What's new

THE FOG Remake (1 Viewer)

Matt Stone

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2000
Messages
9,063
Real Name
Matt Stone


How is one different from another? The sheep are limiting themselves, and you are too.
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008

It's just a personal choice or preference. I just don't care if I miss a surprisingly great remake of PSYCHO -- I enjoy the original, that's good enough for me. And there are many other older and newer original films I'm interested in. It's just my opinion that there's more of a loss in avoiding older originals than there is in refusing to jump on the bandwagon and seeing the new re-do's. It's more of a missed opportunity for a new viewer to miss out on Orson Welles' CITIZEN KANE than it would be for me to avoid an update by Joel Schumacher, for example.
 

Gordon McMurphy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2002
Messages
3,530
I love The Fog. I think it's a horror gem. What makes the film work is actually, not the 'scare scenes' - it is, I feel, the general ambiance of the film; the opening masterfully sets the scene perfectly. Carpenter's minimal score compliments the film perfectly, although it is not a great score when played in isolation as I found on CD! Nevertheless, the doom-layden feel to the film is highly effective. And let's not forget Cundey's cinematography, which, if nothing else, proves that you don't need money to make a movie looks striking.

Remake this one at your peril, greedy Hollywood whippersnappers!
 

Winston T. Boogie

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
11,894
Location
Agua Verde
Real Name
Pike Bishop


You just can't force them to "get" what we might "get" Joe. You mention Nosferatu and Invasion of The Body Snatchers in later posts. Now, I too like the Donald Sutherland 70's Invasion more than the original. I also like the Werner Herzog 1979 version of Nosferatu better than the original version. I still like the original but Herzog made a beautiful hypnotic film. What do you think of that version?
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008

I'd give it three out of four stars. I do think it's a nice looking film, with a dreamlike atmosphere about it. I don't think I'd call it better than the silent film, but there again, it's not as big a deal to me because silent films (imo) ought to be tried out at some point as sound movies. Besides, at least there's the distinction of NOSFERATU and NOSFERATU THE VAMPYRE.

It's ironic that the film titles which have been coming up lately are actually the bunch that I think are pretty good.

I also didn't mind the MIGHTY JOE YOUNG remake.

You see, the thing is, I go back and forth on this all the time. Just when I'm fed up with remakes, I give one another shot. It's a mixed bag.
 

Michael Elliott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
8,054
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott
As a film buff there's nothing you can do about remakes. They've been taking place from at least 1900 and many directors have remade their own films in a very short period of time. Kino, Image and others have various silent films out there that also have clips of earlier versions or whatnot. This new trend is nothing new. The only difference is that instead of remaking something that was released 30 years before we were born, now they are remaking something that we might have saw in theaters as a kid. If THE FOG remake is an insult then I'm sure INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS or THE THING were remakes to those who say the originals as a kid.

THE MALTESE FALCON is a good example because in reality, there was no reason to have a third version. The first two have always gotten good reviews so we could say the third film wasn't needed but thank God they went ahead with it. Many of Warner's gangster pictures like PUBLIC ENEMY, ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES and so on were made earlier. Just because you change a title doesn't mean you're doing something new or whatever.

It appears a lot of people against remakes are mainly complaining when it's a movie they like. If you don't like silent films then of course you won't mind a remake. If you don't like a B&W film then you won't mind a remake in color. If you don't like films made before 1980 then of course you won't mind the remake. However, if you like THE FOG then you don't want to see it remade. This can go in circles. Take them as they come and judge each on its own. I'd hate for someone not to watch THE MALTESE FALCON because it's the "third version" or March's JEKYLL AND HYDE because it's the 7th version.

As a film buff, I like to watch anything I can so I'd recommend watching all three FALCON's and all versions of JEKYLL. Watch and enjoy what you like.
 

Jordan_E

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2002
Messages
2,233
Nice, balanced viewpoint there, Michael....but I still HATE the idea of a remake of THE FOG!
 

Kevin M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2000
Messages
5,172
Real Name
Kevin Ray

More specifically you should say movies that they like from their generation....with 20+ years being a general lag time before a film is considered for a remake...well, no one likes to be reminded that they are getting older.;)

....anyway, I knew someone would say this and it may very well be true for some, however for me it is the frequency with which it is happening these days....before (roughly) four years ago there might be a remake every year/year and a half, but with the success of remakes in recent times they are seemingly coming out with plans for new ones every other week, the 2005-2006 season is going to be packed with them!

This & the lack of originality it shows (or perhaps the lack of risk in originality the studios are willing to take) is what get's on my nerves.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Edison was all about the art, right? Or Griffith? Hitchcock takes the stance that if the audience doesn't like the film then its generally a failure since that is his whole point in filmmaking, and that means making money. The point has ALWAYS been to get audiences to pay to see the work. What dipshit says "I want to make a film that no one will pay to see?" Thanks for bringing that into the world, put it over there next to music I don't want to hear and stuff I don't want to smell.

Hollywood has always been about 2 things - selling lots of tickets, usually by grabbing whatever pop sensation was raging at the time and by trying to repeat any film that was a hit; and about legitimizing itself as an art form by also backing prestige pictures, mostly because this helped expand to new audiences and create more ticket sales too.

That's why in the 30's there were hundreds upon hundreds of "ripped from the headline" gangster films that pushed sensationalism to its boundries (resulting in the enforcement of the Hays Code). Stuff like White Heat and The Public Enemy are remembered as classics, but there were countless lesser pix being cranked out then too.

If that were going on today we'd be lamenting that everyone has to put out a gangster picture now (replace with comic book film, TV show film, slasher film, remake, disaster film, and so on).


As I mentioned in the Horror Challenge thread, just what were the Thin Man films or the Charlie Chan films or the Universal Monster films or the Rin Tin Tin films? Yeah, H'wood just invented the sequel and only recently started doing remakes. Maybe because back then they were too busy turning hit plays into films instead.

Just because a "film buff" likes to sit around saying "man, Scorsese wouldn't do this, the 70's were the era of great filmmaking" doesn't make it true (and it ignores the Planet of the Apes series and disaster film craze just for starters).
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Maybe, but isn't that better than half-assed film versions of TV shows which might finally be hitting a decline.

Remake of The Fog or Dennis the Menace the film? ;)
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Sheesh, really? DotD = 58m, 28 Days Later = 46m. Wow, good thing they were able to "pull in that fan base" that 28 Days Later was unable to get without the name recognition. Meanwhile Shaun of the Dead does have name recgonition and only has $13m in the bank so far.

At least the numbers add up "**on of the Dead" in the title = 12-13m, thus the 12m increase for DotD over 28 Days, right? Shaun I guess only got the "core fans" of the "of the dead" name.
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585

I can't believe how many outs you are giving yourself in this debate. No matter that you agree with more than one example given of a good remake, you justify it with some qualification that actually counters your main point. Remaking because it was silent or foreign is okay because those are different audiences, but remaking for an era change is not because its only being done to reach a different audience. Do you not see this basic contradiction?

And you justify the Thing remake as being "entirely different"? Um, a bunch of men (well, 1 women in the original) trapped in an arctic weather camp with a space monster? The only difference is the nature of the monster. Even some of the sets look quite similar.

BTW, your defense of The Thing also fits the Planet of the Apes perfectly. So if PotA had turned out great, THEN the idea of remaking it would have been okay...but that still wouldn't make remakes okay since The Thing didn't make it okay. Come on man.

To me The Ring and Ringu are almost the same. I prefer Gore's version simply because I felt that Ringu relied upon too much mysticism, especially with the boyfriend. But as a film it looks very American, the art direction and filming style could be right from H'wood. The main thing being "fixed" is that the actors are now speaking English. Other than that it really is just a director doing his own take on the script/story.

Same with Insomnia or Open Your Eyes, the originals and remakes are very similar to each other.


And while we are thinking of remake improvements I'll throw out Heaven Can Wait (which ironically used a title of a different film than the one it was a remake of) or maybe even Fistful of Dollars (tough call for me).

Just imagine you in production office, "Sorry Sergio, I can't justify funding a remake, it goes against my principals". I'm sure we'd all be grateful to you for sparing us that travesty.




The truth is it's hip to bitch about remakes but the rationale that says that remakes are never a good thing just doesn't stand up. This is evidenced in your argument I think, especially when it has things like "just change the name, that would make it better" in it. Peter Gabriel has a bunch of albums all eponymously titled but that doesn't make them better or worse musically.


(oh, I liked Always about as much as A Guy Named Joe also)
(oh, add Ocean's 11 too, though others still like the Rat Pack camp of the original)
 

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
Back to the core point of the thread, last year for Halloween I had my buddy come over and watch The Fog. It's now a laughing point for him if I say something is scary..."you mean like 'The Fog'".

He found it completely unscary and generally not very good. That's not my opinion of the film, but clearly he is a member of the audience that HAS SEEN THE ORIGINAL and might have more interest in the remake. This is not a person who refused to watch the original, though I'm sure there are plenty of those people out there too.
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008

Though I feel it more acutely when it's a film I love, that has nothing to do with it for me. I haven't yet even seen the original THE FOG.
 

Scott Weinberg

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2000
Messages
7,477


htf_images_smilies_smiley_jawdrop.gif


;)

My take on horror remakes is this: more remakes means more horror movies. More horror movies means a better chance of getting a few extra good horror movies each year.

We could all list dozens of horror remakes, both those that show respect to the source material while forging their own trails -and- those that are lazy and weak and exist just to exploit a well-known title/concept.

If I have to sit through The Haunting and 13 Ghosts just one time each in order to get remakes like Dawn of the Dead and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, well that's OK by me.

Like mentioned above, this is just another Hollywood trend. You'll always see a handful of horror remakes here and there, but they really are what's "hot" at this very moment. In six months there will be another trend...and we'll all be back here bitching at the bad movies and applauding the good ones.

Incidentally, wouldn't The Thing be a bad example of movie-to-movie remake, since both film were based on John Campbell's short story? :D (Of course this is one of the hair-splittinist arguments when discussing the remakes. How does one differentiate between second/third/fourth adaptations of original source material and an out-and-out movie remake?)

Re: the topic at hand. I love love love The Fog, and I'm just fine with the remake idea.

Plus there's that hoary old point that I love to trot out: people have been "remaking" the works of Shakespeare for hundreds of years now. Surely if it's good enough to Bill Shakespeare, it's good enough for Wes Craven, John Carpenter, et al.

What I'd like to see is a few Asian filmmakers remaking American horror movies! That'd be neat.
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008

You've only proved my point here. DAWN made 12 million extra dollars than 28 DAYS LATER, which is nothing to sneeze at. SHAUN OF THE DEAD may be a play on the title, but it's not the actual title.
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008

Depends on your view. Personally, I think it's hip to try and be part of "today" and to try and trash older classics and bitch about how they're over-rated.
 

Jordan_E

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2002
Messages
2,233


Not me! I can just see it: THE FOG releases...a bunch of thin pale girls with long black hair hiding their faces!;)
 

Michael Elliott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
8,054
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott


This is quite true but who takes these people seriously? If someone tells you they refuse to watch B&W films because "they suck", are you really going to listen to what he has to say?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more







You will only receive emails from us. We will never sell or distribute your email address to third party companies at any time.

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
357,584
Messages
5,141,425
Members
144,421
Latest member
ChrisHord
Recent bookmarks
0
Top