I am a fan of old horror movies but it seems as though someone bought the rights to a bunch of classics and decided to slaughter them.

Off the top of my head:

When A Stranger calls:
The original Stranger was made in 1979 and back in the day it was a major twist (wont spoil it), however the 2006 version is one of the worst movies I have had the misfortune of watching. When compared to other great horror movies of the age (Wolf Creek, Saw) it is just not scary.

The Hills Have Eyes:

The original was make in 1977 and has some truely creepy moments. I have yet to see the remake which has been getting good reviews but why cant people come up with new movies as opposed to remaking old ones?

The Omen:

Why remake it? The original was as good as it gets, sure the special effects dont quite stand up to modern films and it took a little bit to get into it but it had excellent acting and needs no improvement. And yet there is currently a remake in production.


So please, any movie makers out there, STOP REMAKING HORROR MOVIES. This is a plea from all classic fans. Thank you [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 03-21-2006, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: shadowhound ]

While we're on the subject, STOP RE-MAKING OLD B-MOVIES FROM 3 DECADES AGO PERIOD, expecially the crap ones.

i.e. The Stepford Wives.

<font color = lightgreen>That is because there are some factors associated with screenwriters and people in the studios in charge of accepting projects: 1) they are too young to remember older movies, 2) they are too stupid to come up with an original idea, and 3) they think we will like what they like. :rolleyes:

Some movies cannot and should not be remade--this includes great ones like Casablanca and campy classics you can't dislike such as Plan 9 From Outer Space. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

Dawn of the Dead remake was nice, but probably coz they chose a different approach for it other then just trying to copy the old DotD

[ 03-26-2006, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Rikard T'Aranaxz ]

personally i don't think ANY movie should be remade, not just horror flicks, unless there is some awesome script made into a crappy movie that was overlooked by mainstream society that didn't get a chance because of a low budget or poor directing or something else, but movies that people already know of should not be remade because the originals are obviously pretty good to be able to come into some notoriety. Nor should great movies be improved upon (ahem original star wars trilogy) nuff said

Why do horror films get remade?

Because the demographic that involves my age group (15-19 year olds) seem to think that any movie made before roughly 5 years ago is unviewable, and that massive special effects are required to make anyone remotely believe a movie. Also, they are willing to shill out vast sums of money to see movies that they have to know are going to be crap. I mean, they have to know they're wasting their money...right? [img]graemlins/uhoh1.gif[/img]

<font color = lightgreen>Dawn of the Dead is different, because it isn't so much a movie as it is a social commentary. As such, it needs to be remade every 10 to 15 years as societal modes change.

Recall the original version from 1964. A black man slaps a white woman. [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] A young child attacks, kills, and begins to eat her parents. [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] Those were really pushing the envelope of acceptability in that day.
The remake from 2004 was all-right, but didn't push the boundaries as much as I would have liked. They should have shown the baby being shot, not just hinted at it. However, I like the fact that zombies aren't lumbering stalkers anymore, but agile and fast. They're more dangerous that way.</font>

<font color = lightgreen>Dawn of the Dead is different, because it isn't so much a movie as it is a social commentary. As such, it needs to be remade every 10 to 15 years as societal modes change.

Recall the original version from 1964. A black man slaps a white woman. [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] A young child attacks, kills, and begins to eat her parents. [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] Those were really pushing the envelope of acceptability in that day.
The remake from 2004 was all-right, but didn't push the boundaries as much as I would have liked. They should have shown the baby being shot, not just hinted at it. However, I like the fact that zombies aren't lumbering stalkers anymore, but agile and fast. They're more dangerous that way.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Actually that was Night of the Living Dead, which was remade, in color with Jamie Lee Curtis as Barbara IIRC, not as good as the original, but you're thinking of the original dawn of the dead, which is substantially different from the 2004 remake.

I'd actually think it would be the complete opposite. The type of movies that are targeted towards the teenage demographic are based more on the fact that teenagers will see just about anything. Just look at the movies that are playing in theatres (it doesn't matter the genre), and you'll see what I mean. And to be perfectly honest, I don't think these people remaking old movies really give a hoot one way or the other. It's easy money to them. If they cared about the movies they were making, they wouldn't be remaking them.

I'd actually think it would be the complete opposite. The type of movies that are targeted towards the teenage demographic are based more on the fact that teenagers will see just about anything. Just look at the movies that are playing in theatres (it doesn't matter the genre), and you'll see what I mean. And to be perfectly honest, I don't think these people remaking old movies really give a hoot one way or the other. It's easy money to them. If they cared about the movies they were making, they wouldn't be remaking them. </font>[/QUOTE]There is of course the rare exception, such as King Kong, where the director has a tremendous amount of love and respect for the original and wants to bring it back for current audiences to enjoy in a manner that is respectful to the original (as opposed to the 70's remake)

<font color = lightgreen>You're right--I meant "Night of the Living Dead", George Romero's 1964 classic. I rather liked that 2004 Dawn of the Dead since that was also his movie, just rehashed and updated for more modern societal mores. [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] He shouldn't have made Land of the Dead, though...or should have made it better. </font>

sorry, i disagree about king kong. i loved the original, but the new one was poor in comparison.

Get over it, people. There are only 3 basic stories out there. Things are going to get remade.

Shakespeare recycled previous stories, we recycle Shakespeare. SSDD.

Disagree 100%. Any remake I have ever seen, if I flipped over to the interviews and "special features" I always found a central concern being that of paying homage to the original. These people do have jobs, and no one wants to be thought of as making a bad movie. Why do we presume writers and directors don't care about their jobs? Isn't that silly?

Timber - Its not the directors that fund the movies its the studios. They will only back things that will make money, just like any other business.

These re-makes are NOT artistically driven, they are market driven. People will go to see them and thus its a safe return on the studio's investment.

Not all remakes are crap, just most of them. They get quality people in to work on the movie they commission so they don't totally suck, but it's usually formulaic and lazy.

thats right, the movies are remade because the studios see it as a way to make money off a previously sucessfull movie. They know people will want to go and see it, so they can compare it to the original. Even if people give it bad reviews, people will want to make their own decision about the movie. Hence lots of people will go and see it even if its a terrible re-make. This ensures that the studios come out on top, and still make a large profit from the movie.

i've never been much of a fan of mainstream hollywood movies. altho, i would stay up late at nite, on sleep-overs with friends, watching old B&W horror flicks.

i much prefer to give my money to independent producers/directors and see something interesting... a movie with an actual plot. hollywood's action flicks with multi-million dollar explosions or a "comedy" with today's latest comics from SNL just don't do it for me.

V***V

"I love monster movies, I simply adore monster movies. And the cheaper they are, the better they are..."

I want to see "it conquered the world" remade. :D

Didn't read much in this thread but I give the topic -question my answer:

"It's all about the money
It's all about the dum dum du du du dum"

[img]tongue.gif[/img]

No Originality in Hollywood OR the Gaming Industry anymore. :(

Looking Glass Studios was Original. And Arcane Studios is!

Some movies needed to be remade:Serpant and the Rainbow, The Blob. I could make those totally awesome, without changing the storyline too much.It would be better because of the graphics.

Well I saw a preview for the new Omen and it basically looks like they have changed nothing! Exactly the same thing with different actors/special effects.

I think they also remake these old horrors because younger people may not know about the movies or older people could have forgotten about them.
Yes also to make money as well.