:beer:"Halloween" and "The Thing" are two of the greatest horror movies ever made. There's absolutely NOTHING..I mean NOTHING..that you can do in a remake to improve on the original. (They did retouched "The Thing" DVD to improve the f/x which is excusable)
:thumbsdown:
That's the only one that's not of the Michael Myers storyline and is the worst of the series. Rob Zombie can have that crapfest.
The Thing is an awesome movie. I saw it at the theaters and then when it was on HBO or Cinemax or whatever, I saw it so many times, I couldn't watch it any more because I knew what was coming.
Hard to envision a remake of Carpenter's The Thing being any better, although Carpenter's remake of the original Howard Hawks' The Thing from Another World was a huge improvement, since the original Thing was a giant carrot.
Am I the only one who doesn't want to see the background to movies like this?
I had the same problem with Hannibal Rising. Part of the thing that made Hannibal Lector so scary was that he was an intelligent, well spoken, popular person (the sorts of things you may not expect in a serial killer). Not knowing why he killed (and ate) people made him scarier to me.
The same with Halloween. When a 6 year old kid just murders his sister out of the blue, that's messed up. The viewer has no knowledge of what motivated him to do that, you just assume he's mega-crazy.
Then if another movie comes along and tries to explain his "mega-crazy" tendencies are a result of a traumatic childhood, that makes him less scary to me.
AnitaPeterson
Diamond Member
- Apr 24, 2001
- 5,944
- 393
- 126
Well, MrBond, you were right in your observations.
I saw the workprint.
While I have to admit it wasn't the total crapfest I expected, it still begs the question - "why?"
The original film was a minimalist horror classic, as told from the viewpoint of the victims/targets. Someone just shows up at your door and wants to kill you. If you stop to wonder why, you're already dead.
By making Michael the real protagonist of the remake, and giving him a past (as well as some relatively weak excuses of a dysfunctional family), he gets humanized... a bit too much.
Strangely enough, the workprint feels very solid and tells a well-rounded story. As a standalone film, the new Halloween could stand by itself - not a masterpiece, but not total garbage, either. If they change the ending in the final theatrical version, so that they can tack on some sequels later, it's for the worst.
I saw the workprint.
While I have to admit it wasn't the total crapfest I expected, it still begs the question - "why?"
The original film was a minimalist horror classic, as told from the viewpoint of the victims/targets. Someone just shows up at your door and wants to kill you. If you stop to wonder why, you're already dead.
By making Michael the real protagonist of the remake, and giving him a past (as well as some relatively weak excuses of a dysfunctional family), he gets humanized... a bit too much.
Strangely enough, the workprint feels very solid and tells a well-rounded story. As a standalone film, the new Halloween could stand by itself - not a masterpiece, but not total garbage, either. If they change the ending in the final theatrical version, so that they can tack on some sequels later, it's for the worst.
My logic:
Rob Zombie(kick ass rocker and director)+Halloween(kick ass movie)=greatest horror movie ever.
Rob Zombie(kick ass rocker and director)+Halloween(kick ass movie)=greatest horror movie ever.
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 82,854
- 17,365
- 136
BINGO!
Thats classic American empty-headed nostalgia thinking right there.
"Oh no! They're going to screw up history by changing the future!"
Sorry about the hate. I've been ticked off at the whole concept of nostalgia for a long time now, and when I see it leak into stupid things like movies it makes me wonder how America is going to survive. We are WAY too damn concerned with the wrong things, especially with all the problems we can't fix.
/SOAP BOX
EDIT:
And Mr Bond made a good point.
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 82,854
- 17,365
- 136
WHY!?!?
He cant change it at all. He doesnt have ownership of the first movie and even if he did, they've already made about a million or so DVD's of the original movie. YOU CAN ALWAYS WATCH THAT ONE!
Why would you want something new that is almost exactly the same as original, (which you love so much)?
Spineshank
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2001
- 7,728
- 1
- 71
Honestly, I'd be too scared of a remake of The Thing. That movie is freaking disgusting even with the fact that all the special effects are cheesy. If the special effects were hyper-realistic that movie would be vomit inducing.
Triumph
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 15,031
- 13
- 81
I admit that I'm interested in hearing backstories. That's why I was so excited about the Star Wars prequels, but that didn't pan out so well...Anyway, I am interested in hearing the back story but it conflicts with the nature of the character. Myers is not supposed to be a "product of his environment" or some extreme example of nature versus nurture. He is supposed to be evil, pure and simple. This is how the psychiatrist explains it in the originals. Despite being institutionalized and studied for years, the doctor could never find a real reason for his demonic tendencies other than he was, well, demonic. He is not to be reasoned with, or empathized with, or reformed. He simply needs to be destroyed.
anxi80
Lifer
- Jul 7, 2002
- 12,295
- 2
- 0
purbeast0
No Lifer
- Sep 13, 2001
- 52,848
- 5,721
- 126
A lot of people in this thread seem to think that Rob Zombie is trying to outdo John Carpenter and make his new Halloween put the old one in the shadow. You guys are 100% compeltely wrong. In fact, Rob Zombie went to John Carpenter before he even started making this movie and got 100% approval from John Carpenter that said he was okay with him doing it. He even collaborated with Capenter throughout making the movie and got a lot of input from him. Carpenter was 100% backing Zombie while he made this film.
This movie isn't supposed to be a "remake" of the classic film. it's simply Rob Zombie's take on the movie and him filming it with his own style. He always wanted to have some background to one of his favorite characters, Michael Meyers, and he had a vision of how he got the way he did. And with this film, he is telling the audience how he thought Mike Meyers got the way he did.
This movie was pretty damn good. I liked it from start to finish. There was some very forced and stupid dialog, and there was a lot of sexual talk in this movie, as well as a lot of cussing that just felt very forced and out of place. The acting was decent and there are some very strange continuity problems in it which when you think back on it after seeing it make no sense (you can pick up on some of them while watchin too).
All in all if you liked the original, you will like this. I was SSSSOOOO happy when they didn't try to "update" the original music and kept it sounding just like it does in the old one.
This movie isn't supposed to be a "remake" of the classic film. it's simply Rob Zombie's take on the movie and him filming it with his own style. He always wanted to have some background to one of his favorite characters, Michael Meyers, and he had a vision of how he got the way he did. And with this film, he is telling the audience how he thought Mike Meyers got the way he did.
This movie was pretty damn good. I liked it from start to finish. There was some very forced and stupid dialog, and there was a lot of sexual talk in this movie, as well as a lot of cussing that just felt very forced and out of place. The acting was decent and there are some very strange continuity problems in it which when you think back on it after seeing it make no sense (you can pick up on some of them while watchin too).
All in all if you liked the original, you will like this. I was SSSSOOOO happy when they didn't try to "update" the original music and kept it sounding just like it does in the old one.
AnitaPeterson
Diamond Member
- Apr 24, 2001
- 5,944
- 393
- 126
I've just finished seeing Carpenter's original movie, from the 25th Anniversary DVD, just because I wanted a comparison with both films fresh in my mind. By the way, I actually saw the original "Assault on Precinct 13" AFTER seeing the remake! When you invert films like this, some differences become very interesting and worth exploring.
I think that great stories and popular (cultural) myths, as developed in the 20th century, thanks to radio, TV, cinema, as well as more traditional literature - now supplemented with comics - have a boldness about NOT delving into details concerning the main characters.
Remember Superman? There was no big introduction for him in the first series.
Look at "Dune" - it throws you into a world of majestic proportions, where things have a strange order, and you can't delve on the details, 'cause you have to follow the characters. Same with "Lord of the Rings"... unless you've read "The Hobbit" you have absolutely no introduction to the characters. The list can go on.
The problem is, when people don't have strong ideas of their own, they look at ways to take what already exists and make it theirs, or at least put a strong personal print on it... a small minority does it for other reasons (as a tribute, for instance). I think that the problem was already visible in the increased cultural appetite for sequels (in famous films, there was often times a return to the roots, see "Psycho II, III etc.") After a few good years, a new fad appeared: prequels. Remember the great dissapointment called "Star Wars 1, 2 & 3"? Even "Dune" (the book) was "extended" ridiculously into the past by a new series of novels, penned by Herbert Frank's son...
Now we are (again!) at the stage of the remakes. Granted, one generation (30 years) has passed since this version of the myth was told for the first time, and it can be retold to people who might not have been treated to the original. Unfortunately, the new version has also all the characteristics of the world we currently live in - a multitude of details, constant agitation, different body language and way of talking...
The reality is that the details often ruin the arc of the story. You must leave room for imagination, you must draw the reader or the spectator inside the story, otherwise it's a case of "not seeing the forest because of the trees". Or... you can make lots of details available, but discretely, in the background. Since we're in a computer forum - does anyone here remember the lasting impression made on you by the large vistas and open spaces available for exploration, but lacking any importance for the scenario of the game? You could finish the game once, following only the predetermined paths, but now there's a curiosity to come back to it later, when you could do a bit more of sightseeing.... same idea, smarter application.
I think that great stories and popular (cultural) myths, as developed in the 20th century, thanks to radio, TV, cinema, as well as more traditional literature - now supplemented with comics - have a boldness about NOT delving into details concerning the main characters.
Remember Superman? There was no big introduction for him in the first series.
Look at "Dune" - it throws you into a world of majestic proportions, where things have a strange order, and you can't delve on the details, 'cause you have to follow the characters. Same with "Lord of the Rings"... unless you've read "The Hobbit" you have absolutely no introduction to the characters. The list can go on.
The problem is, when people don't have strong ideas of their own, they look at ways to take what already exists and make it theirs, or at least put a strong personal print on it... a small minority does it for other reasons (as a tribute, for instance). I think that the problem was already visible in the increased cultural appetite for sequels (in famous films, there was often times a return to the roots, see "Psycho II, III etc.") After a few good years, a new fad appeared: prequels. Remember the great dissapointment called "Star Wars 1, 2 & 3"? Even "Dune" (the book) was "extended" ridiculously into the past by a new series of novels, penned by Herbert Frank's son...
Now we are (again!) at the stage of the remakes. Granted, one generation (30 years) has passed since this version of the myth was told for the first time, and it can be retold to people who might not have been treated to the original. Unfortunately, the new version has also all the characteristics of the world we currently live in - a multitude of details, constant agitation, different body language and way of talking...
The reality is that the details often ruin the arc of the story. You must leave room for imagination, you must draw the reader or the spectator inside the story, otherwise it's a case of "not seeing the forest because of the trees". Or... you can make lots of details available, but discretely, in the background. Since we're in a computer forum - does anyone here remember the lasting impression made on you by the large vistas and open spaces available for exploration, but lacking any importance for the scenario of the game? You could finish the game once, following only the predetermined paths, but now there's a curiosity to come back to it later, when you could do a bit more of sightseeing.... same idea, smarter application.
MartyMcFly3
Lifer
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter