MovieChat Forums > Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (1973) Discussion > Difference between the original and the ...

Difference between the original and the remake

posted 13 years ago by jeffyoung1
13 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS ***** SPOILERS ***** SPOILERS

In the 1973 original, the three, evil, malicious, ugly imps torment the married Sally (Kim Darby) mercilessly to the breaking point. The imps are clearly misogynistic and their unbridled hatred of Sally was never explained. In Sally's nighttime shower scene the three imps are voyeuristic as well. They discuss among themselves their nefarious plans for Sally. One of the more demented imps enthusiastically expresses his sociopathic urge to torture, maim and mutilate Sally (rape being the only non-option for the 12-inch tall imp) but the most influential of the imps persuades the other two to stay cool and wait for a better opportunity. This was excellent screenwriting. Because it was a made-for-television movie, of course there could be no slasher gore or sexual violence but having the imps openly discuss their 'options' made your imagination take over and made your skin crawl. No doubt had this been a theater movie, the crazed imps would have done 'much more' to Sally.

However in the remake, the imps are after a little girl and it's curious why director del Toro decided to make this major plot change. I think it detracts from the movie and doesn't give justice to the original. You're left with a darker version of "Poltergeist" instead. The director could have kept to the original and just showed Katie Holmes and her husband, Guy Pierce. Of course, this being an R-rated theatrical version, del Toro possessed much more leeway and freedom. The possibilities make your mind go into twisted corners. Omitting the little girl would mean all sorts of nasty things happening to Katie Holmes' character, Sally. The malicious little imps would do more to Sally than they could get away with in the television movie. But this would entail Katie Holmes being willing to allow nudity shown or sexual violence upon her character, something that Katie Holmes would probably veto. You have to have watched the 1973 original to understand where I am coming from. In the 1973 tv original the mean-spirited (pun intended) imps truly hate Sally for some odd reason but because it's television, the imps turn out to be very restrained in what they do to Sally, other than making loud noises, pranks, and scaring the bejesus out of her until they're ready to kidnap her and drag her bodily down into the basement to join them in their own private little hell.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 13 years ago

I haven't seen the remake, but I will say this much: the original has eye candy in it. The remake probably doesn't.

-------------------------

Ellery Queen(Jim Hutton) = HOT & SEXY!
"Haaah?" *puts his hand on his head*

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 13 years ago

"Who or what is the eye candy??"

Jim Hutton (the leading male actor) is the eye candy here. :) He was a very sexy and attractive man back in the seventies....especially when he was the star of the Ellery Queen series. :) I've dedicated my screen name and signature to him. :)

------------------------------------------------

Ellery Queen(Jim Hutton) = GEORGEOUS!

"Have you figured it out? You have all the clues..."

[–] Error_PC_LOAD_LETTER 13 years ago

Hmmm ... I'm not sure that's "eye candy."

Eye candy normally means artistic effects, colours, lights, decorations, special effects, fireworks, Christmas, razzle dazzle.

And 'cause' never was the reason for the evening,
--Or the Tropic of Sir Galahad.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 13 years ago

"Hmmm ... I'm not sure that's "eye candy."
Eye candy normally means artistic effects, colours, lights, decorations, special effects, fireworks, Christmas, razzle dazzle."

It also means that a georgeous man is the leading actor. :)

---------------------------------

Ellery Queen(Jim Hutton) = G E O R G E O U S!

"Is that all that's left of Harry?"

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Gobiastia 13 years ago

I saw the remake yesterday. The original is much scarier. The creatures are scarier. The atmosphere is scarier.

[–] TheGuyWithTheFeet 12 years ago

The remake was horrible. I think it played for squeemishness. The razor cuts and then the female lead's demise at the end...it was too gross-out and not enough scary.

[–] Poisoned_Dragon1964 12 years ago

However in the remake, the imps are after a little girl and it's curious why director del Toro decided to make this major plot change. I think it detracts from the movie and doesn't give justice to the original.

It's simple. In the 1973 film, Sally Farnum is victimized in ways that would no longer make sense in the 21st century. She is a housewife who is unable to do much without the permission of her husband - it's this tension that keeps her in the house, unable to stay with a friend without his permission. To give the character that kind of helplessness today, it's necessary to make her a child. And even Sally at one point demonstrates more resourcefulness than Mrs Farnum did in the '73 original - she packs a backpack and sets off down the highway, leaving the house, before being overtaken by her father and made to return.

Were you aware that the "most influential of the imps" was her grandfather? The desire to molest or rape Sally is something I think you're reading into it.

And the intention was that there were more of them than just three - it's just that three little people and three sets of makeup were all this film could budget. They were unable to show more than three at a time, but more were suggested, such as the ones at each door, locking them as Joan reached them.

§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§

[–] Xeokym 12 years ago

But this would entail Katie Holmes being willing to allow nudity shown or sexual violence upon her character, something that Katie Holmes would probably veto.

If that was the case, and it was in the script, Del Toro could've easily used a more willing actress.

»«ëÕ|{¥(V)
I can't understand your crazy moon language.

[–] ElectricWarlock 10 years ago

I actually saw the remake first. Both films are very good in my opinion, but the original is much better.

I've been waiting for you, Ben.

[–] ironjade 9 years ago

The main difference is the original doesn't suck.

"Say it with flowers . . . give her a Triffid."

[–] nashknight-1 9 years ago

Misogynistic? Voyeuristic? Rape? What, no!! Why does everything today has to be spun into misogyny? The imps "hate" Sally because she's a pure soul, and that's why they want to turn her into one of them.