Well, with the current debates surrounding Horror and the seeming endless proliferation of remakes of old horror films from the 70s, Japanese and SE Asia Horror films, I feel now that it is time for a serious/heated debate.... This is a Cinema/Movie Discussion forum after all, so let's discuss...

 

Norma mentioning Carpenter's brilliantly realised remake of the 50s Sci-Fi B-Movie "Thing From Another World" has got me thinking.... I've been incredibly hostile to Horror remakes, but at the same time two of my favourite Horror films ("The Thing" and Cronenberg's remake of another 50s B-Movie, "The Fly") are themselves remakes.. The irony is not lost on me.... So, what is the problem..? Is it a case of personnel...? IE, if you get a film-maker who actually has a background in making original, groundbreaking horror films (which both Carpenter and Cronenberg most certainly have...), then tackling a remake will yield something quite different and unique despite the fact that it is a remake...? Or is it a case of the sheer weight of numbers (remakes were pretty thin on the ground when Carpenter and Cronenberg did theirs...) of remakes that are turning up like particularly unwelcome rashes....?

 

Discuss....

I think there are a lot of reasons so my first reply will sound like rambling...

 

I think the phenemenon of bad horror remakes is new, but the discussion over bad horror sequels has been ongoing for a few decades now. There are a lot of similarities between the two - namely that horror sequels (along with horror remakes) are almost always poor, but they have the potential to be excellent and some have achieved this (Dawn of the Dead - the original of course, and Aliens are two examples).

 

Part of the problem is that it's difficult to judge horror remakes on simply their own merits, because we naturally tend to compare them to the originals. And generally studios are only going to remake films that were excellent to begin with. Judged only on their own merits, some of the horror remakes were enjoyable, especially the Asian remakes like The Ring and The Grudge. I'd say that Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) had potential and you've pointed out in a previous post that The Hills Have Eyes (2006) wasn't all bad.

 

Without a doubt, the proliferation of CGI has not helped - I've yet to be scared by any CGI effect in any film. I'm already reading reviews indicating that Lucus and Spielburg have botched the latest Indiana Jones sequel because of over-reliance on CGI. CGI makes directors and actors lazy. Think about the original Exorcist - to get the hot air breath from the actors, they had to chill the studio to below 0 degrees. To get the frightening face of Regan, they had to design elaborate makeup and costume effects. To get her to jump around on bed they designed a pulley system and damn near broke her back. And to get Ellen Burstyn to fall on the floor after being slapped, they ripped her off her feet and sent her flying to the floor (she left the studio in an ambulence). I'm not condoning the torture of actors but the end result was spectacular and realistic performances. The Exorcist prequel from 2004 just proves that when you use CGI for all that stuff, you end up with a film that is utterly not scary in the least bit and almost unwatchably bad.

 

And lastly, I simply don't think there is much talent in Hollywood these days, especially for horror films.

I think theres just far too many sequels that normally get worse as they go on, but then again isn't that the case with all genres?

Some aspects of Horror have became boring now.

 

Although never being around, but based on what my mum has told be before, Horror years ago was shocking, scenes, storys, no one had ever seen them before! Nowadays, they're reworking these amazing films into something that is 90-minutes of blood and gore which has became expected and boring now.

 

And of course, it will always be compared to the original, which is in most cases suprerior.

The problem comes from both sides of the screen. Horror remakes now spend too much time looking visually great and not enough in the script and the general feel of the movie. Im 100% certain that if some director wanted to remake the classic scene of 1922s Nosferatu walking up the stairs and the shadow on the wall, it would NOT have the same feel as the original. Also Hollywood now is faced with so many pretty dumb blondes and practically actors with no such talent that watching a Horror film with them in it, would make it seem like a Bedtime story.

 

Also, most plots to horror films have been worn out so much that its hard to come up with anything original. So much that they become a cliche. And like Josh said, they will ALWAYS be compared to the original. I think thats one of the reasons why no director has dared to remake the Exorcist (which even though i said i would watch, i still have yet to :P but probs will watch this week). Many films are now gonna be "remade" and tbh, i for one aint looking forward to them. The Birds, i hear is being remade which i doubt i will be watching. The original was just so different to anyother horror film at that time. It didnt concentrate on over the top supernatural creations but more the atmosphere of the film and even though the film wasnt so much something to be terrified over, you could see that it was piece of cinematography genius

Some aspects of Horror have became boring now.

 

Although never being around, but based on what my mum has told be before, Horror years ago was shocking, scenes, storys, no one had ever seen them before! Nowadays, they're reworking these amazing films into something that is 90-minutes of blood and gore which has became expected and boring now.

 

And of course, it will always be compared to the original, which is in most cases suprerior.

 

This is a good point. My grandmother talked about when Psycho was released in 1960, people were traumatized. She tells a story about how a middle age couple stopped by her house one night after having just seen the film and they asked to come in as they were too terrified to walk the street. My father had similar stories about when The Exorcist was first released in 1973 - the stories of audiences fainting and running out of the cinema in hysterics have become legendary.

 

Now that the kids are seeing films like Hostel and Saw, getting their fill of torture and gore before they're 13 years old, it will be hard to make another film that shocks and terrifies like generations past.

^Hostel was a poor excuse for a Horror film. However, Saw ^_^ i do not see the fuss surrounding Saw III about people fainting :wacko: im not keen on gore but nor am i squeemish (sp??) and that didnt even get me gagging :wacko: But the thing thats so great about the Saw films is that while brilliant effects take part within the film you also have a BRILLIANT and twisted plot. I admit Saw IV was the weakest of them all but there was still some very clever plot devised by the writers.

This is a good point. My grandmother talked about when Psycho was released in 1960, people were traumatized. She tells a story about how a middle age couple stopped by her house one night after having just seen the film and they asked to come in as they were too terrified to walk the street. My father had similar stories about when The Exorcist was first released in 1973 - the stories of audiences fainting and running out of the cinema in hysterics have become legendary.

 

Now that the kids are seeing films like Hostel and Saw, getting their fill of torture and gore before they're 13 years old, it will be hard to make another film that shocks and terrifies like generations past.

Deffinatly! I've heard all sorts. Puking in the cinema, fainting, running out screaming, people cutting of their eyelids as they'll think that it will stop them from sleeping, even suicide!

 

And then there's all these poor man stories about ambulances being rushed to cinema's because someone has fainted whilst watching Saw III. :lol: It's pathetic!

I think they should leave classic horror films well alone, as any remake will just be a poor imitation.

 

Nothing against remaking a rubbish horror film if they can improve upon it.

Nothing against remaking a rubbish horror film if they can improve upon it.

 

Can they even do this though...? The original "Hills Have Eyes 2" was utterly p!ss poor... The "remake" somehow actually managed to be a WORSE film..... :lol: :lol: From what I've heard of "Prom Night", well that doesn't improve on the rather crummy original either...

 

The original Japanese "One Missed Call" (Chakusin Ari) certainly was not all that spectacular, rather average in comparison to "Ringu" or "Ju On"; but it sure seems like a veritable classic now compared to the shower of sheer sh!te that is the American remake..... :lol: :lol:

 

What Cronenberg and Carpenter did was to take these 50s B-Movies and really went to town with the concepts, themes and the imagery... "The Thing" and "The Fly" were utterly horrifying in a way that the originals never were...

 

..I actually do think it's down to the right people being involved... If you got someone like Guillermo Del Toro to do the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, then that probably would've worked out a damn sight better than what actually did occur... Rob Zombie (who had directed two pretty excellent horror films) made a pretty decent fist of "Halloween", the first half of which at least, took a VERY different and radical path, unfortunately the second half didn't match up to it.... Still, it was better than any of the "Halloween" sequels....

 

Im 100% certain that if some director wanted to remake the classic scene of 1922s Nosferatu walking up the stairs and the shadow on the wall, it would NOT have the same feel as the original.

 

Actually, Werner Herzog DID do this in 1979 when he remade Nosferatu (Nosferatu The Vampyre) with Klaus Kinski playing the part..... It actually worked... Another remake which worked out pretty well actually.. But, again, as with Cronenberg and Carpenter, you have a real artist with an incredibly formidable Cinematic back-catalogue (Aguirre - Wrath Of God, The Enigma of Kasar Hauser and Woyzeck to name but three of his very long list of films which he has made over the past FIVE decades)....

The problem comes from both sides of the screen. Horror remakes now spend too much time looking visually great and not enough in the script and the general feel of the movie. Im 100% certain that if some director wanted to remake the classic scene of 1922s Nosferatu walking up the stairs and the shadow on the wall, it would NOT have the same feel as the original. Also Hollywood now is faced with so many pretty dumb blondes and practically actors with no such talent that watching a Horror film with them in it, would make it seem like a Bedtime story.

 

Also, most plots to horror films have been worn out so much that its hard to come up with anything original. So much that they become a cliche. And like Josh said, they will ALWAYS be compared to the original. I think thats one of the reasons why no director has dared to remake the Exorcist (which even though i said i would watch, i still have yet to :P but probs will watch this week). Many films are now gonna be "remade" and tbh, i for one aint looking forward to them. The Birds, i hear is being remade which i doubt i will be watching. The original was just so different to anyother horror film at that time. It didnt concentrate on over the top supernatural creations but more the atmosphere of the film and even though the film wasnt so much something to be terrified over, you could see that it was piece of cinematography genius

 

Well I think most Horror remakes that get to the multiplex circuits are being developed to reach certain predetermined auds that seem to be 'happy' with these types of films - and so it becomes like a Timbaland record - another one will be along in a minute off the production line because they are relevitivly cheap to make, do alright b.o. wise and is guaranteed to do a certain amount of business on dvd/blu-ray.

 

Seeing aas there are so many films out there in the world wanting our attention and even with all the cinema circuits out there with loads of screen - small amounts of slots for a wide opening once the blockbusters have taken up capacity - its most likely we are missing some really f***ed up freakky $h!t that even tho it might be lo-fi and shambolic is like really really mind-warping scary but we dont get to see it as its been recorded in Tagalog.

This is a good point. My grandmother talked about when Psycho was released in 1960, people were traumatized.

 

 

I love Hitchcock's Psycho - because its a brilliant film. However, I never saw it as a horror film - more of a psychological drama with a few genuinely 'jumpy' bits. Forget the shower scene (which I cannot look at now without thinking of Mel Brooks' High Anxiety) the jumpiest bit of Psycho for me was when Arbegast was approaching the top of the stairs and the camera looks directly down as Mrs Bates/Norman emerges from her/his bedroom (it loses a bit of impact when the camera stays fixed on Arbegast's face as he's falling backwards downstairs. If I'd have made the film I think I would have cut immediately after the appearance of Mrs Bates/Norman. But that's a pedantic quibble! According to reports - Hitchcock was amused that people felt Psycho was scary - he himself described the film as a 'black comedy'.

 

When you have a great director - anything is possible - and Hitchcock was the biz! Similarly Cronenberg and Carpenter are excellent directors and so their remakes are as good (if not better) than the originals. I would love to have seen what a director of the calibre of either Cronenberg or Carpenter would have done with a remake of The Haunting - rather than the p/ss poor one directed by Jan de Bont (having been bored to tears by Twister a few years earlier - thankfully I hadn't expected much anyway). The original had no gore, no scary monsters, no special effects (I think the only special prop they had was a specially made door - anyone who's seen the film will know what scene I'm referring to). Everything was done by the power of suggestion, atmosphere, terrifying sound effects and pure genius camera work. Oh and throw in an excellent central performance from Julie Harris. Hard to believe that the guy who directed this, probably one of the all-time best horror films also directed two of the best musicals in The Sound of Music and West Side Story. This was in the day when a director could turn to any genre and make a fine job. The same guy even directed, if not the best, then certainly the most thoughtful sci-fi film ever - The Day The Earth Stood Still.

 

I'm really disappointed with the horror genre today if I'm honest - nothing scares me anymore and when I see so much gore I just think 'so what'. If I have to see gore - I'd rather it be in 'no-brainer' honest-to-goodness, tongue-in-cheek horror/comedy/sci-fi films such as Starship Troopers and Eight Legged Freaks. At least they're not pretending to be anything else ... unless of course they're just hedging their bets!

 

Norma

Edited May 24, 200817 yr by Shy_Talk