[Editorial] The Wolfman Takes On Remakes!!

The_Fly_Remake_1_20_13

By The Wolfman (@TheWolfmanCometh – on the boards).

You’re sitting there in the movie theater with your Junior Mints, or in the case of psychopaths, sitting there with Dots, waiting for the movie to start. You have a terrifying debate with yourself for ten seconds while you try to determine whether the lights in the theater are actually dimming or maybe you’re having a stroke. Once that bright green screen pops up, proving that your brain does indeed have enough oxygen, you catch a glimpse of some of Hollywood’s newest garbage. Between romantic comedies and animated adventures starring pop singers, it all looks like the same old stuff. Unexpectedly, a trailer pops up that seems to be pretty creepy, have some decent actors in it, and the credits tell you it’s from people who helped make other horror movies that you absolutely love. When the title is revealed, the entire audience groans, followed by nudging the person next to you and saying, “Can you believe they’re even making that movie?” Or maybe you went to this movie alone and angrily took out your phone to post your disdain on Twitter for everyone (read: not really anyone) to see. No folks, the title didn’t reveal that the trailer you just enjoyed was an M. Night Shyamalan joint, but instead, the movie is a remake, adaptation of, or sequel to something else. No matter what the source material is, nothing seems to cause fanboys to angrily roll their eyes more then finding out their favorite movie/book is getting a remake/adaptation/sequel. My advice to all of you is to quit your complaining about something you had absolutely no involvement in making and should focus your energy on revisiting the source material.

More inside…

Before you guys all start getting cranky, yes, there are HUNDREDS of terrible movies that get made that are remakes/adaptations/sequels. I’d like to also point out that there are just as many horrible movies being made that aren’t direct remakes/adaptations/sequels. I don’t think the problem that people have with remakes/adaptations/sequels is that they typically aren’t very good, but rather that these movies seem to be an acknowledgement of the lack of ideas that Hollywood has when it comes to the horror genre. That’s another point that I’m certainly not arguing with, as even something like Nosferatu, which is 80 years old, was a loose adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Obviously the past 30 years have seen far more remakes/adaptations/sequels than the previous 50 years, so yes, I can see the amount of remakes/adaptations/sequels being a stronger indicator of Hollywood’s recent lack of inspiration. That’s another point that I’m not going to argue, as I feel that there’s a much bigger issue at hand, which is the sense of entitlement among most subcultures.

Before I go any further, let’s get you guys in the right frame of mind. I recently went to a 35mm screening of John Carpenter’s The Thing, which is one of my absolute all-time favorite films of any genre. In fact, if you ever want me to hang out with you, all you have to do is say we’re going to watch The Thing and I’ll come over. Not only is Carpenter’s version a remake of the 1951 film The Thing from Another World, but it’s also an adaptation of the novella “Who Goes There?” from 1938. Okay, well, that’s the obvious example of a remake that’s arguably better than the original. What about David Cronenberg’s The Fly from 1986, which is a remake of a film of the same name from 1958, which happens to ALSO be based on a short story from 1957? FINE. Those are like, the ONLY two examples of good remakes, right? Even though I’m not a huge fan of the film, I know that 1978’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers is highly regarded in the horror community, if not for surpassing the original from 1956, but at least for coming pretty close to it. Seeing as those examples are all at least 25 years old, and I acknowledged the more recent trend of remakes for the sake of Hollywood cashing in, I should cite more recent examples. I know I’m not the only person who enjoys Alexandre Aja’s The Hills Have Eyes 2006 remake more than Wes Craven’s 1977 original. Also, Aja’s 2010 loose remake Piranha 3D might have been a more campy, humorous remake of the 1978 film Piranha, but it’s definitely a loving tribute to the horror genre and the absurdity of creature features. Even some lesser appreciated remakes like House of Wax (2005) or Dawn of the Dead (2004) did some things that were more original than horror films that weren’t remakes. And even though I think it’s an absolutely worthless attempt to reinvent something that doesn’t need reinvention, some people think that Rob Zombie’s Halloween (2007) is worth watching. Things are also looking up in 2013 with a remake of Evil Dead that is doing 100% practical effects and completely avoids even casting anyone to replicate Bruce Campbell’s genius portrayal of Ash, as well as a remake of another one of my all-time favorite horror films, Maniac (1980). I’ve seen the remake already and even though I didn’t enjoy it as much as I enjoy the original, it was much more ambitious, unique, and entertaining than most other horror films of the past year.

Okay Wolfman, we get it, there are some good remakes that have been done, but they’re turning my favorite comic book/novel into a movie, and there’s no way it will be as good as the source material! Well, you might have a point. There have been some AWFUL movies based on books and on comic books. On the other hand, some of the absolute best horror movies, in my opinion, have been based on books. Movies that are regarded as classic horror films, like The Exorcist, Rosemary’s Baby, and The Shining, are all based on novels. Maybe you, like Stephen King, didn’t like The Shining. That’s fine, to each their own, but Stephen King wrote the novels that The Mist, Misery, and 1408 were based on, so you have a few other types of horror movie that are pretty well done. You also have weirder stories being successfully turned into movies, like H.P. Lovecraft’s Herbert West-Reanimator (directed by Stuart Gordon as Re-Animator) or, wait that’s right, I did mention Carpenter’s The Thing is based on a novella, right? I’d also argue the point that there are some movies that become so incredibly huge, successful, and revered that people forget it’s even based on a book. Did you know that in Peter Benchley’s novel “Jaws”, Hooper has an affair with Brody’s wife and is eventually killed? If Jaws isn’t a good enough example of movies surpassing their source material, what about the influx of superhero movies that gross millions, in some cases billions, of dollars with the medium that birthed these characters barely seeing a spike in sales? And if you think those are just blockbuster summer movies, let’s not forget that in 1991, one movie took home the Academy Awards for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actress, Best Actor, Best Director, AND Best Film? And that movie happened to be just this little horror movie called The Silence of the Lambs, based on the, you guessed it, Thomas Harris’ book from 1988. I’d say there are countless movies that incorporate literary references from stories spanning centuries, and it seems like some of the movies that take direct cues from books can be quite fantastic.

The only horror movie fanboy myth left to debunk is that “sequels suck”, or at least, studios focus on making A sequel as opposed to waiting to make GOOD sequels. This one is a little bit more slippery of a slope, seeing as the amount of sequels that are subjectively better than the original is an incredibly short list. In my opinion, the first example of a horror movie that comes to mind that surpassed its predecessor would be Rob Zombie’s The Devil’s Rejects. Despite the previous film, House of 1000 Corpses, having some really good stuff in it, I think Zombie spread his creative juices too thin and the film suffered from cuts and edits because of all the issues with the MPAA. The Devil’s Rejects took the three most engaging characters from the first movie, Otis (Bill Moseley), Baby (Sherri Moon Zombie), and Captain Spaulding (Sid Haig), and just followed their trail of death and destruction. As if that wasn’t enough, it added some other horror heavyweights like Ken Foree and Michael Berryman to add even more fuel to the fire. Again, in this Wolfman’s opinion, Evil Dead II more seamlessly blends horror with comedy than the movie that came before it, despite my love for the whole trilogy. The idea of all of society being in shambles due to a zombie outbreak is more terrifying to me than just trying to survive one night in a farm house surrounded by zombies, so I enjoy Dawn of the Dead more than Night of the Living Dead, and there are even others who prefer the third film, Day of the Dead, out of the entire franchise. Even though it’s only been a recent passion of mine, I’d also happily say that the story is a little bit more concise in Phantasm II than it is in the original, and I also enjoy the pacing of it more. This isn’t even to begin breaking into some of the franchises with at least five or six entries. If you ask anyone to rank their favorite Friday the 13th/Halloween/A Nightmare on Elm Street/Hellraiser movies, you’re going to get answers across the board. I’d say the first four Friday the 13th movies are each as entertaining as the next, Halloween III: Season of the Witch is my favorite of those sequels, and New Nightmare is my favorite Freddy Krueger sequel. With some newer franchises, like Saw or Final Destination, I’m sure you’ll find scattered responses on which sequels are better than others. I’d also say I like Paranormal Activity 3 more than I like Paranormal Activity 2, but neither are necessarily all that great. Closer to the sci-fi/horror end of the spectrum, there are plenty of people who enjoy Terminator 2: Judgement Day and Aliens more than the moves that came before them, and the classic example, stepping completely outside of horror, is the amount of people who enjoy The Empire Strikes Back more than Star Wars. Even though there are some movies that don’t need sequels, finding out that a part 3 or 7 or 10 is being released could mean the possibility of expanding the mythology a little bit to get something more entertaining than the movie that came directly before it.

Why am I now choosing to rant about trying to justify the value of remakes/adaptations/sequels? It was recently announced that Dan Trachtenberg would be directing a movie adaptation of the comic book series “Y: The Last Man”. Right alongside “Preacher”, I’d say that “Y” is one of my absolute favorites comic book series. The project has gone through various stages of development and rumors have been all over the place, but this is the first solid piece of information anyone has released. With the source material being so close to my heart, I never saw a reason to adapt it into any other medium, especially a film that would take years to make and only tell a fraction of the story. Even though Trachtenberg is getting some positive response to a fan film he made about the videogame “Portal”, most of the reactions were incredibly negative.The negative feedback wasn’t necessarily about the choice of director, but with evidence presenting itself that solidified a studio going forward to make this movie. This is where it ties back to my original point, which is that no matter how good something might look or how excited you might get over a project, the entire thing can be discredited if it’s a remake or an adaptation or a sequel to something people already connect with. It doesn’t seem to matter to most people the talent behind something when it’s much easier to judge it quickly and harshly. It seems like most members of any subculture, whether it be horror movies or comic books or videogames or (insert any subculture here), are going to be upset to see something that they consider to be “theirs” becoming more accessible to the general public. How many times have YOU been involved with or overheard a conversation about “The Walking Dead” TV series that involved the question of “Well do you read the comics?” Or, even better, “Do you read the graphic novels?” because “The Walking Dead” ISN’T a graphic novel and has merely been collected into trade paperbacks, but I digress. For those of us who have found acceptance and entertainment in something that’s slightly off the general public’s radar, we feel the need to grasp onto it tightly and not let it escape into the hands of the dreaded general public to enjoy. I understand being upset over not being a fan of the director attached to Y: The Last Man or not enjoying any of the actors involved in the remake of Evil Dead, but it seems like just the mere existence of different incarnations of things we already enjoy causes people to feel angry. I mentioned it earlier, but I hate, no, I absolutely LOATHE Rob Zombie’s remake of Halloween. When I hear people talk about it, whether they be horror fans of just members of the general public, rather than get angry at the fact that it was made, it reminds me of all the reasons why I love the original. These are people who might not have known about Michael Myers before seeing a relatively mainstream movie who might check out the original or maybe check out some of Zombie’s other, better films.

As sad as it might be to think about, the creators of these movies/books that we love so much have sold their souls a long time ago. There was a point where John Carpenter wasn’t the legend he is today and really needed money to make his movie. he was willing to sell the concepts and intellectual properties to make Halloween, so 35 years later, there’s not much he can complain about. Even this Evil Dead remake has some support from Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell, which isn’t something they needed to do, but felt they could do to help promote their legacy. Some directors spend the rest of their careers trying to forget about movies they wished they had never made, where others realize they have done things for paychecks as opposed to artistic integrity. If you focus all of your energy on fighting against the people who gave you the opportunity to create for doing something with the material THEY bought from YOU, you’ll just turn into Alan Moore. Not that there’s anything wrong with becoming a hermit/wizard creature, especially when you’re as talented as he is, but he’s more of an exception to the rule. I propose that when we see one of our favorite things being turned into someone else, instead of immediately shutting it down or calling out others for not knowing things are remakes/adaptations/sequels, we remember why we loved that original thing in the first place and hope that the people in charge of making it love it in the ways you love it. If not, don’t let a terrible incarnation soil your love for the core material and instead try to focus your energy on turning others who enjoy the more “mainstream” version towards the source material. The more people watching/reading/buying the good stuff, the more people there are taking an active part supporting what we love, the more opportunities we’ll have to be entertained by these things. Or, I don’t know, just complain about it on Twitter or something, you could do that too.

  • dustoff

    I agree completely that sequels/remakes/adaptations don’t automatically suck as a rule, it really shakes me up when friends of mine will pan a movie completely without having seen it, simply based on whether or not they know it was based on other material.
    The only issue I have with this article is that in the novel ‘Jaws’, Quint doesn’t survive – he drowns, in a pretty clear nod to Moby Dick.

    • dustoff

      Just wanted to come back and add – well thought out with some great examples given!

    • The Wolfman

      Huge oversight on the Quint thing. Sorry about that. I just remembered that the fates of Quint and Hooper are quite different in the book than they are in the movie. Thanks for pointing that out.

      • EvanDickson

        @dustoff @The_Wolfman fixed!!

  • DeathValzer

    A Suspiria remake is in pre-production last i heard and it makes me very worried to see how it unfolds… But i can understand how some filmmakers would want to re-introduce horror classics for younger viewers. Anyway well put Wolfman, keep up the good work.

    • The Wolfman

      Since I already mentioned The Thing and Maniac in this article as my favorites, the other three are Creepshow, Rosemary’s Baby, and Suspiria. Isabelle Fuhrman, the “little girl” from Orphan, has been cast as the lead. Fantastic choice, in my opinion.

      • divisionbell

        Agreed. If nothing else they have at least cast the right lead in Suspiria which is closer to Argentos original vision (a much younger age for the dancers). Excellent article Wolfman. Great examples and I couldn’t agree more. I admit to reacting the same as many others when I see something I love updated. Like Fright Night which was just so close to my heart. But I too have learned to stop worrying and give movies a chance. The 80s had some fantastic remakes. Even the Blob was just a ton of fun! And we had a solid resurgence with the Texas Chainsaw massacre remake and hills have eyes. Both were fantastic. And I’m a sucker for the new Friday the 13th. I think remakes can be a great thing in the right hands and with the right vision (evil dead looks amazing).

        Oh and nice call out to Phantasm 2. Loved that movie.

  • Cichy

    I hate when people are being snob about book/comic to movie adaptations. There’s always some asshole around who’s trying to one up everyone because “he read the book and it’s so much better.” It’s extremely hard to adapt those things to a movie or tv show and be 100% accurate. Some thing you don’t even want to adapt because it may not be appropriate. Like in case of the Walking Dead, in the book Carl basically murders a child with a knife. I can’t imagine a media reaction if that was in the TV show.

  • coldblood

    Mr Wolfman, I agree with you on almost all points but I would like to add an argument.

    Here’s MY issue with all these remakes and sequels: They get the most money and advertising to get them to the public while other great original films (like The Revenant and Trick r’ Treat)sit around on shelves for years.

    It’s like we always have to wait a long time for greatness but we have crap thrown in our faces very quickly and with an annoying onslaught of tv commercials and internet pop-ups.

    You’re Next was on the film festival circuit two years ago and we have to wait until August to may be finally see it.

    These remakes and sequels do make money otherwise they wouldn’t keep making them. And sometimes an original, edgy horror release tanks in the theaters (like Slither).

    But every now and then a risk pays off – like Cabin In The Woods & Paranormal Activity (both films were shelved for 3 years before release). Which both did well because they put money and advertising behind them. People won’t go see a film they don’t know about.

    What I’m stating is this: they can keep the remakes and sequels coming for the money, but give us die-hards our good stuff too without the long ass wait. And these studios should be more willing to take risks because horror movies are cheap to make.

    And, most importantly, nobody thought that Paranormal Activity, Saw, or Cabin In The Woods would be big hits when they were released. And movie buffs know they didn’t think Jaws or Alien would be hits either. May be these studio execs aren’t always right about ‘what we want to see’.

    If it’s too intense for theaters, give it to us quickly on VOD. Why is it that the Human Centipede movies are the only ones that get on VOD fast. Yet I have to wait until ‘sometime this summer’ to see Here Comes The Devil.

    Studio execs should take more chances with the big buck ad treatment to original movies more often. Paranormal Activity costs 15 thousand to make and made 100 million. Its worth the risk guys.

    ps. I do admit that the new Evil Dead and Maniac remakes and S-VHS look awesome. I’m behind them 100%.

    pss. I don’t care what anybody thinks, I thought The Poughkeepsie Tapes was an incredible and creepy as hell horror movie. Shame on MGM for screwing up the release of that one.

    psss. I wasn’t really complaining about the Human Centipede movies because I like them alot. But there are others that are just as good or better that we shouldn’t have to wait so long to see.

    • divisionbell

      I do agree and I have been itching to see Poughkeepsie Tapes for a long time now.

    • EvanDickson

      @coldblood re: YOU’RE NEXT – you will definitely get to see it. I think Lionsgate held it to August so they could give it as wide a release as possible. In this instance it’s not about keep great stuff away from you guys – but letting as many as people as possible finally see it.

      It’s my understanding that the Lionsgate/Summit merger pushed it back. All the sudden one studio had two studios’ worth of movies to release.

      • coldblood

        @EvanDickson re:YOU’RE NEXT – I know what you’re saying buddy, but I was hoping that Lionsgate would have released it last October as was originally planned.

        Paramount released Paranormal Activity to take on the Saw franchise and it did great.

        This was supposed to be Lionsgate’s movie to kick Paranormal Activity’s ass back.

        You’re Next got second place for the Audience Award at the Toronto Film Festival two years ago – right behind The Raid and ahead of God Bless America – which have been both been released.

        We’ve waited long enough, but I know there’s nothing I can do. :-)

        • EvanDickson

          @coldblood – yeah I would have liked to have been able to see it again sooner, but – to be fair – I don’t know if it was ever actually scheduled for October. I think that was wishful thinking etc..

    • The Wolfman

      I also think that “Hollywood” needs to release movies that are relatively safe bets for them to make money on. Cashing in on the name of something with an established fanbase is much easier than something new. Also, even though genre fans for the most part loved Cabin in the Woods, it didn’t do that well financially with $42 million. Even though we (the horror community) would love to see more good horror films released thetrically, that doesn’t mean it’s not out there. Just last night I showed a friend Cabin in the Woods and V/H/S, neither of which he had heard of, and he absolutely loved them. I also wish You’re Next was coming out sooner!

      • WalkingDeadGuy

        Very true, the nostalgic element plays a big part with audiences; I’m a sucker for anything that is related to/resembles something I grew up watching as a kid, wether it be sequel, remake, spin-off, or adaptation. With that being said, I’m a supporter of all horror, of course.

        If I’m on the fence about watching a movie, I read reviews from critics I’ve grown to trust. Sadly, non movie buffs rather race to the movies for trash like ‘Transformers 3′ (I know quite a bit of people who went to see it in the theater even though they admitted the first 2 weren’t very good films :-/), yet films like ‘Let me in’ go unnoticed.

        It’s always bad when a “good” movie (be it original or remake) is not well received by audiences. Its also upsetting to think people with new/original ideas can’t get their films made because it’s not a “sure bet”. Word of mouth and good marketing is key, just look at ‘PA’ and ‘Insidious’. Horror audiences will seek out original good horror films that may not receive the most publicity, the general public usually will not, sad but true.

  • Sick_skwerl

    Excellent points… you’re completely right, most subcultures are full of elitists and/or purists, even if they don’t want to admit it. Just for laughs, I want to screen a trailer for a ‘Jaws’ remake at Sundance and watch the audience lose it like someone just opened the Ark of the Covenant.

  • joesey

    remakes wouldn’t be some bad if directors wouldn’t let hollywood execs bully them into turning their ideas into horseshit

  • Trevor Hodge

    The Evil Dead trailers are rekindling my hope that Hollywood doesn’t always get it wrong. Same with Maniac. That modern horror doesn’t always have to be mediocre, cliched, watered-down, or mindlessly mean-spirited.

  • yellowsicktoad

    For a looong time I hated the thought of remakes, but time have showed the value of some of them. Here are some of MY favorites:

    The Thing, The Fly, The Hill Have Eyes, Dawn Of The Dead, (even) Amityville Horror, Let The Right One In, ( parts of) Halloween, Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes and 12 Monkeys (It’s kinda like a remake actually).

    …and I have high high hopes for Carrie and especially Maniac and top of the cake: Evil Dead.

  • ThunderDragoon

    You loathe the Halloween remake and I loathe Halloween III. Different strokes for different folks lol.

    • divisionbell

      I always thought Halloween III was terrible. The original and the second made a great pair. I admit I liked parts of the remake (after he got his mask and knife back) but boy was that a missed opportunity. There were moments when I saw the potential of what a Halloween remake could have been.

      All in all, I think a remake can almost always have potential in the right hands. We shall see what the future holds.

  • diapers

    Some remakes are so different from their source that they can be counted as almost different films altogether. Some are shot by shot remakes (I’m thinking of Funny Games). I tend to like remakes of the former variety… what people seem to have coined as more of a “re-imagining”. Indeed The Thing (1982) is arguably much different from The Thing from Another World.

    • The Wolfman

      And then you had something like The Thing (2010) where they try to recreate Carpenter’s version, with that whole tooth inspection thing. Just one of the reasons why I felt that movie missed the mark.

      • djblack1313

        i would love to have seen THE THING 2011 with the original fx (non-CGI) stuff. sorry, i know this isn’t about CGI. just wanted to chime in here! LOL. :)

        • The Wolfman

          Sorry, 2011, not 2010. From what I saw/heard was that they actually shot a lot of it with the practical effects and then just wasted a whole bunch of money by covering those effects up with the CGI garbage.

          • djblack1313

            LOL. no worries, Wolfman (i always for get the date on that movie too!). yeah, it pains me greatly that they covered up the practical fx work with cheesy CGI.

        • diapers

          Yessir, I would devour an alternative practical cut of the 2011 film, if one were put together. Really really went in wanting to like it.

          • djblack1313

            diapers, me too! i just re-watched the movie again last night and it’s enjoyable even with the god awful CGI/creature design (WAY too silly looking) but i’d so love a workprint of the movie pre-CGI. they should release one. i’d happily buy it (and not get it other ways! LOL) to show that i support good practical fx work.

  • undertaker78

    Very well-written article. You raise many interesting points. I, too, am open-minded enough to give a remake/sequel/adaptation a chance. My philosophy is: If you don’t like the idea of a movie being remade, then don’t and see it or give it any attention.

    It annoys me when others complain about a movie before they see it or before it’s even made. These “hipster” individuals won’t allow themselves to enjoy any remake or adaptation. When the film is released however, they’re the first people in line at the theatre. These are also the same people who go on message boards and endlessly bash this movie that they supposedly have no use for.

    I don’t want to think of a world without Carpenter’s The Thing, Romero’s Dawn of the Dead, or Kaufman’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

  • Mako

    To Evan:
    As someone who works in Hollywood on Big Features… I want to point something out to you and your assessment about Hollywood. Quote: “I don’t think the problem that people have with remakes/adaptations/sequels is that they typically aren’t very good, but rather that these movies seem to be an acknowledgement of the lack of ideas that Hollywood has when it comes to the horror genre.”

    I just want to be clear – there are hundreds of original and great scripts out there. So it’s not even so much about the lack of ideas… it’s about studios and production companies being apprehensive about backing an unknown product. It sometimes takes names – like Joss Whedon (Cabin In The Woods), Guillermo Del Toro (Mama) and Steven Spielberg (Paranormal Activity) to give these horror movies a chance. Without them helping drive these projects in some way – we would maybe have never heard of them like we do now.

    Remakes (in my opinion) are often the bi-product of a studio or production company wanting to cash in on a previously known commodity. You could say that’s why studios use big name stars to try and sell original movies (Tom Cruise). Or why popular books becomes popular movies (Twilight). Sometimes you get a director who is passionate about the source material and ends up making a pretty damn good remake or adaptation (John Carpenter-The Thing). And then you get some that don’t (Rob Zombie-Halloween). I personally do not want to see a remake of what many consider a “classic”. “Halloween” the original movie is a “classic” to most. “Jaws” is a “classic” to most.

    I also am an independent film maker – so I know the frustration of trying to get original content made – and being turned away the majority of the time – because of the fear of unestablished – original ideas. Without a major name backing you – it’s almost impossible to be recognized – and therefor – the masses have no idea your movie even exists (unless it has a wider release). It’s the Catch 22 of the industry and why there seems to always be a lack of original ideas.

    Just my 2 cents :)

    • The Wolfman

      That would be to me, not to Evan. I also mentioned in a comment a few above yours that I know “Hollywood” needs to get the most out of their investment, which is why they make films out of known franchises. Also, I use the term “Hollywood” just to refer to bigger studios, not all studios making films.

      • Mako

        Thanks Wolfman. Just noticed that. Meant for you – but I put Evan by mistake.

  • Canucklehead

    In tough economic times no one wants to take chances so studios would rather play it safe and look for remakes and/or franchises that can sell not only movie tickets but lunch boxes and toys and all that other crap. Remaking a classic without a new take or something to offer is just cheap hackery and the ones you praise for the most part do just that.

  • nixdad

    OK. I have to do this. WHY is ’81 Evil Dead a “Classic”?
    How is it this movie lands on everyone’s “favorite” list? Was it because of the stupidity? The ridiculous effects? Atrocious acting? I actually FORCED myself to watch the DVD less than a week ago and cannot recall a time in my life I would have found this scary OR funny. I couldn’t sleep the entire night after seeing the original Halloween. Much the same with the original Nightmare and I was 17 when I saw it. I have high hopes for the remake this year, but have to say, at the risk of utter blasphemy, that I found the original awful.

  • LaughingMagician

    What irks me is the treasure trove of awesome horror comics from DC’s Vertigo imprint that would be awesome as indie releases (or movies PERIOD, but I’m not even gonna get into that mess right now), yet every single one of them is owned by AOL Time Warner. Before the comic book movie craze was in full swing, Constantine meandered into existence. Mind you, the movie inspired me to read the comics, and I still say it wasn’t terrible as an adaptation but lacked heavily in the horror department. It seems the only hope for those titles as films lies with Guillermo del Toro’s take on the new 52’s Justice League Dark (which I’m pleased to say he’s taken creative liberties with), which so far sounds like a much more accurate representation of the adult nature of those stories. IF the movie is picked up (which it’s looking like it will due to a lack of organization in putting together a Justice League movie first) and can do well at the box office, it open doors to individual Swamp Thing and Hellblazer movies and eventually (fingers crossed) Sandman, Lucifer, and American Vampire. If any of these can be accomplished, I probably wouldn’t mind how they’re done and would enjoy seeing some of my favorite stories played out in live action; however, I would hate to see them with the standard comic book treatment, as these are horror titles and should be adapted as such. I can’t help but use Californication to illustrate this: Hank Moody’s dark and soulful story ‘God Hates Us All’ is turned into the trashy rom-com ‘A Crazy Little Thing Called Love’. Of course, we are talking about Warner, they’re going to do whatever makes the most money. It’s a damn shame that horror tends to not do as well.