05-17-2010, 12:58 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2010, 12:59 AM by DarklyScanner.)
<!--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.
