Should the classics be remade?
 

[My fiance and I got into it over seeing the remake of I Spit on your Grave. I think they should remake the classics.It keeps them fresh. He thinks they shouldnt, that they can't capture the power and grit of the origina, which is a must see for all women. Paybacks a bitch! I'd love to hear what you thinkFONT="Arial"][/FONT]

Personally I thought the movie was shit. Not worthy of remake. Like Cannibal Holocaust it was famous cause of shock value (least that's how I see it). However it does have a big enough fan base to get a remake.

At the moment I am so tired of remakes I would have to say no, remakes are rarely a good thing. For every good remake there are roughly 20 crappy ones.

Life is shocking Don't get electrocuted

Because that made sense. *Thread just jumped the shark* Oh...

I got sick to death of sub par remakes after I caught The Last House On The Left. But then I remembered there were a few that were actually pretty good.

The Fly (1986), The Blob (1988) and Savini's Night Of The Living Dead remake did make me delve deeper into horror when I was younger so maybe they are a good thing to get people interested in horror flicks...

It's not like they've taped over the originals with the new versions so it's all good by me.

But I'd definitely prefer to see more original films get made. It's weird how remakes basically are subgenre of their own now.

...and say what you will about them but there's no denying they've put horror back into the spotlight a bit.

No way I Spit On Your Grave is a great film.

That's your personal opinion. Respect mine. Thank you.

I was? I way just stating I didn't agree. Chill out...

I don't see how remaking a film keeps the originals "fresh."

I'm infamous on this board for hating remakes. I'll have to admit there are a few I like. A very few. But, like Elvis, I'd prefer to see the resources used to make more original films. There are so many worthy projects that are passed over because they can't get funding, yet a crappy, by the numbers remake will always get the go ahead.

Agreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed.

Also: Why are remakes such a hot topic for n00bs? I feel like we have this discussion every few months or so. It's getting exhausting...

Or maybe they're keeping the topic 'fresh'. ;)

????? My remark was actually done quite calmly. Sorry if you read it any other way dude. Moving along now. Remake while they can be good should really not be made as often. Its not introduce a new generation? I'm sorry I didnt realize they were not capable of watching the original.

I guess by "fresh" aprilc1 was meaning the originals aren't forgotten about and become more widely known to those who were perhaps unfamiliar with them.

To be fair this happens a lot regardless of remakes. Studios and audiences dig by the numbers art in general so that's what gets made while original and challenging stuff gets put on the back burner because it's more of a risk financially.

Some of the older movies ....not all...SOME....could benefit with a remake...i.e The Thing


then there's the bad ones...i.e. The Fog

Sometimes the repeat magic works, but not often
 

Once in a while, a remake comes across very well, as in John Carpenter's "The Thing", much more faithful to Campbell's original "Who Goes There?" story. That remake I'd say is by far the best ever.

The original "The Fly" had this excellent sense of suspense and mystery (faithful to the original story) where the press is set to zero clearance, two cycles were activated, etc. and this really added to the story. And who can forget that horrible Hedison-head fly?

The sequel w. Goldblum was fun, but even though it was more graphic, it really wasn't more scary.

There have been some pretty entertaining Dracula and Frankenstein remakes, with I'd say the Coppola Dracula being by far the best.

And then there are classics that simply cannot be improved upon, like King Kong.

I'm not against remakes per se, but it takes a lot of effort and care to outdo the original, in most cases.

Oh, and may those who tried to remake The Wicker Man please burn in hell, suffering the same fate as those who screwed with The Manchurian Candidate.

I agree with others that a principal objection to remakes is that it takes money away from new and fresh projects.

I never braved watching The Wicker Man remake. Sounded to painful :)

i was born in 1984 which happens to be something i don't have any control over. there are way too many movies for me to have seen that were made before then. i try to watch as many of the "classics" as i can when i have time. for example i have not seen the original wolfman but i liked the remake. yes i understand the whole remake thing and fanboys...you think the original is being tainted but its not. its simply being retold almost in the same way urban legends and myths are retold and slightly changed. another comparison would be geeks who say windows xp will always be better than vista or 7. change and the updating of things is inevitable and i for one welcome it

I wonder why nobody says "Let's rewrite The Tell-Tale Heart" or "Let's repaint Starry Night" ... they're so old and nobody today can relate to them.

My first born son shares the same name as me....so in essence

I'm a remake

It was God awful.

GOD there are moments where I just simply love you madly for your snide remarks. <3

Guys, I got this cool idea. Why don't we rewrite "The Tell-Tale Heart"??

It needs updating...the characters need cell phones. You know, like, "'Bitches!' I shrieked, into the cell phone. 'I did it, you muthas! Tear up the planks, you muthas! You can all bite me or my dark variant!'" I think we have a weiner.

You're a sick pumpkin, crabby...

"That's right, bitches! Tear up the planks, bitches! Oh wait, I have a text coming in. Ohh no! It's a text--a text from his hideous heart!!"

Calm down, friend... :rolleyes:

Another pretty good remake is Paul Schrader's "Cat People" w. Nasty Kinky amd Malcolm McDowell.

Not of course a remake of the great Val Lewton/Jaques Tourneur classic -- that's one of the greats -- but nevertheless a well made and well acted movie, both sexy and entertaining. McDowell was especially fine. One of my fave shots is that long sequence when he comes into the house late, and goes up the stairs to his sister's bedroom. The camera work was superb in that shot.

Truths learned by watching the newer Cat People: 1) ol' Nasty is a gorgeous babe, and 2) nobody wears underwear in the movie.

The original totally lacked BEES....

Well, it depends upon what you consider a classic. Are you talking about. Do you consider classic to be 1920's-1930's ? Or do you consider 1940"s-1950's or 1960's-1970's ? For example, i think the remake of Night of the living dead wasn't all that good. The 1967 verson was better, I think. It wasn't bad, when the colorized verson of the 1967 one came out. Another example, is Psycho... I much preferd the original one, myself. Another example is phantom of the opera, the 1920's verson. Although this was a silent movie, It had its scary moments, for that era. I just didn't care for the remake of this one either. Still yet another one is Halloween... I didn't think the remake was all too scary, either. However, that is my opnion, only.