+- NightOwl Forums (https://forums.nightowlpro.com)
+-- Forum: The Crypt (https://forums.nightowlpro.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Forum: Off Topic (https://forums.nightowlpro.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Official Noes Remake Review Thread! (/showthread.php?tid=34240)
Official Noes Remake Review Thread! - DarklyScanner - 05-17-2010
<!--quoteo(post=362759:date=May 16 2010, 03:23 PM:name=DAKAZA)<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE (DAKAZA @ May 16 2010, 03:23 PM) <a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=362759\"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecPeople will always disagree about what is "classic." There's no objective way to determine exactly what is and what is not classic. The Blob and NOTLD probably weren't the best examples but they came to mind because they're very good remakes.<!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndYou're dead wrong about there not being an "objective" way to know if a movie is classic. There is. It's called being written about countless times by film critics and being studied by actual filmmakers. There's a reason Halloween and A Nightmare on Elm Street can be in the same book that talks about Citizen Kane and Easy Rider. All those films are entirely different, but they will always be considered the best of their genre. It's not a coincidence that certain films keep coming up in history. The Library of Congress even saves certain films because of their historic significance (which Halloween is on). There's different ways of telling whether a film is classic without discussing whether you like it or not. You can't deny the power a show like Miami Vice had on the 80's. It's classic simply because of how large of an imprint it had on how TV shows were directed as well as what it did for the 80's sense of fashion.If that's not something you can consider objective enough, I don't know what would be.<!--quoteo<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE </div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecMy basic point is that these movies shouldn't be dismissed just because they're remakes. Remakes have been around for a very long time and many have been truly amazing movies. I think we've had quite a few such remakes in the last decade.<!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndI agree that a film isn't automatically bad because it's a remake, but most horror remakes this decade have been nothing but cash grabs. They're not in the same league as the Thing or the Fly. You have to consider the directors of those films as well. Carpenter and Cronenberg were both already great filmmakers by the time they made those films. It's the same thing with the Manchurian Candidate remake from 2004. Jonathan Demme wasn't just some upstart director looking to make a name for himself by using somebody else's property. He simply had a great approach to remake the film and he made it more relevant to today's world. I think it's a great film and doesn't simply piggyback itself on the original film. The problem is that most horror remakes aren't given to interesting filmmakers. Gore Verbinski wasn't known as a horror director before the Ring, but he showed promise with Mousehunt and while the Mexican was weak, he showed he could get some interesting performances from the likes of James Gandolfini. Most of the time, these horror remakes are given to hacks like Rob Zombie who already pretty much rips off every 70's horror film you can name, and Marcus Nispel who is more interested in making his shots look slick than directing his actors. He also can't stop himself from doing remakes which says a lot about his creativity as a director. Those guys will never be in the same league as David Cronenberg and John Carpenter. This is a big reason why horror remakes today don't have the same quality. I'd love it if they gave a remake to somebody worthwhile to direct, but sadly, that never happens today. Instead, we get these safe, neatly packaged films that look more slick but lack all the great qualities of a classic movie. They never really make great improvements on the original. They're more like Frankenstein films that take pieces from different parts of the franchise and the end result is inconsistent.
Official Noes Remake Review Thread! - DAKAZA - 05-17-2010
<!--quoteo(post=362816:date=May 16 2010, 08:58 PM:name=DarklyScanner)<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE (DarklyScanner @ May 16 2010, 08:58 PM) <a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=362816\"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecYou're dead wrong about there not being an "objective" way to know if a movie is classic. There is. It's called being written about countless times by film critics and being studied by actual filmmakers. There's a reason Halloween and A Nightmare on Elm Street can be in the same book that talks about Citizen Kane and Easy Rider. All those films are entirely different, but they will always be considered the best of their genre. It's not a coincidence that certain films keep coming up in history. The Library of Congress even saves certain films because of their historic significance (which Halloween is on). There's different ways of telling whether a film is classic without discussing whether you like it or not. You can't deny the power a show like Miami Vice had on the 80's. It's classic simply because of how large of an imprint it had on how TV shows were directed as well as what it did for the 80's sense of fashion.If that's not something you can consider objective enough, I don't know what would be.I agree that a film isn't automatically bad because it's a remake, but most horror remakes this decade have been nothing but cash grabs. They're not in the same league as the Thing or the Fly. You have to consider the directors of those films as well. Carpenter and Cronenberg were both already great filmmakers by the time they made those films. It's the same thing with the Manchurian Candidate remake from 2004. Jonathan Demme wasn't just some upstart director looking to make a name for himself by using somebody else's property. He simply had a great approach to remake the film and he made it more relevant to today's world. I think it's a great film and doesn't simply piggyback itself on the original film. The problem is that most horror remakes aren't given to interesting filmmakers. Gore Verbinski wasn't known as a horror director before the Ring, but he showed promise with Mousehunt and while the Mexican was weak, he showed he could get some interesting performances from the likes of James Gandolfini. Most of the time, these horror remakes are given to hacks like Rob Zombie who already pretty much rips off every 70's horror film you can name, and Marcus Nispel who is more interested in making his shots look slick than directing his actors. He also can't stop himself from doing remakes which says a lot about his creativity as a director. Those guys will never be in the same league as David Cronenberg and John Carpenter. This is a big reason why horror remakes today don't have the same quality. I'd love it if they gave a remake to somebody worthwhile to direct, but sadly, that never happens today. Instead, we get these safe, neatly packaged films that look more slick but lack all the great qualities of a classic movie. They never really make great improvements on the original. They're more like Frankenstein films that take pieces from different parts of the franchise and the end result is inconsistent.<!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndWhere did you find this "objective" criteria? It sounds like a subjective system that you designed yourself. Movies simply aren't that easy to categorize. People have different ideas of what classic means. Sometimes critics consider only the era in which a movie was filmed. You might find this link interesting: <a href=\"http://www.classicfilmguide.com/\" target=\"_blank\">http://www.classicfilmguide.com/</a> Also, many elitist film critics scorn horror movies in general. I've seen debates online about whether the original NOES was even a true classic. By the way, I think it's arrogant to call Rob Zombie a "hack". In my opinion he's a very creative, gifted artist. The Devil's Rejects was an imaginative, entertaining movie and many people agree with me. I also liked his other flicks...including Halloween. Artists always have influences that inspire them and it's only natural that these manifest in their work at some level. Zombie loves the 70's era of horror and he works diligently to bring that vibe to his movies.
Official Noes Remake Review Thread! - josephchoi - 05-17-2010
I'm gonna have to agree with DAKAZA here. If there was some objective criteria/formula for "classics", there would be classics being created left and right. At its base, all movies are pretty much based on popular opinion. There's nothing "objective" in that.
Official Noes Remake Review Thread! - Seph - 05-17-2010
<!--quoteo(post=362843:date=May 16 2010, 08:30 PM:name=DAKAZA)<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE (DAKAZA @ May 16 2010, 08:30 PM) <a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=362843\"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecWhere did you find this "objective" criteria? It sounds like a subjective system that you designed yourself. Movies simply aren't that easy to categorize. People have different ideas of what classic means. Sometimes critics consider only the era in which a movie was filmed. You might find this link interesting: <a href=\"http://www.classicfilmguide.com/\" target=\"_blank\">http://www.classicfilmguide.com/</a> Also, many elitist film critics scorn horror movies in general. I've seen debates online about whether the original NOES was even a true classic. By the way, I think it's arrogant to call Rob Zombie a "hack". In my opinion he's a very creative, gifted artist. The Devil's Rejects was an imaginative, entertaining movie and many people agree with me. I also liked his other flicks...including Halloween. Artists always have influences that inspire them and it's only natural that these manifest in their work at some level. Zombie loves the 70's era of horror and he works diligently to bring that vibe to his movies.<!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndI agree with you two on different levels but I would not say that either of you are more wrong or more right. I don't think that Rob Zombie is a "hack" as people like to call him nowadays but I didn't enjoy his sequel to his remake of Halloween very much either. He could have made the film just like the original sequel but he tried his best to come up with new and inventive kills/ events that either worked great (stomping the guys face) or worked horribly (the gratuitous use of the word 'coonoodle' especially in the very beginning after the COW! COW! COW!) either way you can't hate on him too much for trying something new, plus he was pressured to turn out these scripts very fast. That being said I am not a 'RZ lover' I'm just saying that people hate on remakes that are too much of the same but hate on ones that are too different...so it's really hard to please everyone.I actually find it ironic that you liked the remake of The Ring, while you dissed the remake of TCM. I really think Nispel made a great TCM remake and Leatherface looks badass in it. It was only gorey in a few scenes maybe? Plus its The Texas Chainsaw Massacre! It should be gorey anyways. The original is awesome don't get me wrong but I equally enjoy the remake for different reasons. I just don't think the Ring was a superior film at all really, all the jump cutting editing, wasn't scary to me at all and in fact I think it's a very overrated film.If my long rant shows anything, it shows that a lot of it is based on opinion BUT I will say that there is no denying that the original ANOES is a far superior film than the remake. The biggest reason being is that all the scenes that were nearly reshot exactly were not nearly as effective and in fact were done in a worse, less creepy way than the original. They need to seriously leave that CGI alone, or try harder because golly gee willikers that freddy comming out of the wall scene was retarded looking. Watch the original and see how real filmmaking is done.Thats my two cents.
Official Noes Remake Review Thread! - DAKAZA - 05-17-2010
<!--quoteo(post=362866:date=May 17 2010, 01:48 AM:name=Seph)<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE (Seph @ May 17 2010, 01:48 AM) <a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=362866\"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecIf my long rant shows anything, it shows that a lot of it is based on opinion BUT I will say that there is no denying that the original ANOES is a far superior film than the remake. The biggest reason being is that all the scenes that were nearly reshot exactly were not nearly as effective and in fact were done in a worse, less creepy way than the original. They need to seriously leave that CGI alone, or try harder because golly gee willikers that freddy comming out of the wall scene was retarded looking. Watch the original and see how real filmmaking is done.Thats my two cents.<!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndI'm not trying to argue that NOES 2010 is superior to the remake. The original NOES will always be my favorite movie of all time. However, the remake is my second favorite film in the franchise. You're right that the wall scene wasn't as effective as the original. However, I don't know if I agree that this was the case with all of the reshot scenes. I think the "Tina" death scene was handled very well. I also think that the last scene was much better than the original.
Official Noes Remake Review Thread! - Seph - 05-17-2010
<!--quoteo(post=362963:date=May 17 2010, 08:48 AM:name=DAKAZA)<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE (DAKAZA @ May 17 2010, 08:48 AM) <a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=362963\"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecI'm not trying to argue that NOES 2010 is superior to the remake. The original NOES will always be my favorite movie of all time. However, the remake is my second favorite film in the franchise. You're right that the wall scene wasn't as effective as the original. However, I don't know if I agree that this was the case with all of the reshot scenes. I think the "Tina" death scene was handled very well. I also think that the last scene was much better than the original.<!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndThe last scene with freddy comming out of the mirror and stabbing the mom through the eyes?
Official Noes Remake Review Thread! - dean7879 - 05-17-2010
<!--quoteo(post=362963:date=May 17 2010, 04:48 PM:name=DAKAZA)<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE (DAKAZA @ May 17 2010, 04:48 PM) <a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=362963\"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecI'm not trying to argue that NOES 2010 is superior to the remake. The original NOES will always be my favorite movie of all time. However, the remake is my second favorite film in the franchise. You're right that the wall scene wasn't as effective as the original. However, I don't know if I agree that this was the case with all of the reshot scenes. I think the "Tina" death scene was handled very well. I also think that the last scene was much better than the original.<!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndthe remake cant come close to the first 3 films.and i think the ending in the original is miles better. the glove through the eyes was cgi crap that i didnt care for.
Official Noes Remake Review Thread! - mpetrie - 05-17-2010
<!--quoteo(post=362989:date=May 17 2010, 10:50 AM:name=dean7879)<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE (dean7879 @ May 17 2010, 10:50 AM) <a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=362989\"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecthe remake cant come close to the first 3 films.and i think the ending in the original is miles better. the glove through the eyes was cgi crap that i didnt care for.<!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndHow many times have you seen the remake?
Official Noes Remake Review Thread! - DAKAZA - 05-17-2010
<!--quoteo(post=362989:date=May 17 2010, 12:50 PM:name=dean7879)<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE (dean7879 @ May 17 2010, 12:50 PM) <a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=362989\"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecthe remake cant come close to the first 3 films.and i think the ending in the original is miles better. the glove through the eyes was cgi crap that i didnt care for.<!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndAlthough I disagree, I respect your opinion. The first 3 movies were amazing.@Seph - yeah, I thought the CGI claw/mirror effect looked great and infinitely better than the Marge mannequin.
Official Noes Remake Review Thread! - Megatron - 05-17-2010
the original will always be better because it you didnt have to rely on over the top blood and gore to get a good scare which i believed the remake overdid