Oh dear lord no! No no NO! Please don't let it happen! Bastards...

Karl Hungus

They're remaking Don't Look Now!

This is wrong on so many levels. You can't do that to such a masterpeice, you just can't do it! This is like remaking Citizen Kane, it's just not done!

mike65

Anyone fancy casting this remake....?

Mike.

Pigman II

Karl Hungus wrote:

This is like remaking Citizen Kane, it's just not done!

Oooh there's an idea! I must set up a conference call with Peter Jackson and Nicholas Cage right away.

monkeyfudge

Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland would be my dream cast.

dearheart

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU

but I'm looking forward to the usual cathartic performances from Mel Gibson and Kate Beckinsale.

Plus Tom Cruise slipping effortlessly into perfect casting as the creepily omnipotent midget.

maquiladora

Karl Hungus wrote:

They're remaking Don't Look Now!

This is wrong on so many levels. You can't do that to such a masterpeice, you just can't do it! This is like remaking Citizen Kane, it's just not done!

Oh thank god for that! I speedread your post and for one heartstopping moment I thought they were remaking Citizen Kane. :rolleyes:

BlitzKrieg

i only got to see the original last year. Really liked it, can see how it influenced alot of japanese horrros (Dark water most obvious)


A remake is an abomination to cinema.

Karl Hungus

BlitzKrieg wrote:

i only got to see the original last year. Really liked it, can see how it influenced alot of japanese horrros (Dark water most obvious)

Definetly. If you want to see another influential horror movie, don't forget to check out The Changeling.

BlitzKrieg

on a funny note i thought for a second when i first read the thread, that they were remaking 'look who's talking' (always get them mixed up for some bizarre reason) so your citizen kane reference went well over my head.

Necronomicon

I've heard about the original it but still haven't gotten my hands on it.

Although if I see it I might be upset as everyone else about the remake!:)

doonothing

the changeling is great. really almost semed like a prequel to the others to me.. anyone else think so? maybe just me...

pbsuxok1znja4r

Yeah DLN is a great film. Pretty odd. To be fair, though, we really have no reason to be getting our underwear in a knot about the re-make. Just don't watch it. Simple as. They're not going to burn all the film reels for the original movie or anything.

Sangre

Don't watch it then.

Talliesin

Karl Hungus wrote:

They're remaking Don't Look Now!

/me cries.

Xcom2

I'm still sulking about the Wicker Man remake.

X

Cake Fiend

Sangre wrote:

Don't watch it then.

That's just crazy enough to work!

Dont be at yourself

I don`t understand the whinging about this. I mean, virtually nothing is known about it so far, so to be so set against it is a bit ridiculous.

Anyway, wasn`t Twelve Monkeys a remake? Leon? The Fly? Hell, even the Magnificent Seven and Star Wars border on remakes. If everybody got their knickers in a twist anytime an old favourite was revisited, many great films would never have been made.

Karl Hungus

For those of you who don't understand, or just exclaim "Don't watch it so" let me explain my stance on the whole remake situation.

First of all, yes, there have been good remakes in the past (Could someone inform me of what Leon was a remake of?), but on the whole those were flukes, or a film-maker who's bold enough to take an idea and go with it in an original manner. Take the Thing for example, anyone who has seen both films knows how wildly different they are, and certainly the concept of a remake in this context has merit.

However, there's never been so many remakes as there is today, and 99% of the time, the reasons for remaking films is anything but creative, it's a case of lets prough through this classic film for no real reason other than to make a quick buck, or going through the motions of remaking a foreign film with as much passion as the latest Lious Walsh clone, and jamming a bunch of American actors in there to make it palatable for audiences of retards. Citing films by visionary and ingenius film-makers like David Cronenberg holds no water here, because it's a totally different situation altogether. Likewise one might argue that making movies is business, but it's also an artistic process, and business should never take over 100%, like what is happening with today's remakes.

I think everyone with a brain can understand the difference between a director like Carpenter, Gilliam, or such would remake a film and the absolute soullessness of the Hollywood efforts. Point in case, a remake of The Eye with a script from the writer of Gothica. Oh yeah, there's a genuine excersize with love in the artistry of film-making for sure. :rolleyes:

And you know something else? People seem to be oblivious to the idea that there isn't an unlimited amount of films in a given space of time, and for every pointless remake that's made, there's an original film not being made. Now if that's not a reason to rant, then I don't know what is. Who wants to see something original, when they can see another version of The Hitcher that was peddled out for no good reason at all. How about The Evil Dead?

Yeah, you know, I am pissed off simply because "Old favorites" are remade. I honestly think somebody should be shot for the cinematic abortion that was Get Carter. Remakes have perpetrated some unforgivable crimes against cinema, and the bad ones far, far outweigh the good.

Honestly though, I have to say it again.
For every remake, there's an original film that is not made.

Keep that in mind next time you see some ****ty soulless remake.

Karl Hungus

You know, it might be wrong of me, but I don't think anyone would need to see The Fog to tell it's a bad film.

Pigman II

Personally I couldn't care less.

We all know the remake is made purely to get some free publicity via using the title of a cult or notorious film and that the people who watch this piece of shít will generally disregard it immediately. However something positive to be taken from existence of this piece of shít is that many are made aware of the original films existence for the very first time and some we'll even go as far as to check out the original for a comparison.

You might argue that for every piece-of-shít remake that pops up 1-less original film is being made, but lets face it, we all know it'd just be some piece of by-the-numbers studio crap filling the slot anyway so it makes little difference imho.

Karl Hungus

Pigman II wrote:

You might argue that for every piece-of-shít remake that pops up 1-less original film is being made, but lets face it, we all know it'd just be some piece of by-the-numbers studio crap filling the slot anyway so it makes little difference imho.

I don't know... There's been some quality big budget studio films as of late, especially considering some of the summer blockbusters in recent years. X-Men and Spiderman films have certainly been good, as has the Pirates of the Caribbean, and the Harry Potter movies. So I don't think large studio films would be crap by default. With that in mind, I'd be eager to see what could be offered instead of the constant remakes, especially when it comes to the horror genre.

Dont be at yourself

Seriously, get a grip on reality.

The number of new, `original` movies being made today far, far outweighs the number of remakes. It`s not like you can`t go to the cinema any day of the week and have a wide choice of things to watch that aren`t remakes. There are, what, two remakes (Pride & Prejudice and CatCF) on our screens at the moment, competing with dozens of new movies. More movies are being made today than ever, so to allude that Hollywood`s obsession with remakes is starving the rest of the industry of creativity, or resources, is nonsense.

You also seem to be afraid to see these remakes in the hands of unknowns or non-proven directors, producers etc - which is a bit strange. On one hand, you lambast Hollywood for playing it safe with remakes, and on the other, you lambast them because they`re not going for a sure-fire hit-maker to helm the project.

Would you prefer if every remake was shot by the likes of Cronenberg, Carpenter and Gilliam? Because if you held a similar view ten years ago, would you have been happy with Terry Gilliam, whose claim to fame was being a Python, of remaking Twelve Monkeys? Everyone of these esteemed directors needs to get their break somewhere, and if everyone shared your abhorrance to putting big name projects in unproven hands, it`d be a lot harder for these people to break through.

Anyway, it`s unfair to say that remakes are unoriginal, and non-remakes are original. Both remakes and movies based on `new` material have the potential to break the mould, and just as many remakes manage to that as `original concepts`. Sure, The Fog will be a bad film, but so will many new movies coming out over the next few weeks.

And I`m sorry, but for the ones that don`t, you really don`t have to watch them.

Pigman II

'Don't look now'! But do look next Friday!

If anyones interested UTV are showing this film next Friday 18/11 at 11.35pm.

kensutz

I bought it in Stansted airport for £2 in HMV there and yet to watch it. Might give it a go tonight

ObeyGiant

Karl Hungus wrote:

People seem to be oblivious to the idea that there isn't an unlimited amount of films in a given space of time, and for every pointless remake that's made, there's an original film not being made.

Well, that's a bit of a double-edged sword there. Because you can certainly look at it in the way that you suggest, but it's also true that the a portion of the money earned from these big, dumb movies goes back into the food chain, meaning that the studios can afford to gamble with taking on 'higher-risk' properties.

So keep that in mind too.