The Horror Remakes Thread

[Quorthon]

To kick things off, I finally saw the remake of the Hills Have Eyes, which is a rarity for me these days as I actually haven't seen the original yet. Granted, I'm no longer the Wes Craven fan I once was, but, I don't see myself getting to watching the film any time soon. Old Wes Craven films... I never cared that much for Last House on the Left, so I can't see that I'm going to be so hot for the original Hills Have Eyes.

At any rate, we've been getting a plethora of generally needless horror remakes over the last decade. This is something that I, as anyone here is well aware, have a dire hatred for.

Yes, I enjoyed the Dawn of the Dead and Texas Chainsaw Massacre remakes, but found them to be entirely inferior to the originals (as a reminder, I'm generally not a fan of running zombies). I found House of Wax to be little more than a TCM-ripoff, dumbed-down slasher film, and was aggravated by the overly predictable nature of the remake of The House on Haunted Hill.

But, all is not in vain. In the 80's, I loved horror remakes. I still love them. The Thing (my favorite), The Blob, The Fly, etc. They were awesome. They took advantage of state-of-the-art special effects and amped up the gore. Maybe it's my age and, say, generation, but I prefer those remakes over the ones we have now. After all, I grew up with the 80's Blob. But then, these three are examples of films remade from 50's and 60's era Science Fiction/Horror films and, let's face it, those films are seriously lacking in feasible science. After seeing how Cronenberg mutated Jeff Goldblum into a half-man-half-fly mish-mash of flesh, it's hard to look at the original version and see anything other than shlock and camp. So, in that sense, a remake was in order. For anyone that has never seen the original version of [John Carpenter's] The Thing, which was The Thing from Another World, don't get your hopes up--the space creature is little more than a walking carrot, and one that doesn't scare or change shape. The film is laughable at best, though, interestingly, the preferred version for a lot of film critics (Leonard Maltin comes to mind).

And this brings to mind another classic, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, which has been remade twice already, with another rumored on the horizon. Forgive me for my high opinion, but the original from the 50's is damn near perfection--the mood, the tension, the atmosphere--all awesome. The 70's remake is decent as well (and the first one that I saw), and while I have yet to view the third version, I've rarely heard a positive word about it.

But, I guess, my main gripe here is, did we really need a remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Or Dawn of the Dead? How about The Omen or Psycho (word of warning, Gus Van Sant is quickly becoming another Uwe Boll or Paul WS Anderson--slightly better production value, equally worthless films), the latter of which was a shot-for-shot remake of one of horror's most revered films. Even King Kong, as a sort of horror film (also Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Drama), has had two needless remakes, the 2005 version little more than an extremely long duplicate of the original film--and with so little worthwhile new content, it's hard to see why it was needed.

As a side note, I understand that when the classic Night of the Living Dead was remade in 1990, it was done so the people involved in the original series (John Russo, Tom Savini--who joined with Dawn directed, etc.) would maintain control over the film, as there was another NotLD being remade at the same time, which was never released.

All in all, there are three trends in modern horror (Hollywood Horror specifically) that I loathe: PG-13 horror films, watered-down "Neo-Slashers," and the dreadful, on-going spate of needless remakes. And if all this wasn't bad enough, a non-King, non-Romero remake of Creepshow is planned. Another version of The Fly is being made. Even one of gore-horror's greatest films, Evil Dead has a remake in the works.

Frankly, it's my opinion that the only movies that should be remade are bad movies--then they can be made good movies. There's no reason to remake the already excellent Dawn of the Dead. How about, instead, remake Fantastic Voyage or Earth vs the Flying Saucers or Damnation Alley? Those movies range from absurdly obsolete to downright crappy. The 50's and 60's are rife with dreadful horror and science fiction films that could use a good remake. Even the 70's have their losers, like the ludicrous Logan's Run. And if you think that last one is a classic, watch it again--and remind yourself that it came out only one year before Star Wars, and nearly a decade after Star Trek.

What does everyone else think of this stuff?

[slayrrr666]

I finally have a chance to post here:

I, too, hate the remake, with the PG-13 horror right behind it. As you said, it's the films they're choosing to remake that irritates the shit out of me. Why in God's name would you choose such films as Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Dawn of the Dead as needing to be remade? Those films are hallowed ground for so many of us horror fans that it couldn't possibly be taken as a good film if it bombed. Many of us here have certain favorites we like that hardly anyone else likes because there's a feeling to it that makes us like it and want to watch it over and over. Those were treading on thin ice to begin with (luckily they turned out ok) but I still have a love/hate relationship with Texas Chainsaw, It's entertaining when I watch it, but it's the start of these remakes plodding across our screens as a feeble attempt at horror, so I place the blame squarely on the feet on that one for doing so well. Lucky the others haven't been too good either (though I do keep hearing good things about the HHE one) so maybe, hopefully soon they will get the hint.

The second one, though, is the PG-13 horror film, which almost makes me sick to my stomach to utter that phrase. It's almost an antithisis of what horror actually is. For horror to work, it has to be pushed to the edge, putting the character in such a situation that the suspense and nerves are maximized to their outer-most extreme, which harnesses them in scenes like jumps, "boo" moments, or another element thrown in that makes the situation all the more shocking. To fully utilize it, the horror has to be pushed to the edge, which a PG-13 film can't do. It has to pull back into itself to avoid having an out-of-control situation that would frighten the littler kids in the audience. It nueters it's big selling point, and becomes a joke of itself. It can't be overtly graphic or overly suspenseful, and it just makes a dull experience. The only hope is to pump up the action in it, which doesn't work and lends itself to lifeless scenes that do nothing.

I just wish both trends would just go away.

[Quorthon]

I wish people would stop wasting good money on this crap so there'd be chance for them to go away!

[Bartwald]

Now me. Can't say I hate remakes, really: I liked the new versions of Dawn Of The Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre or The Hills Have Eyes. I liked them A LOT. The crappy remakes I quickly kick out of my memory - for me they never diminish the value of the original films.

It would be great if only bad horror films were remade - but it's not going to happen. The producers always choose sources that have already proven successful, so they don't have to risk much and save on advertising, too, as the title is immediately recognizable. What can we do?

PG13 horrors usually suck, so I'm careful to choose the right ones to watch. But again: the bigger the audience the bigger the buck, so I wouldn't hope this kind will go away anytime soon. Thankfully we still have Takashi Miike, Don Coscarelli, Dario Argento and other who don't surrender to the rule.

[Quorthon]

Neither does Romero, who, I think, has never done a PG-13 film.

[LivingDeadGirl]

I can't say that I absolutely hate remakes...I enjoyed the DOTD, Amityville & HHE remakes, but as a general rule I prefer the originals. I think I have yet to see a remake that I preferred over an original. Now PG-13 horrors? That just defeats the whole purpose of the genre.

[slayrrr666]

Thank you LDG. A PG-13 horror film is almost an oxymoron (which is what the people who finance and make them are)

[Phoenix]

Totally agree w/you Quorthon!

I think remakes are only warranted when the special effects can much improve the original, or if the original premise was good but the movie was crap.

Unfortunately, I can't think of any examples of above right now.....

[LivingDeadGirl]

slayrrr666 said:

Thank you LDG. A PG-13 horror film is almost an oxymoron (which is what the people who finance and make them are)

You're exactly right. I mean, horrors aren't supposed to be for kids anyway, so why make them to suit them? Although, I started watching them when I was pretty young, & my 12 yr. old nephew loves the Evil Dead movies, and House of 1000 corpses, stuff like that, but he can differentiate between reality & the stuff that happens in the movies. But still, horror is for adults so make them on an adult level!

[danielk]

Sprinting zombies ARE ridiculous. Might as well make 'em ghosts to avoid the logic problems.

The remake I've always wanted to see is THE COLOSSUS OF NEW YORK. It's a terrible movie but the premise is fascinating; brain of an altruistic scientist is put into a robot body, and it makes him bitter and insane. He goes from winning the nobel prize to literally drawing a bead on United Nations ambassadors. That's some character arc!

[Quorthon]

danielk said:

Sprinting zombies ARE ridiculous. Might as well make 'em ghosts to avoid the logic problems.

The remake I've always wanted to see is THE COLOSSUS OF NEW YORK. It's a terrible movie but the premise is fascinating; brain of an altruistic scientist is put into a robot body, and it makes him bitter and insane. He goes from winning the nobel prize to literally drawing a bead on United Nations ambassadors. That's some character arc!

That's gotta be a 50's movie, the premise is so 50's! Aside from maybe Creature From the Black Lagoon, Them!, and Tarantula, the 50's was rife with films that bordered on being ridiculous fantasy with no sign anywhere of actual science in the fiction, and laughable special effects.

Unfortunately, these are more likely to be crapped out half-assed by the Sci-Fi channel, complete with new problems as well as some of the old ones still intact. From what I've seen, a lot of Sci-Fi Channel movies struggle to even reach "high" levels of quality set by B-movies.

I'd say, there are probably a decent number of movies that ended up on MST3K that could be reworked into quality films.

....except for Manos...

[slayrrr666]

Hey, remember Q, I'm a big fan of those Sci-Fi Channel films, so it's not all that bad.

And LDG, I couldn't agree more. Horror is an adult theme, as only "mature" people understand the intricasies (sp?) of a scene or theme, and there's all the other little things that appeal to us as well. I still haven't shown my little sister my Italian films yet, but she does sit down with me to watch films like Halloween and A Nightmare on Elm Street and we can both enjoy ourselves in them. She gets scared and hides herself in me, I laugh and we discuss it afterward about why she had an emotional reaction to the scene. I took her to When A Stranger Calls and she even said that it sucked, and she's only 11. She said there was nothing in the film to get a reaction out of her, and yet she can do that with the R-rated horror film. It speaks loudly for the integrity of the film when it can do that.

[Quorthon]

I think Sci-Fi does too many of those movies too quickly and damn the production value! The special effects are almost always poor-quality CG and the stories pretty cliche'. I saw one once with Dean Cain fighting a dragon in some building. It was awful. And had the worst use of split-screen shots that I'd ever seen.

The films seem so amatuerish--I don't know, they kinda bug me. Like, Sci-Fi pours so much time into making cheap monster movies and such that there's no point for Hollywood to do high-quality, big production monster movies. Hollywood needs more monster movies these days.

[Heineken Skywalker]

I agree that for the most part remakes suck, or are at least unnecessary, but I'm also not gonna pile them all together or deny that I have enjoyed a few. Albeit, very few.
The remakes of THE THING and THE FLY were both brilliant, IMHO. They took the same basic concepts as the originals, but reworked them so much as to make them almost seem like completely original ideas.
The remake of DAWN OF THE DEAD may have been pointless or not necessary, but I'd be lieing if I said I didn't enjoy the hell out of it. It had a strong cast, good direction, a pretty good script, high production values and finally, some good makeup and gore effects. And like the remakes of THE FLY and THE THING, it only took the basic plot of the original, in this case, survivors hide from zombies in a mall, but changed so much of it, that it made it seem pretty fresh.
BTW, arguing that "running zombies" are illogical when compared to "slowly shuffling zombies", is kind of pointless, as the whole idea of zombies trying to kill the living is pretty silly if you want to be realistic. But I digress.
They were also all Rated R. A sign that they were horor movies made for "real" adults.
I completely agree with Q that if you're going to remake a movie, I'd rather see a film remade that had a good concept, but a poor execution. LOGAN'S RUN is the example I always use a film that is in desperate need of being remade. Hopefully Bryan Singer still has this listed somewhere as a future project. (LOGAN was going to be his next feature until he was offered SUPERMAN.)
KING KONG and PLANET OF THE APES (I know it's not horror) did not need to be remade. Both of the originals are classics and other than the modern effects, there was nothing they were really going to be able to improve upon story-wise. I own both of them on dvd, but mainly for the eye candy they both offer. Story-wise, give me the originals.
I haven't seen them, but I definitely wasn't clamoring for remakes of PSYCHO or THE OMEN. There was nothing really wrong with the originals. PSYCHO is a bonafide classic and THE OMEN, while moments of it may now be seen as kind of campy, is for the most part, considered one of the greats of 70's horror.
Even though I'm not the biggest fan of the original TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, I totally respect it's place and influence in horror film history. Haven't seen the remake, but other than to get teens into movie theaters, I don't see the point.
I guess most teens don't know that there are sections in their local video store other than "NEW RELEASES", where they can go and rent movies that were actually made before they were born.
Uninformed Teen: "You mean from like way back in the 80's or even, gasp, the 70's? Cha! Like I'm going to rent those OLD movies! I need color and kewl CGI effects, not to mention WB stars in MY horror movies!"

[slayrrr666]

Well, actually, Q, you described my complaints about the films. The fact that they're too fast to come out and the ludicrously bad CGI.

The fact that they come out so fast is a real pain to me, as I have to make sure I can see it to review it. I've noticed that it does air three new features and one big premier every month, and that's the killer right there. If they would only shift one out and use the money to butch up another film of theirs, then use the missing timeslot for another premier, I think it would actually be beneficial to them finacially and ratings wise to do it. It would please the fans of the films (myself included) as we still get our creature features delivered to us regularly, but also to those who missed out on the film during it's cable run to check it out. I wouldn't mind a schedule like that.

As for the CGI, read my recent reviews on IMDb to see me complain my ass off about the utterly ludicrous and downright hilarious CGI work. The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park should feel personally insulted that they have to be based on the same creation devices as these recent creatures. The all-time worst one, though, was in Gargoyle. A CIA agent is firing at the gargoyle, who is only supposed to be about five feet away from him in the screen yet takes up half the image, while the gargoyle kills a man and flies away. The CIA agent still fires at the spot the gargoyle was standing at for about four or five rounds before he realizes it's gone and turns and looks up at it. That's probably as bad as I've seen, although Komodo vs. Cobra does come awfully close.

And to keep this post on topic, I really don't think the Dawn remake is one of the better ones, Heiney. I had too many problems with it. First and foremost, it doesn't feel like a mall at all to me. It feels to closed in and small to really get across. The fact that it's a set is obvious in so many shots that it's hard to believe it is in real life. Plus, there were too many moments of character stupidity for the sake of rooting for/against someone. The first encounter with the security guards is a classic example. They themselves know, from dialog afterwards, that zombies can't speak, yet the scene is a giant argument between the two sides about staying in the mall. It didn't make sense, and just ended up making you want to kill them for being so idiotic. I really could've gone without the celebrity headshot game they play as well. And finally, running zombies are a shit idea and should never be in another movie again.

Not to say I didn't find some good, though. The opening assault in the suburbs is killer, feeaturing a great jump that still gets me every time. The gore is acceptable, especially during their escape at the end. The make-up is passable, but a total joke when compared to the Italian, and in the case of Premutos, the German films. Evan the Spanish Blind Dead films should be considered as part of that list.

To a hardcore zombie fan, there was just too much wrong with it to really register as being great. It's good, but not all that spectacular.