Pinhead

Den_M

Not sure if this has been discussed before (a quick search didn't find anything)

Pinhead from the Hellraiser films has always been one of my very favourite 'bad guys' in horror movies. He's so much more interesting than the usual bunch of slashers as he can hold intelligent conversation and has that dry as a bone wit. He always looks kinda sad or contemplative also.

The first time I saw him on screen I was pretty much like, 'cooooooooool!', but unlike some horror monsters his appeal didn't wane afterwards due to his nature. Too much was shown of him in later movies of course but I guess thay had no choice but to give the fans what they want. He still had some great lines even in the later films though.

Anyway what do people think?

TerrorFirmer

Yeah he's great. I love all the Hellraiser movies. I thought even the more recent ones like Hellraiser V and VI were quite good as well.

Den_M

I've just read that the first Hellraiser is being re-made. How did that get past me? Clive Barker is writing and going to be invlolved in production somewhat. Flippin' hell, this is a suprise.

Archeron

Den_M wrote:

I've just read that the first Hellraiser is being re-made. How did that get past me? Clive Barker is writing and going to be invlolved in production somewhat. Flippin' hell, this is a suprise.

Wow. Thats should be interesting. I love the Hellraiser films (although i do think the newer ones have lost some of their "charm") and would love to see up to date versions. I would really love to see a remake of Hellraiser 1,2 and 3.

Funny, i watched Hellraiser Deader a couple of nights ago, and while it is actually quite a good film in its own right, I couldnt help but think that Pinhead was just kind of tacked onto a regular horror film to give it more appeal. Poor old Pinhead is starting to look old in Hellraiser Hellworld as world.

spooky donkey

YEah pin head was cool, he was the iconic image that sold the helraizer movies to me anyawy. Remake??? why not just make pinhead Vs Freddy and jason. he could take em both on at the same time.

DaBreno

I thought Inferno was quite good, far above the usual schlock horror. It gave a very interesting spin on Pinhead and the role he plays in wherever the hell he is. I thought the series was content to cast him as the Boo-hiss bad guy but his speech at the end of the film conveyed a far more complex motivation for his actions. It seemed way more of a psychological, deep meaning and fitting punishment/Hell that he meted out which complimented the physical quite nicely.

DerekP11

Hi. New to this forum.

Hellraiser is just one of those films that doesn't need to be remade. I guess its just an excuse to litter the idea with cgi and aim it at todays teens, who seem to have the attention span of a goldfish. Very unfortunate and a clear sign (along with the Fog remake, and forthcoming remakes of the Hitcher and Halloween) that film-makers in the 21st century are trying to appease for their predecessors ignorance of a craft that was despised by the mainstream for many years.

Leave Hellraiser alone. It is what it is, as a result of the times it was made in and as a horror film, is still relevent.

DerekP11

From UHM.COM

Hellraiser


No official plot yet, but the original told the story of a mysterious puzzle box that's the key to unleashing sadistic demons to the real world.



LATEST NEWS

10/27/06
Added to the database.

DETAILS

- This project is in the very early stages of development, as there's not even a script yet, but the plans are set and Clive seems very interested in revisting the film.
- It's unknown whether Doug Bradley will return as Pinhead.
- The Pinhead in this film will be different from the one we've grown to love.
- Clive said that he plans to have this to be both the beginning and end of Pinhead.
- This film will have an obviously bigger budget, with hopes to do things that the original could never do.
- The Weinstein Company is behind this.
- Clive will serve as writer and producer to this redux, as he was detailed saying that he'd feel too weird to direct a remake of his own movie.
- This is a remake of the classic 1987 Clive Barker film.

niallon

Not the biggest Hellraiser fan but a very big Pinhead fan and to see that they plan to change him from the original Pinhead we know and love put's me off right away. Change Michael Myers mask and I cringe. Turn Jason into uber Jason and I wince (whilst secretly thinking "how goddam cool is that!" ). Change Pinhead in the slightest and I boycott. Remakes should just be remakes if they must exist at all. Burton screwed up Apes, Singleton completely destroyed The Italian Job and the less said about Assault On Precinct 13 the better.......if a remake must serve any purpose at all it should be so as to make it that the younger generation actually watches these classic stories and in turn may view the original. I always though Van Sant's Psycho remake, a flop it may have been, may have done quite a lot for the generations viewing habits. I know that as I was 10 when it was released I made a point to see this forbidden film and in turn proceeded to hunt down the original (which I found in my Grannies VHS collection! LOL). But anyway, enough of a remake rant for now especially as it's my third or fourth!!

DerekP11

niallon wrote:

.......if a remake must serve any purpose at all it should be so as to make it that the younger generation actually watches these classic stories and in turn may view the original. I always though Van Sant's Psycho remake, a flop it may have been, may have done quite a lot for the generations viewing habits. I know that as I was 10 when it was released I made a point to see this forbidden film and in turn proceeded to hunt down the original (which I found in my Grannies VHS collection! LOL).

While I was reading the Halloween thread and looking at various points about how RZ shouldn't/won't/can't change elements of the original picure, I found that I was asking myself the question, if its true to the original, then whats the point in remaking it?

The above quote is a mature, well thought out and sensible answer. A very good point has been made.

However, Niallon, anymore wisecracks about VHS collections, followed by LOL, will be met with AKITN (A Kick In The Nuts)

niallon

Not slagging VHS at all at all! I love em! As for why remake if it's just a rethread what I mean is if it has to be remade then just make it a modern day re-vamp so as to educate the modern masses! If you're gonna screw with story then just make a sequel as they always seem to do just that!

Fysh

While I don't particularly think that a remake of Hellraiser (or Halloween, or Friday 13th for that matter) is "needed" as such, film is a business. So, here's my rough guide as to why we'll keep getting remakes of "classics" or well-known franchises:

1) Franchise = money. Recognizable brand name and pre-existing target audience means that these are an easy sell to the business side of studios.

2) Guaranteed sell = crap film. In order to ensure that the pre-existing target audience aren't alienated by anything like new plot or *ick* character development in the new film, the story will pretty much only incorporate ideas that have already been used in previous films.

3) "Modern take on horror" = directed by an idiot, filmed by a cameraman with parkinson's, and recorded by a partially deaf soundman. To try and interest non-target-audience viewers, a contemporary director (probably having a bit of fame as a music video director) will be brought in. Said director will look at the existing tropes used in the franchise, and then produce 2 hours of unremarkable film, incorporating many moments of audiovisual shock that pass themselves off as "scares".

4) If we keep paying to see crap films, guess what they'll keep making? Ultimately, rubbish horror remakes seem to appeal to people. Which, I think, is part of a wider appreciation of a very specific conception of horror. Personally, I'm a psychological horror fan. I don't mind thrillers, or gore, but I tend to want some sort of decently-built-up suspense, decent characters, and a good payoff (ie not just Jason turning up with a machete as the culmination of tension). To me, most of the remakes suck fat donkey. But that's not everyone's view.

Thing is though, there's a lot of discussion about these remakes as if they have some sort of higher purpose or meaning in a Grand Horror Appreciation Scheme of Things. They don't. They have one primary function - to generate revenue for the studio. All other considerations are secondary. Sometimes you'll get a director who appreciates the original enough to do something interesting with the remake, other times you'll get a fantastic original (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) redone to subscribe to a bunch of cliches that the original preceeded.

So please, let's have less of the "magically the remake will convince everyone and his dog to appreciate the original Hellraiser movie" vibe. It's a nice notion, but it's not a concern to the people behind this film.

DerekP11

I don't think the last few posts are claiming any of that. I think Niallon was citing it as his justification for a remake.

Many of us know and agree that its about putting bums on seats and not in the least about any form of artistic credibility.

carbonkid

HavoK wrote:

Yeah he's great. I love all the Hellraiser movies. I thought even the more recent ones like Hellraiser V and VI were quite good as well.

Hellraisers gone up to VIII at this stage, and VII is actually pretty good. After bloodline theres very little pinhead in the movies ...parently its cause hes getting kinda fat.

niallon

Fysh wrote:

So please, let's have less of the "magically the remake will convince everyone and his dog to appreciate the original Hellraiser movie" vibe. It's a nice notion, but it's not a concern to the people behind this film.

Is it not better to dream and be disappointed than to dream of being disappointed? We can't stop the remakes (or can we?) so why not just let them see how they turn out? The Amityville remake was quite formidable, possibly because the original was brutal. As for remaking classics, yes, ridiculous notion but going to happen. I mean honestly, what films are there left? So my point is, if they have to be done then do them in the old way, at least then it'll maybe eradicate some of the "parkinsons" afflicted cameramen and "deaf" sound guys.

Archeron

Fysh wrote:

So please, let's have less of the "magically the remake will convince everyone and his dog to appreciate the original Hellraiser movie" vibe. It's a nice notion, but it's not a concern to the people behind this film.

Who cares what the concerns of the people behind the film are though? I dont. I would like to see a remake of the first three Hellraiser films because I would enjoy seeing what modern versions would be like. I think the original three were classics, and if a remake of them ruins them and puts them into disrepute with people, I dont care, I personally would like to see them.

For me, its about just simply enjoying a film, be that because its a classic film of its genre, or because, despite its poor plot, bad acting, etc, its just a visually entertaining experience. I reckon we could all say that we have seen films we enjoyed, purely for the visul aspect. At the end of it, its about enjoying something (if thats the right word when Hellraiser is concerned).

Fysh

If you enjoy the remakes on their own merits, then more power to you I tend to avoid them because the recent spate of them haven't entertained me. For me that's been down to the different creative forces behind the originals and the remakes. And I don't think that remakes are inherently bad, just that some seem targeted at a distinctly different audience than the audience that enjoyed the original.

I agree to an extent about the visual experience - the original Friday 13th is one of my favourite horror flicks because, even crammed to the brim as it is with hilariously over-the-top hammy acting, it still had something that keeps me interested when I watch it. All down to personal mileage, I suppose.

Reading back over my previous post, it comes off as far more bitchy than intended. I didn't mean to have a go at people who hope for good things of the remake, or who hope that it'll get people interested in the originals. I get the feeling, though, that a lot of people who look forward to remakes and are then disappointed by them have misconceptions about the current reasoning behind remaking films.

There again, there's a part of me that will always love the original Hellraiser and would like to see a remake that preserved whatever it was about that film that made me enjoy it so much. So I guess I'll be shutting up now

Karl Hungus

Fysh wrote:

While I don't particularly think that a remake of Hellraiser (or Halloween, or Friday 13th for that matter) is "needed" as such, film is a business. So, here's my rough guide as to why we'll keep getting remakes of "classics" or well-known franchises:

1) Franchise = money. Recognizable brand name and pre-existing target audience means that these are an easy sell to the business side of studios.

2) Guaranteed sell = crap film. In order to ensure that the pre-existing target audience aren't alienated by anything like new plot or *ick* character development in the new film, the story will pretty much only incorporate ideas that have already been used in previous films.

3) "Modern take on horror" = directed by an idiot, filmed by a cameraman with parkinson's, and recorded by a partially deaf soundman. To try and interest non-target-audience viewers, a contemporary director (probably having a bit of fame as a music video director) will be brought in. Said director will look at the existing tropes used in the franchise, and then produce 2 hours of unremarkable film, incorporating many moments of audiovisual shock that pass themselves off as "scares".

4) If we keep paying to see crap films, guess what they'll keep making? Ultimately, rubbish horror remakes seem to appeal to people. Which, I think, is part of a wider appreciation of a very specific conception of horror. Personally, I'm a psychological horror fan. I don't mind thrillers, or gore, but I tend to want some sort of decently-built-up suspense, decent characters, and a good payoff (ie not just Jason turning up with a machete as the culmination of tension). To me, most of the remakes suck fat donkey. But that's not everyone's view.

Thing is though, there's a lot of discussion about these remakes as if they have some sort of higher purpose or meaning in a Grand Horror Appreciation Scheme of Things. They don't. They have one primary function - to generate revenue for the studio. All other considerations are secondary. Sometimes you'll get a director who appreciates the original enough to do something interesting with the remake, other times you'll get a fantastic original (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) redone to subscribe to a bunch of cliches that the original preceeded.

So please, let's have less of the "magically the remake will convince everyone and his dog to appreciate the original Hellraiser movie" vibe. It's a nice notion, but it's not a concern to the people behind this film.

You sir, have it so right it would serious hurt anyone else to be wrong.