2019 23:49:59 GMT
The Thing
The Fly
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Nosferatu the Vampyre
Maniac
Willard
The Blob
Black Christmas
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 17, 2019 0:03:28 GMT
I agree with all of the movie opinions here, mostly.
I noticed no love for "The Grudge", from 2004? I really liked the movie, I seen it and "Ju-on" nearly back-to-back. And I don't know why, but it's not easy for me to get into some foreign horror movies. The remake just has a much more gritty, horror look and feel to it, similar to the remake of "The Ring". My opinion. Sadly, the franchise never went anywhere after the first movie.
No love for "Night of the Living Dead", from 1990? Not original, and it feels more like a TV film, at least that's how I first caught it. I thought director Tom Savini gave a respectful stab at the remake. Any other "Dead" spin-off or remake, aside from director George A. Romero's movies and the 2004 "Dawn of the Dead" remake, are completely a waste of time in my opinion.
biker1 ... I actually think the Dark Castle Entertainment Films of the early 2000's, kick-started the need for horror movie remakes. You had "House on Haunted Hill" in 1999, "Thirteen Ghosts" in 2000, "Ghost Ship" in 2002 and "House of Wax". Although that last one came out in 2005, after "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" in 2003. You also had "The Haunting" in 2000, which wasn't good by any means. I actually like things from these other mentioned remakes above. They were made for entertainment value only, not plot. They really remade the entire plots to each film, for a younger teenage crowd. But I think they had some good horror moments to them. By then, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was released and made a respectable amount of box office cash. Horror remakes since then have been made ever since.
I think a horror remake for the most part, can offer something cool to watch. Some you can't help but really like, even when you know the original is often the best. However, there are those remakes that can suck real bad, real quick. "Night of the Demons" from 2009 and "Cabin Fever" from 2016 are pretty bad. Even "Day of the Dead" from 2008, simply because it took the name of a great '80s horror film.
I know one thing, I rather watch a horror remake once, or a couple dozen times over... before I watch a live-action "Aladdin" movie. Lol. You are the only person I have ever heard defend The Grudge. I haven't seen it, but most people seem to dislike it. I am not a fan of the Night of the Living Dead remake, but I am surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet.
|
|
Eyeball
Sophomore
@eyeball
Posts: 249
Likes: 82
|
Post by Eyeball on May 17, 2019 12:22:48 GMT
I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned.
|
|
biker1
Junior Member
@biker1
Posts: 1,804
Likes: 743
|
Post by biker1 on May 18, 2019 5:36:02 GMT
I actually think the Dark Castle Entertainment Films of the early 2000's, kick-started the need for horror movie remakes. You had "House on Haunted Hill" in 1999, "Thirteen Ghosts" in 2000, "Ghost Ship" in 2002 and "House of Wax". Although that last one came out in 2005, after "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" in 2003. You also had "The Haunting" in 2000, which wasn't good by any means. possibly... Those haunted remakes were definitely part of the fad for supernatural ghost movies that followed the sixth sense (1999). However, the original movies they were based on were fairly obscure and distant next to the original TCM and were sold on lavish visual FX. I would think the TCM remake did mega box office based largely on anticipation by contemprary horror fans, while further sending the commercial message that any famous horror movie was now up for grabs. It was obviously a devisive trend, but definitely a money maker.
|
|
nostromo87
Sophomore
@nostromo87
Posts: 448
Likes: 80
|
Post by nostromo87 on May 18, 2019 5:40:55 GMT
The Fly
Nosferatu the Vampyre
|
|
|
|
Post by kingkoopa on May 18, 2019 5:44:04 GMT
Cheers of course for "The Fly"
Also for "The Hills Have Eyes" which came out of nowhere and was awesome.
Happy to see a mention of "The Crazies" which I thought was also exceptionally well done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 7:20:45 GMT
Some that come to mind 
The Ring (One of my favs. I didn't see the original until after the remake and while I thought it was okay this is one of the remakes I think is far better than the original and Naomi Watts played a big part in that.)
The Fly
Night of the Living Dead (1990)
The Grudge
Dawn of the Dead
My Bloody Valentine
The Amityville Horror
Salem’s Lot
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The Crazies
Thirteen Ghosts
Quarantine
The Stepford Wives
Funny Games
Pulse
The Blob
The Last House on the Left
House of Wax
Toolbox Murders
The Hills Have Eyes
When A Stranger Calls
|
|
|
|
Post by gljbradley on May 18, 2019 20:06:35 GMT
The Blob (1986)
Halloween (2007)
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
Maniac (2013)
Carrie (2013)
|
|
|
|
Post by gljbradley on May 19, 2019 4:31:20 GMT
Another one just came to me.
Prom Night (2006)
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 19, 2019 7:42:20 GMT
The Hills Have Eyes. The Fly. The Blob. Toolbox Murders. The Crazies. Maniac. Cat People. Night of the Living Dead. Dawn of the Dead. Suspiria. Piranha 3D. My Bloody Valentine 3D. I don't really consider The Thing to be a "remake" of The Thing from Another World, there is no such film called "The Thing" in 1951, just The Thing from Another World. They little in common but they are 2 completely different films, and people only call it a "remake" because of the earlier film but fans of Carpenter's film and the book know it's not a remake but rather a new adaptation of John W Campbell's Who Goes There. The name The Thing comes from the star in the book yet Carpenter's film has only 1 homage to the earlier film like the title card of the earlier film which was called The Thing from Another World and this one being called The Thing and that is it. Everything like the location (one in the north pole and the other the south), the nature/methods of the alien (the monster in Hawk's film has only one form being a vampiric bloodsucking vegetable humanoid Frankenstein who can reproduce itself but it wasn't the imitator from the original source material) where the other monster is a shapeshifting being that can imitate any living creature it touches, the characters and their background, the origin and discovery of the spaceship and all that are very worlds apart from each other. I consider them to be 2 separate adaptations of the book, Hawks film is a very good movie but in reality its a poor adaptation of the original 1938 source material just like The Lawmower Man where Carpenter's film is it's own entity that is an excellent adaptation of the source material. Carpenter may had grew up with the earlier film then later on in college he read the original novella Who Goes There which was different than the film he grew up and liked the original story more as he said when he set out to do his film he didn't want to remake the earlier film as it would be foolish to compete with Howard Hawks as instead he returned back to the original book that started it all. Somebody who makes a film based on the novel Moby Dick is not "remaking" John Huston's film. They're making a new film based on the same literary source material and that's what The Thing is. he definition of a remake is "a motion picture based on a film produced earlier" which is not the case with the John Carpenter film. A scene by scene copy of the original film (as Gus van Sant did uselessly with Hitchcock's Psycho), updated with more F/X or more gore and based on the screenplay of the earlier film or even on a screenplay not based on any existing source material like books like say The Blob or Ocean's 11 are true remakes. If The Thing was a remake then the writer of the earlier film's screenplay would had been credited he wasn't. To call The Thing a "remake" of The Thing from Another World would be like saying that every Dracula movie is a "remake" of the Bela Lugosi film or the silent film Nosferatu which is factually incorrect. Obviously they are all separate adaptions of the Bram Stoker novel, same for Mahunter and Red Dragon or IT as a "remake" of the miniseries. Another good example are the films I Am Legend, The Omega Man and The Last Man on Earth all based on the Richard Matheson novel I Am Legend. None of the films have anything to do with each other aside from all being based on the same source material. Calling a new film based on a novel filmed before a remake cheapens it a bit, when like i said they are separate adaptations. differences between remakes and adaptation. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Thing, Stephen King's The Shining, Lord of the Rings, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Omega Man/I Am Legend/Last man on Earth, Romeo and Juliet, A Christmas Carol, True Grit, IT, War of the Worlds, Casino Royale etc. are adaptations of source material being books and novellas. Including being separate adaptations. Night of the Living Dead, The Fog, Halloween, Maniac, Hills Have eyes, A nightmare on Elm Street, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Freaky Friday, House on Haunted Hill, Ocean's 11, King Kong, Father of the Bride, The Nutty Professor, Ocean's 11, Thomas Crown Affair, Godzilla, Angels in the Outfield, The Fog etc. those are remakes even the ones i mentioned on horror remakes you prefer over the originals in every sense of the word and credits the screenplays of the earlier films. I felt that if I didn't list The Thing, that some people might think I don't like Carpenter's version. The Thing is the most common movie listed as a remake that isn't actually a remake. I'm not sure why that is. I rarely ever see anyone refer to Spielberg's version of War of the Worlds as a remake for example. I think because the source material and Orson Welles's broadcast are so well known. Same with movies like Jane Eyre and Great Expectations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 22:51:35 GMT
hands down its The Hills Have Eyes (2006) remake. Thought it was legit scary as fuck . Was on the edge of my seat the entire time. The director did a really good job .
7.5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on May 20, 2019 1:47:38 GMT
Only two I can think of are:
Dawn of the Dead (2004) - A legitimately good zombie movie courtesy of Zack Snyder.
My Bloody Valentine (2009) - A lot better than I had been expecting. Have never seen the original though, so no basis for comparison.
|
|
