Trailer for the 'A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET' remake. (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Michael Elliott

I don't think DAWN's goal was to be scary. There's too much fun going on and this is coming from someone who doesn't buy into its social commentary. I think too much has been put into it over the years.

I think a good amount of the original Dawn Of The Dead is scary because it has a real apocalyptic feel to it. The middle section of the movie definitely makes a shift towards more comedy and drama and has some social commentary (I think Romero wanted to make a point but I agree that fans have probably over emphasized it over the years) but the beginning and the end sequences are fairly grim and scary to me.

 

[Greg_S_H]

I guess it's sad for this new movie that we'd rather talk Dead movies, but I'm glad to say I'm finally going to get to see Diary of the Dead. I've been waiting for it to hit an HD channel since I missed it a couple of months ago, and it's on later this week. It has one of the guys from the Unusuals, whereas 28 Weeks Later had two different guys from the Unusuals. That show, about cops in New York, even managed to have a "zombie" episode! I'd rather it was still shambling around, looking for my brains, than half the new shows, but that's really getting off topic!

I haven't heard a lot of good about Diary. If it lives up to that rep and I was a kid, I'd have called it Diarrhea of the Dead. But, I'm too mature to come up with that now.

 

[WillG]

I think a good amount of the original Dawn Of The Dead is scary because it has a real apocalyptic feel to it. The middle section of the movie definitely makes a shift towards more comedy and drama and has some social commentary (I think Romero wanted to make a point but I agree that fans have probably over emphasized it over the years) but the beginning and the end sequences are fairly grim and scary to me.

That's pretty much exactly how I feel about the remake. Now Snyder might have had the advantages of a bigger budget and modern technology, but some of those shots from the roof of the Mall of the city in the background burning plus the neighborhood mayhem at the start of the film sell the idea of complete catastrophe.

Romero's version and subsequent films make it clear that there are plenty of survivors out there. Some even living in relative comfort as Land of the Dead shows. In the newer version, there's just no one out there outside of the Mall (with the exception of Andy). Also, you get the feeling in Romero's films that you can survive if you can get to a sparse enough area of Zombies. With the things in the newer version, just one can easilly spell doom if you are not sufficiently armed.

Also, the ending of the new version is a punch in the gut and really makes you believe there is no hope left. That feels more apocalyptic to me.

I'm certainly not saying that the original wasn't a classic and wasn't hugely influential. But I think Snyder trumps Romero when it comes to who created a scarier experience.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Originally Posted by TravisR



They keep making money. If they didn't, remakes would go away nearly over night. True or not, the studios must be percieve a remake of a known or semi-known property (how many people knew or cared that Sorority Row was a remake?) less risky than taking a gamble on something new.

But that's just it -- practically nobody knew SORORITY ROW was a remake.. so that's why I don't buy into this idea that "remakes make money, and if people would stop going to see them, they would disappear". People don't generally think to themselves: "Ah, YESSSS! - a brand new remake of an older movie! I HAVE to go see this because I love remakes!!"

Most of the public will go see whatever they have to choose from on the menu when they wish to see a "new" movie. You're 17 and wanna take your date to a horror picture.... whether it's a brand new never-before-seen horror titles or a remake, what's the difference to them? As you said, they often won't even KNOW it's a remake!

And did SORORITY ROW make a huge amount of money? There are plenty of remakes which are forgotten flops, like THE MOD SQUAD, THE HONEYMOONERS, THE OMEN, ROLLERBALL, DEATH RACE .... so does that necessarily guarantee htat "remakes are where the money is"?

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

Maybe its for the money counters then the audiences? If say, a 40 year old studio exec remembers the original Soroity Row being the best thing since sliced bread, is it his personal nostalgia and therefore existing familirarity with the concept that leads to the greenlight?

 

[Greg_S_H]

Originally Posted by WillG
Also, the ending of the new version is a punch in the gut and really makes you believe there is no hope left. That feels more apocalyptic to me.

That's what was cool about the originally planned ending for the Birds. You think it was all confined to the island, but then you see birds covering the Golden Gate bridge and know we are all screwed. I love post-apocalyptic films, but so many of them get it wrong. Maximum Overdrive came from a cool short story, but the movie wasn't a great example of the genre.

To get on topic:

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Re: DAWN OF THE DEAD 2004 -- I've said it before and I'll say it again... I only consider it a "remake" in name only. This was indeed a case of trying to milk the reputation of the Romero classic. And it's a damn shame they had to use that name. It could have been called ZOMBIE INVASION or anything else; it had nothing to do with the 1978 film. There was a mall utilized again, but that in itself was not enough.
I thought the 2004 film was a good zombie movie. And that's really all it was, and there are hundreds of 'em.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi

But that's just it -- practically nobody knew SORORITY ROW was a remake.. so that's why I don't buy into this idea that "remakes make money, and if people would stop going to see them, they would disappear". People don't generally think to themselves: "Ah, YESSSS! - a brand new remake of an older movie! I HAVE to go see this because I love remakes!!"

At this point, I think they've remade all the 'brand name' or A-list titles. Now, they're left with The House On Sorority Row or The Stepfather (a movie that I love but it's not really that popular) so the titles that have an automatic recognition with the public have dried up. Like I said though, I think studios percieve something that has already been made as more solid bet than spending $20 or $30 or $100 million on something new. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong but that certainly seems to be their mentality.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

Not all remakes are remade for the same reason. Some are just using a well-known brand to cash in, others just find the source material genuinely inspirational, and many do both.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Originally Posted by TravisR



At this point, I think they've remade all the 'brand name' or A-list titles. Now, they're left with The House On Sorority Row or The Stepfather (a movie that I love but it's not really that popular) so the titles that have an automatic recognition with the public have dried up. Like I said though, I think studios percieve something that has already been made as more solid bet than spending $20 or $30 or $100 million on something new. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong but that certainly seems to be their mentality.

Exactly.

This going for something familiar over something new isn't original. Hell, look at Universal. They went a very long time without creating a new monster. Instead, they just went with what worked and ran them into the ground with one sequel after another.

I don't see a ANOES 2010 is any worse than, say, parts 4-6, which to me were the pits. One could say that about 2 even though I enjoy its camp value.

As I said in another thread, I'm going to watch all of the CHILDREN/CORN movies and one is the current remake and I see another one is coming next year. People can scream tha the film doesn't need to be remade but did we need seven films in this series?

 

[Lucia Duran]

How many in the Children of the Corn series are remakes v.s actual sequals? I don't remember. I think the one with Kirstie Alley is a remake, yes? *goes to IMDB*

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Speaking of Children of the Corn, this past weekend SyFy was showing Children of the Corn 666, I had to laugh because I couldn't figure out if the '666' in the title was referring to the sign of the devil or if it was the sequel number lol.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Lucia Duran

How many in the Children of the Corn series are remakes v.s actual sequals? I don't remember. I think the one with Kirstie Alley is a remake, yes? *goes to IMDB*

I think you're thinking of Village Of The Damned... which is, ironically, yet another remake.

Similar to Michael Elliott, I don't think this NOES remake can be much worse than most of the Elm Street sequels (the only good sequels are 3 and 7). Although I do 'worry' about someone other than Robert Englund playing Freddy but Jackie Earl Haley nailed Rorschach in Watchmen and that's another role that I felt would be impossible to live up to what was already in my mind so I try to keep an open mind and hope for the best.

 

[Shawn_KE]

The NMOES remake trailer looks ok. Just hope they don't try and pump sympathy into Krugers character.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Originally Posted by Shawn_KE

Just hope they don't try and pump sympathy into Krugers character.

That's what it looks as if they're doing.

To me that is akin to remaking The Silence of the Lambs and making Lector a misunderstood local physician who was wrongly convicted, or remaking The Fugitive and making Richard Kimble actually guilty for killing his wife.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Originally Posted by Michael Elliott



Exactly.

This going for something familiar over something new isn't original. Hell, look at Universal. They went a very long time without creating a new monster. Instead, they just went with what worked and ran them into the ground with one sequel after another.

Doesn't matter; sequels aren't the same thing as remaking an original (especially when that original is already good as is, and something of a classic). I know you feel differently; I'm just speaking for myself.

In this case, I can't WAIT to skip this new and unnecessary A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET remake.

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

edited

 

[MattFini]

Originally Posted by James 'Tiger' Lee ">[/url]

You mean like you skipped Halloween II and the Friday the 13th remake? That's some nice skipping there boy!

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

I enjoyed Friday the 13th a lot, more so than many of the originals. I've not dared try Halloween II cause the previous one was enough to make one become a monastic hermit!

 

[MattFini]

On repeat viewings, I came around to PARTS of the F13 remake (just parts, though).

I'm pretty rabid when it comes to Jason - I collect a lot of F13-related stuff so the Blu-ray did find its way into my home.

I just feel like they missed the boat with the characters and the setting. Too many lense flares, none of that classic camp setting and the ridiculous tunnels which looked like something out of the torture-porn genre rather than F13. Derek Mears was an awesome Jason, though.

But Zombieween II was every bit as awful as the first. If you hated the first one, James, I would recommend forgetting about the second. One month later and I'm still shaking my head at that disgrace.