[Editorial] Are Horror Remakes Dead?

carrie-banner

I don’t automatically hate remakes. Most of you know that I love the 2009 Friday The 13th (probably because it feels more like an organic extension of the franchise made by people who love it rather than a head-to-toe studio revamping). I also really liked a lot about Evil Dead last year. While it certainly “felt” more like a remake tun F13, the makeup and gore were outstanding and its 2nd and 3rd acts did the trick for me, especially when watching it with an audience.

Incidentally, it looks like it turned a profit. At the very least I don’t think it lost money with a worldwide gross of almost $100M on a $17M budget (with a promotional campaign that probably cost about the same). Going back a decade the American version of The Ring, the 2003 Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the 2004 Dawn Of The Dead all generated handsome profits and helped kick off a remake boom whose aftershocks are still being felt today. But, like aftershocks, the rumblings have been growing softer and softer to the point where now they seem downright faint.

That’s not to say that studios (and indies, to be fair) aren’t generating remakes at the same steady clip they’ve been maintaining over the past 10 years, but audiences sure do seem to be growing weary of them. Carrie did *okay*, but certainly wasn’t the hit it needed to be. The latest version of The Thing was a money loser. Fright Night managed to overcome its impressive roster of talent in a plunge to the bottom of the box office. Granted, the fact that those movies range from “not great” to “terrible” surely has something to do with it, but audiences are more ready than ever to reject these films.

One of the issues is that the properties currently being remade (or that have yet to be re-approached) fall into sort of an undesirable valley. The originals are either untouchably good (Carrie, OldBoy and the upcoming Poltergeist) or obscure enough (also OldBoy) to undercut the brand recognition that fuels the studios’ fondness for these endeavors. Which has me wondering, what’s the point of it all now?

The film industry is one giant game of “let’s not get fired.” Risk isn’t encouraged. Ambitious decisions that end in failure are obviously punished, but so are ambitious decisions that end in success. There are more than a few execs that lost their jobs somewhere between saying “yes” to a project and that project becoming an unexpected success. The business has always been like this but increasing vertical integration and a crumbling home video market have exacerbated it. That’s one of the reasons remakes are so prevalent, the fact that there’s a brand being exploited exists as a shield. It seems like the right thing to do. Even when things don’t work out there’s less finger pointing because it was the “right call at the time.”*

But is that still the case? Evil Dead aside I can’t think of a recent studio horror remake that’s been an unmitigated success. At this point most of them seem to lose money theatrically with little hope of recouping later on given the dwindling nature of physical media and the modest royalty rates of streaming platforms. Artistically many of them are completely bankrupt, teetering between safe decisions in the name of brand maintenance and milquetoast updating for modern audiences, so there’s no real incentive for anyone to “discover” them after that opening weekend window has passed.

I’m sure we’re all lucky that I don’t actually run a studio. There are many aspects of the business that I’m sure I’m completely ignorant of (evidence of this may be apparent in this very article). But if I did run a studio I would think twice before seeking these kinds of properties out right about now. I’m not sure they make the safe shields they used to, and we may just be at the end of an era. Which, all things considered, may not be such a bad thing.

*If you’ve ever played Blackjack you know how truly annoying this phrase is.

 
  • Kirkio

    Evil Dead and The Thing weren’t remakes as such, more reimaginings and The Thing was essentially a prequel. The good thing about reimagining a film is that you give people a fresh look at the original in different settings, or with different characters or a tweaked story. I loved Evil Dead, The Thing, Maniac to name a few because I approached them as a fan of the originals hoping for something fresh and got what I wanted.

    The problem with remaking is that it’s all for the wrong reasons. If it isn’t just the money, it’s to tie in to a new fanbase, add sex appeal or dumb down a film for a different audience. They can remake any Asian or European film for an American audience and it’ll never have the same appeal for me, because European horror is freakish and brutal and Asian horror is weird as hell, that’s why I like them. Same goes for taking a dated, classic film like Carrie, adding a charismatic popular actress like Chloe Moretz and marketing it with seductive photography.

    I could go on about this for hours, I’ve probably totally lost my original point, but eh. One day I heard a rumour that Twilight directors planned to remake Martyrs with Kristen Stewart… I don’t think I ever recovered from that.

    • AgainstMe

      I couldn’t agree with you more Kirkio. The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre is still 10 times freakier than any of its remakes, and Asian remakes, while some are okay, lose that gritty and freakish feel when Hollywood gets a hold of them. I equate it to when FX shows a movie and changes all of the curse words. The bottom line is that in most instances a remake is not necessary. If the original film is good enough to ‘warrant’ a remake, then it does not need one (what a conundrum). But re-imaginings, as you put it, do offer more. Relating to this point, I certainly enjoyed the same films you mention.

    • wnio

      There are a few examples of American horror remakes that are clearly better than their foreign counterparts.
      - The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.
      - The Ring / Ringu
      - The Grudge / Ju-on

      But I agree they usually market them / make them in the worst way possible.

    • djblack1313

      @Kirkio, the THE THING 2011 was indeed a remake. god awful CGI (and many of the new creature designs) aside, i thought the movie was pretty decent, but it was in fact a remake. IMO. it added a couple of things but felt like the same but way lesser version of the amazing Carpenter film.

      • MadPowerBomber

        It wasn’t a remake. It’s a prequel. It’s about the Swedish camp that the Americans find in the original. That’s why the 2011 version ends with a helicopter chasing a dog, and the original begins with a helicopter chasing a dog.

        • mobstar67

          i agree..its clearly a prequel so if you are a fan of the original this film should of been perfect.. actually getting to see what set the whole story in motion at the Swedish camp..its just unfortunate that the CGI was weak and the characters were not as interesting as the Carpenter classic..But i wouldnt call this prequel a bad film..its a nice companion piece to add to the original even if it doesnt measure up..after all not many films will measure up too Thing 81 ..

          • Evil_Flip

            I’m siding with djblack1313 on this one. Sure it was disguised as a prequel (mainly only by adding the dog scene, during the bloody credits no less) but the new thing just rehashed stuff from the original while only bringing a pair of tits to the table (replacing the blood with the fillings test isn’t really something new). I don’t hate the new movie though, but I do hate what they did to the great looking practical effects by ADI.

          • juice1701

            I couldn’t agree more with you mobstar67. You hit it right on the money. It was a very good prequel for the original. The CGI was tacky and the characters may not have been as interesting, but it was about as good a prequel as you will get. Not only did it lead you right into the original, but it also made all the right connections right down to the body they found in the ice with the two heads mushed together. I don’t think it missed a beat. And I am looking forward to the sequel of the original to make a nice trilogy.

    • huntermc

      A Martyrs remake? Hopefully we’ll at least get to see Kristen Stewart skinned alive.

  • ggium24

    The only good thing in Texas Chainsaw 3D was my bff Alexandra Daddario (OMG Did you see her in True Detective? SO HOT)

  • Steelgohst

    Lets not forget that there is a generation or two out there now who will never see the originals, simply because the “Don’t like old films” (I know someone like that *rolls eyes*) so for them, our remakes become their originals.

    • EvilHead1981

      That’s a problem, IMO. Let their “originals” be ORIGINAL movies, not remade versions of original movies. Saw, can rally for, despite the series being worn thing. Paranormal Activity too. Those are ORIGINAL movies that were, originally, new takes on horrific ideas that weren’t based on classic franchises “just for the sake of selling out”. A what happened? Despite not being attached to established franchises, still made a pop cultural sweeping. I think that is something that can ONLY be achieved with original movies. It’s rare(not impossible, but rare) that you get a remake that has enough strength behind it to establish itself into pop cultural relevancy(especially more than the original).

      • djblack1313

        @EvilHead1981, when you bring up PARANORMAL ACTIVITY not one of the “just for the sake of selling out”, are you referring to just the first film or all the 100% schlocky sequels?

        • mobstar67

          i might be in the minority here but i liked the Paranormal Activity sequels..I love the tension that these movies bring to the table..zero gore and all about a building tension..i find that truly scary , not that i dont mind a gore fest now and again either…I liked the second film better than the first and was somewhat happy with the next two films (parts 3 & 4) for the most part though i have yet to see the newest installment but I’m looking forward to it..

  • wnio

    They are not dead simply because a few recent movies have misfired.

    Also, there are NO classic horror movies that are “too good” to be remade. That’s just nostalgia talking. Does anyone really think Paul Thomas Anderson couldn’t top Kubrick’s Shining?

    De Palmas Carrie is great sure, but it hasn’t aged well. Kimberly Price had some creative differences, but the studios need to grab some heavier hitters, imagine Carrie made by Refn, that would absolutely kickass even with Moretz.

    Remaking Oldboy wasn’t the fault of the original being too good, because its actually just an OK film besides some style points – rather it was too soon. And again, they chose a over matched director.

    Points should be noted for the Evil Dead remake. They gave a new director the blessing, *and* creative control to do his own thing. You can tell there is some actual love going into the film. The marketing helped quite a bit as well, and let’s be honest its probably the better movie despite different genres. If you don’t give that freedom you might end up with Alien3.

    • djblack1313

      @wnio, i respectfully disagree. some movies are indeed too good/too iconic to remake. a JAWS or THE EXORCIST (for example) remake will not work. period. if by any small chance they were attempted by the best director in the world, it would still just end up being a lesser movie. i can only see (just using those 2 movies as examples) them being considered amazing to those who’ve never seen the originals or those who think only movies with the high polished (non-16 millimeter film) cinematography, not so great CGI (with JAWS you know they’d do that), etc, etc. i keep coming across (online) some young people who claim they WILL NOT watch any movie made before 1998 (or any similar year)!! crazy, huh? :)

      • wnio

        Its true that some young people wont watch older movies, but they probably will once they themselves get older.

        I still disagree that some classic movies cant be remade, (especially horror movies.)

      • mobstar67

        DJblack.. your point on Jaws is spot on..
        can you imagine a Jaws reboot shot on the green screen with those CGI sharks from Deep Blue Sea.. then there would be the big studio casting the likes of Ryan Reynolds or a Jake Gylenhall but i could see it going even darker and casting the Brody character as a female maybe a Sandra Bullock or a Halle Berry..
        this is the stuff of true nightmare!!!!
        When Spielburg captured Jaws on film the stars and universe were in complete allignment… Schieder, Dreyfuss and Shaw nailed it in way that could never be recaptured..
        rebooting this film would be a huge mistake…

    • Jesse Sikora

      I don’t think anyone including Paul Thomas Anderson could top Kubrick’s Shining. It was perfectly made with a perfect cast.

  • YaegerTheArcticWolf

    I thought the Carrie remake was great right up until the very end, that vagina hand was so stupid XD

  • Dr. Detfink

    With a good but not great film, American Hustle being a period piece about the 70s nominated for Best Picture, I don’t understand what “Hasn’t aged well” means. So it’s ok if someone does a film in a specific time like the Conjuring but a film that was actually made in the time it was made in, doesn’t work? Are we that ADD that we can’t sit through the pacing of a film made in the 60s and 70s? Don’t watch a Paul Thomas Anderson film then.

    The problem with most hollywood remakes is the fact, they aren’t made to make modest coin like their predecessor. Like the city of Portland they’re artificially built to be hip with investors and agents galore for the disposable income of the $14-20 a ticket generation using: One WB star of the month, a credible name brand, a tithe to Samuel L. Jackson, and CGI to make a few hundred million.

    Now, the revival of cheap horror is upon us. Look at Paranormal Activity, Insidious, The Conjuring, and I guarantee you in 10 yrs I’ll read another obnoxious statement, “Paranormal Activity didn’t age well like the Blair Project.” The remake was better. Wow, really? I’m so surprised.

    • wnio

      “Hasn’t aged well,” has nothing to do with the time period the movie is set or actually filmed in. It only means that since its release it looks worse or isn’t as relevant as other films filmed during that time frame.

      For instance aged well… Citizen Kane and aged poorly… How Green Was My Valley. Both filmed the same year.

  • Darkness69

    I have absolutely no problem with a remake or re-whatever, as long as it’s done with love and respect to the original AND if it really adds something new to the original story. Granted,this might be impossible to find in Hollywood, but I found the new Evil Dead really good, which makes me hope that they won’t just butcher every classic out there. Then again, reading the news on the Crow remake just makes me want to go offline for about 3 years or so.

    • djblack1313

      @Darkness69, i agree! the CARRIE remake, while not terrible, offered almost nothing new and was basically a nearly identical redo of De Palma’s masterpiece (which i actually think still holds up incredibly well today). the only part of the CARRIE remake that i LOVED and that i thought was better than the original was Carrie, Chris, Billy & muscle car’s final confrontation. Chris’s death was wonderfully brutal and awesomely shot. but everything else was done already.

      p.s. regarding that remake, i thought they promised us the town’s destruction by Carrie (at least that would have been something new to the table)…but alas it never came to be.

      • Darkness69

        Your memory serves you well, @djblack1313! Now that you’ve mentioned it, I also remember something about that big ass destruction they were raving about (and didn’t the director use some lame word to describe everything? I seem to vaguely remember something like that too), and I agree – the original aged quite well in my opinion too. They just simply could’ve leave it the way it is and take another SK book that hasn’t been filmed yet – not that too many of those are around, but still. You know, if they start tampering around The Dead Zone, I’ll seriously have to start a boycott or something. All these remakes sometimes seem to say is: “Your sacred film sucks, but we’re merciful, so we want to give you a way better movie, with tons of special effects and you only need to pay 20 bucks to see it!”

  • thedragon803

    There’s no real mystery as to why these remakes are failing. It’s the same reason why “too big to fail” businesses are (SURPRISE!) failing, why Congress continues to lose approval points, why Republicans continue to lose elections. It’s because wealthy old men are running the show and live in billion-dollar bubbles of ignorance. They don’t realize or understand that the world around them is changing and they refuse to change their models of business to adjust.

    Thanks to technology, so many things that affect how well entertainment properties are going to do is constantly shifting. Tastes, trends, demographics, methods of distribution, economics, etc. Simply churning out the same crappy remakes, sequels, and romantic comedies is not working and who does the entertainment industry blame? Piracy. They continuously lobby to our government to get new restrictions passed and the public runs circles around them because the floodgates have already been opened. The consumers (at least a great number of them) have spoken and have decreed that we will not pay for subpar entertainment any longer. And the downward spiral is going to continue and I love it. The independent film industry, online streaming, the open exchange of media across multiple outlets is ripping the old Hollywood apart and from the ashes, something better has to come. It’s just a bitch getting there…

  • Neilg888

    I have to say, this has been one of the better conversations I have read! I agree with the Dr. on this one. Most remakes (and sequels for that matter), are formulaic. “WB star of the month, a credible name brand, a tithe to Samuel L. Jackson, and CGI to make a few hundred million.”

    I think the reason I don’t like most remakes is because I have an emotional connection to the original and the studio is infringing on that connection to create something sub par whether it be for money or to get a new generation or to give an aging actress a job again… whatever… Bottom line is the studio is watching their bottom line. They will happily distort my memory and feelings of an original in order to milk a “proven” movie for a new generation. They remake movies because, in most cases, the original was a success whether it be financially or a cult following or a brand. They want to continue that success, even if, in my mind, the remake was not a success. If they made a few extra bucks though…

    Bad Remakes: Halloween, The Thing (which is actually a remake), The Fog, Assault on 13, (ok, just stop remaking Carpenter!!), Elm Street, Fun with Dick and Jane, Karate Kid, House of Wax…

    Good remakes: Evil Dead, Ocean’s 11, Cape Fear, Dawn of the Dead, The Departed, Fatal Attraction, Insomnia, Italian Job, Secret Life of Walter Mitty…

    And please don’t slap a new name on it and say it’s not a remake, i.e. Rear Window v. Disturbia. Here’s a scary thought – in 2012, there were 50 remakes that were announced for 2013/2014!! When they start remaking Jaws, Back to the Future, Indiana Jones, Lethal Weapons, Die Hards, that’s when I’ll have issues. But again, this is all a matter of opinion!

  • Krug09

    i have been thinking about this too. remakes may slow down (because they are running out of remakes) but no matter how hard these remakes flop they will still come out. every horror and non horrors will be remade or have squeals and imo people just need to shut up and deal with. simply dont watch the remake. it doesnt bother me at all but it actually pisses me off to see people get pissed about a remake. if it sucks then we always have the awesome original… but idk

  • jaxx367

    The “remake” is no longer just a trend. It’s become part of Hollywood. It’s become essential. Not just on the big screen but on television as well. There are many more remakes to come weather we like it or not. I’m not against remakes but I love the idea of re-imagining a franchise or film. Sure there are alot of flop remakes but just as well there are plenty of great remakes out there also. It really does take a great filmmaker to not just simply remake a film but to truly re-imagine it and bring new life to his or her project. There are truly great remakes out there not just necessarily in the horror genre. I’m very exited to see what classics will be re-imagined in the coming years. Weather I end up liking the film or not, I love the anticipation. And also a really kick-ass trailer.

  • Robert Morris

    I love most remakes simply because I see them do a lot with the original and try to either re-imagine it or maybe tweek the story a tiny bit. For example, I hear Rob Zombie’s Halloween get a lot of crap because it gave Micheal a back story and made him less boogie man and more simple psychopath. But to me, that is all he really was in the original. I love both renditions of the film. Now the second one was horrible and I admit that but the first remake was pretty good.

    I hear people say that Carrie was almost an exact replica of the original and I gotta say that until Carrie goes ballistic, you are right. But from the point when she goes crazy to Chris’s death, I think it was better. Moretz IMO just gave off that perfect aura of “I am fucking done with these people” after she lost it. My only complaint is the same I have in EVERY Carrie film. And that is Carrie is too pretty (being a fan of the book as well).

    People really need to stop comparing remakes to originals because they usually have different directors with different ideas. See them less as remakes and more as entirely new movies. I find nostalgia kills so many good movies because people want the same magic they felt when they were a kid and watched an original. But that is just my opinion.

  • Primeus

    I am ok with remakes. However remake a bad movie and make it better. Don’t remake a classic because you are going to fail. Remaking Halloween, Psycho, The Omen, The Exorcist ect.. are just setting yourself up for failure. You can not do anything but ruin those films because they are perfect for the time/error they were made in.

    F13 remake worked because the original F13 isn’t a great movie. It’s actually pretty bad, and wouldn’t get half the recognition that it has received over the years if not for the fact that it spawned Jason.

    I think the F13 remaked worked for the same reason that the TCM remaked worked. TCM is just cheesy. It might have been scary back when it was made but the entire movie is ridiculous, and leatherface isn’t so much scary as he is a complete clown. I thought they made him far more terrifying in the remake compared to in the original film.

    Carrie was trash and a disgrace to the original film. Sissy Spacek got nominated for a Oscar for her performance in that movie and was the first person to be nominated for Best Actress in a horror film for the Oscars.

    Sorry but Moretz is a decent actress but she didn’t even come close to pulling off what Spacek did in that film. No more then Scout was able to bring any justice to the Lorie Strode character.

    Remake BAD MOVIES and make them better. Don’t remake classics you are just setting yourself up for failure.

  • jaxx367

    Let’s be fair here on Carrie. The original was great and I love it, but it was very over the top and dramatic. The remake shows us an actual teenager that’s getting abused and mentally tortured. The remake might not be as grounbreaking as the original but the depiction of the bullied teenage girl is very real in the remake unlike the original. Sissy is a great actress but her role was very theatrical. Even in that time I don’t believe she deserved an Oscar nod. I also love that they gave more depth to the character of Chris. It made her death seem actually very brutal and disturbing. Awsome remake, I loved it

  • scottyvoorhees

    The remake of Carrie centers more on the effect bullying can have on people… not saying all kids are going to blow up their school and off the bastards who messed with them. But you get the idea. I also happen to think Chloe Grace Moretz did a great job playing the victim in this remake.
    Too go into other remakes… To the above people who bashed the Evil Dead remake. Give it a rest. It was a decent movie. Imagine if there was no 80′s version to go on. People would be praising it for it’s originality and brilliant writing.
    Jaws ever gets remade, dig me a hole and chuck me in. No one beats Scheider, Dreyfuss and Shaw telling their stories and singing that song on the boat… “I think you’re gonna need a bigger boat,” one of my favorite lines from any movie.
    Remakes and/or reimagings that sucked: Nightmare on Elm Street definitely tops the list. It’s hard to see anyone else playing Freddy besides Robert Englund. And Rooney Mara made a horrid Nancy. They could’ve cast that role to someone else, hell, anyone else and it would’ve been better.
    If they remake Martyrs with Kristen Stewart, I will be standing in-line just to see her get skinned and die. But I can’t see it being any good.
    Did anyone else like “Let Me In”? I thought it was good. Not as good as it’s Swedish counterpart. But not a bad effort non the less.

  • pyrepunk

    Personally I don’t think remakes are dead. It’s essentially how they remake them that is F’ing up the whole idea. Yes I am a huge fan of the Evil Dead reboot, but they did everything right in the reboot imo, it didn’t feel as though they were trying to top the original and instead gave it a fitting place next to the original. I thought that the Mother’s Day remake was actually good and most of the general movie watching pop. have never heard of it. A non-horror film was The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, I loved the novels and the original films, I though the remake was absolutely great, but people over here didn’t like it at all, well at least from what I could tell. I think the thing with foreign remakes is that there are things that get lost in translation, Western audiences aren’t going to enjoy what another culture does and they definitely aren’t going to read subtitles. Anyways I think a lot of it is engagement, look at movies like The Purge (Not a remake) but it had a great idea and they marketed that idea and the movie was one of the worst in recent memories to me. It even did the home invasion part all wrong. But these companies market their films in all the wrong way, and while they market these terrible films and remakes that they try to make look better than the original, if they’d market something with a bit of originality itself then they’d have a lot more hits. Here’s a list of remakes that I think were good:
    Pulse
    Mother’s Day
    Evil Dead
    Piranha
    I Spit on Your Grave
    Maniac
    Dawn of the Dead
    Sorority Row (yeah I liked that one)
    Silent House
    We Are What We Are
    Night of the Demons
    The Last House on the Left
    The Hills Have Eyes
    Let Me In
    The Crazies
    Funny Games
    Black Christmas

    I mean you might not agree with a few or all on this list but you have to admit some of these were great and you have to remember that some of us are young, really young, and have never seen the originals well at least didn’t see them until before or after noticing the remake. Bottom line is we didn’t get to watch the original films in their prime, but hell is still enjoy some of the older films while enjoying the new ones and (some of) the remakes.

  • Nothing333

    As horror fans we will be lucky if remakes are dead. I do believe remakes can be done well (the 80s thing being an example) ok (this would be Evil Dead IMO a basic workmanship copy that sucked all the weirdness out and presented a adequate mainstream version to cash in on) and bad (the recent Thing remake, Friday the 13th, Carrie, etc. I’m sick of teenager-izing everything for modern audiences they deserve their own nostalgia). But overall the onslaught of remakes have been a detriment to the genre as in there were just too many and a lack of original work.

  • JAYSAW

    The fact is, remakes/ re-imaginings what ever you want to call them will never be truly dead. Hell, they’ve been around since the dawn of cinema. Especially with horror films. No matter what the Bram stoker estate says ‘Nosferatu’ was the first vampire adaptation of ‘Dracula’ illegally of course but still. So that makes Universal’s a “remake/re-imagining”. Here’s some more. Wes craven’s ‘Last house on the left’- an English version pretty much of ‘The virgin spring’ by Bergman. House of wax- Paris Hilton version- double remake because Vincent Price’s film was a remake of ‘The mystery of the Black museum’.
    An example of a re-imagining to me was Wes craven’s the ‘Hills have eyes’. How you say? Its partly based on the legend of Sawney Bean, but fours years before Cravens effort, There was ‘Raw Meat’ by Gary Sherman. Sherman’s is less known and Craven’s idea of the legend gives it a more universal appeal as it were. Not saying that was where Craven got the idea because i don’t think he did.

    Remakes/re imagining’s will always be around, you just got to ask yourself, will i go watch it?

  • JAYSAW

    The fact is, remakes/ re-imaginings what ever you want to call them will never be truly dead. Hell, they’ve been around since the dawn of cinema. Especially with horror films. No matter what the Bram stoker estate says ‘Nosferatu’ was the first vampire adaptation of ‘Dracula’ illegally of course but still. So that makes Universal’s a “remake/re-imagining”. Here’s some more. Wes craven’s ‘Last house on the left’- an English version pretty much of ‘The virgin spring’ by Bergman. House of wax- Paris Hilton version- double remake because Vincent Price’s film was a remake of ‘The mystery of the Black museum’.
    An example of a re-imagining to me was Wes craven’s the ‘Hills have eyes’. How you say? Its partly based on the legend of Sawney Bean, but fours years before Cravens effort, There was ‘Raw Meat’ by Gary Sherman. Sherman’s is less known and Craven’s idea of the legend gives it a more universal appeal as it were. Not saying that was where Craven got the idea because i don’t think he did.

    Remakes/re imagining’s will always be around, you just got to ask yourself, will i go watch it?

    This is just the way i see it mind you…