Otherwise a significant genre/setting shift is required (7 Samurai-Magnif 7-Battle beyond...). Alternatively, some sort of intensification (The Thing, The Fly), or re-examination of theme makes it seem more worthwhile.

But just doing the same thing again is for wankers.

Rob Zombies Halloween was no where near as great as the original...hell it could arguably be considered to be a terrible movie...but I still enjoyed watching that spin on it and it was much better than any of the recent sequels.

The Chainsaw Massacre Remake (and subsequent prequel) were well-made and fun to watch...much better than ANY of the sequels which came after the original Massacre.

I was just watching ROBOCOP on tv today and I couldn't imagine how someone could remake that movie...at least they have someone like Aronofsky working on it and the final product should be very interesting. I would rather watch a remake and see where they take the series than let it die and fade into the land of movie-yesteryear.

If an original is good, it will always be there for you to enjoy and have nostalgic worth. In my opinion, remakes can be justified if given a good approach by a good team of filmmakers.

I don't mind those so much because no one is going to take them seriously. But a big budg remake of this just seems like a waste of everybodys time. Like The Omen and The Fog.

And the hand won't come out of the TV but a PC with the Blue Screen of Death.

But the real goal of course is market exploitation through brand recognition. Originality is seen as risky. Repackaging a proven product = much safer.

They don't realise, or care, that they will soon run out of things to cannibalize.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =T6pAfQInf2c

There is a piece of music played in the films "Talk To Me" and "The Last King of Scotland."

It's a light, jazzy piece, quite reminiscent of the 1970's era, obviously why they play it in both of those films. There aren't any words in it but it's catchy.

I've been searching for it for a long time...I wann download it but I don't know what it's called.

Blake Lively: Leia

Miley Cyrus: Hannah Solo

Alexis Bleidel: Lucy Skywalker

Rosie O'Donnell: Jabba

Ellen DeGeneres: Voice of Yoda

Directed by A Lesbian Porn Director

Because at this point, anything is an improvement ...

Rated Z for ZOMG

I do agree that remaking anything originally made after 1970 that was a quality film to begin with, is a bad idea artistically.

Unfortunately, as others have mentioned, as long as remakes make money we are stuck with them.

What I really want Hollywood to do is to remake movies that had good ideas but, the execution was bad in the original.

The one that always comes to my mind is Steven King's "The Running Man". The Arnold version completely fucked-up a great book. It would be very topical today with all the reality TV, global warming and economic problems. The ending would have to be changed because I don't think the audience could handle the hero doing what he does in the book after 911.

It's not that they are totally without movie-making ability. It's that they are without the courage of their convictions.

A long, long time ago, when this movie first came out on video, I lived in a little neighborhood that looked a LOT like Questa Verde. We had neighbors that had young kids, about 5 and 7. The older kid (who we'll call Harvey) had a stuffed clown that looked almost EXACTLY like the one in the movie. Being a mean 11-year old, I thought it would be funny to show him the part of "Poltergeist" where the clown comes alive and tries to strangle the kid. He was TERRIFIED, and went home to dispose of the clown.

Flash-forward 5 years. At a dinner with the former next door neighbors(they had since moved), Harvey's mom starts telling a story about how much I used to scare little 7-year old Harvey. Turns out, that after he had seen the movie, he hid the clown doll in the bottom of the closet. Mom found it while he was at school and put it back up on his bed. He hid it again in the laundry room, mom finds it, back on the bed again. This happened a bunch of times until little Harvey was scared to go anywhere NEAR this doll for fear that it would murder him. it got so bad before Mom finally figured out what was going on that little Harvey was having severe nightmares.

And that's how a scarred a little kid for life with "Poltergeist". 100 percent true.

We may not like to hear Sonic youth cover the Carpenters, but I’ve yet to hear any fan of the Carpenters screaming that it somehow ruins the original. (and those hard core Carpenters fans are crazy motherfuckers.)

It’s pack mentality hysteria and juvenile over-reaction. It may be a sign of creative bankruptcy on the part of the studios but it’s part and parcel of the business to wring every last dollar out of a concept. BFD

Where was the ire and outcry when Peter Jackson made the graceless decision to remake King Kong? The only improvement he could make, the one single thing he could bring to that particular table was “better special effects” and yet most of the fan community was so overcome by wallowing in the giddy adoration that they flopped over and thrust their collective asses in the air for him, biting down on the pillow till their teeth cracked as that interminable and night unforgivable drone of a movie unspooled.

He’s my “shut your fucking mouth” guideline. If it’s a movie based on a book, shut the fuck up – the time to hue and cry is when the 1st adaptation is announced, once a novel has been shoehorned into celluloid it’s open season. If it’s because the original has a flawed script or shows signs of age that some auteur thinks he can redress, shut the fuck up: let them take a pop: it damages nothing – to complain loudly is simple whining – reacting as if you got home to find your best friend giving your mother a facial, when in truth you only caught them jerking off over her picture. Relax and take a step back.

God they're actually starting on the fricking Classics now I just have no energy left to Rage against this hideous machine any more! If you posted they were remaking Starwars or The Godfather it would not surprise me at all.

Which means incidentally, that they CAN just do a re-release. The rerelease/dvd re-issue worked for Exorcist...

You know why? Because you left off the ONLY director that would make me (and I'm sure some others) say FUCK YEAH I'LL SEE THAT REMAKE!:

Chris CUNNINGHAM. Think about what he's done (and if you don't have his directors' series DVD fucking get it), and think about how he could do a version of this that would make you lose control of every bodily function.

Rubber Johnny for Zelda's part. Or Bjork!

Despite its legendary flawless classic status - head and shoulders over Poltergeist - you seem to be fine with Kong getting the redo treatment. When is the cut off point, what are the criteria that the mewling mob follow when deciding what to "allow" and when to drag out the knee-jerk buzz words ("rape!!!")like drooling pavlovian mutts.

For the record, in case you find another gear on the "Losing my Shit over nothing-O-Meter" I’m not accusing you specifically of being a drooling pavlovian mutt – just implying it. Only you know for sure.

If that's not greedy enough, they then use the money from the pre-sales to fund the actual production! Before it's even opened! Which is such fucked-up time-travelling fiscal shit it messes with my head!

Lastly, a friend told me about productions where they made their profit from the pre-sales and decided it wasn't enough, so still before they'd opened, they cut cast members and set-pieces. Audience wouldn't know, and they already had their money! Begs belief!

Man, I hope my wife doesn't see this, she'd kill me. Yes, I'm going to hell...

1) The house sucking itself into a dot.

2) Jerry fucking Goldsmith.

3) JoBeth Williams spinning around the room in her undies.

Go to hell, Hollywood.

Whores.

I'll go first:

Two minutes into The Amityville Horror when Ronnie DeFeo points a rifle at his kid sister and says "I love you, Jodie."

Instant and fatal fuck-up!

The remake craze has to wear itself out at some point. Eventually they will run out of popular films to remake and we'll get movie remakes to films that people have never heard of. It has to end sometime. Doesn't it?

Just kidding, of course I do, you're a bunch of fucking retreads.

I read "Argh! Remake! Evil!" a lot here - and recently it's become the bonding bandwagon du jour. So my fellow erudite critics, if it's bad to remake, tell me why? Construct a fucking logical argument, I DARE you. Consider this my one futile attempt to raise the bar.

"Cash grab" isn't an answer, because most movies are: if we cancel the media projects that get made because of avarice then there goes most of the slate. Tell me why you hold this oppinion, because my guess is it's not an opinion at all - it's regurgitation.

Or you could just spouting the same few lines every time a REMAKE banner hits the site - as if anyone gives a shit about what you say. And woah there, don't for a second think that I do, I just like calling mindless baying drones out once in a while, doubly so when they actually think they are saying something.

If you are going to go to the trouble of posting, try and fucking SAY something.

It's getting worse....

i have never seen the original king kong. when peter jackson remade it, (though the time spent in the jungle was indulgent) i enjoyed it.

if they're remaking poltergeist, or goonies, or whichever 80s movies they are remaking, it seems to be to make some bank off of the people that haven't seen the original. people born after 1982.

my issue with these remakes is...i've seen the originals, and would like some new material, not a replica with bigger effects and more extreme editing.

i wish they'd write a new ghost story, instead of capitalizing off of an established name.

Maybe you'd like to answer my earlier question to you:

Can you name one single good, recent horror remake?

Why should we do anything but complain considering the dire offal we've been served so far?

I cannot help but notice the high number of remakes and "re-imaginings" we're seeing in movie theaters these days, and I have to wonder if the simple accounting of these projects has escaped you. Instead of appealing to your artistic ideals (which assumes you have any to appeal to) I will appeal to your bottom line. This is about money.

Simply put, it costs millions of dollars to remake a movie. There's not a lot of getting around that figure, either. Millions. You know; You see the books. You approve the budgets. This is your money. When you invest a shitload of cash into a remake, the hope is that the box office take will be good enough to pay for the film and then earn your studio a profit. It's simple business.

But why spend millions of dollars on a remake? Why spend the budget on actors' salaries, building new sets, hiring a new director, and paying a new crew? You have a finished product already!

What I propose is this: Instead of remaking a classic like Poltergeist, you might consider cleaning up the original print, digitally repairing the special effects that look dated, remastering the score and audio tracks, and then re-releasing the film in theaters as a "Enhanced Edition" or "Special Edition".

Surely a process like this would cost a lot less than remaking the entire film. You could even hire the surviving actors for publicity tours to the talk shows, and maybe have them record some lines if needed to repair the original's audio. That would still be cheaper than hiring them to do a full-on acting job.

There are people out there who have never seen the originals of these movies you're remaking, and that's a shame, because many of these movies are proven money-makers.

You could even re-release without telling people it's a re-release. Do you realize how much of your audience wouldn't know it was a re-release if you didn't tell them?

Yes, they can buy the movie at Wal*Mart for $6, but they're watching an old print on DVD, and screening it on their home theater. For most non-enthusiasts, the home experience just isn't the same as a theater experience.

Another option is to use the new 3D enhancement process that had George Lucas so excited. Apply it to these older films and re-release them as "TRU3D" or "Ultimate 3D Edition" or something like that.

Look, guys... People WILL pay to see these movies in theaters if you advertise them as much as you advertise your newest Martin Lawrence piece of crap. The old fans will pay to see a classic the way it's meant to be seen, and the new viewers will welcome a movie experience that isn't neutered and glammed-up.

Clean it up enough, do a digital transfer, and you'll have some audience members think the new print of the original Poltergeist was made in 2008. THAT'S a worthwhile investment, and the returns will be about the same as if you went through the process of making a whole new film, once you consider the costs involved.