MovieChat Forums > Black Christmas (1974) Discussion > why do they always and i mean always hav...

why do they always and i mean always have to ruin classic films like this one?

posted 5 years ago by lukejbarnett (1869)
19 replies | jump to latest

just since 2003 we've known about over 30 classic horror film remakes. that's so wrong. and the remakes keep coming, it's really surprising we've never had a gremlins remake or a hellraiser remake. i thought the directors and producers of classic horror films have the right to not let someone remake their film, don't they? we've had now just about every classic horror film from the '70s and '80s been remade. a nightmare on elm street, halloween, black christmas, dawn of the dead, etc. this is so sickening.

[–] hurricane (1908) 5 years ago

I don't know how the rights issues surrounding the remaking of movies works, so can't really comment.

What I will say is that movies get remade a lot because they're seen as low-risk. Instead of creating a new idea, make a new movie from a franchise that has a built in fanbase. People will see it, even if they're just watching it to say how much they hate it. Studios don't really care about critical acclaim as much these days, as long as their movie turns a profit.

What I'd say is don't let a remake ruin your enjoyment of the original film. The 2006 Black Christmas was pretty mediocre, for example, but it hasn't stopped me enjoying the original. The original is still a masterpiece. The fact that they made a shoddy remake 30-odd years later doesn't change that.

[–] PaladinNJ (20310) 5 years ago

The rights belong to the studio, not the director or producer. Once they buy them its up to them how they use them. Sometimes they expire. Then the author can opt to go elsewhere. That's what happened with Tom Harris and Hannibal Lector.

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 5 years ago

what do you mean the author an opt to go elsewhere?

[–] TheArgentinian (6432) a year ago

they can sell the rights to another studio. Like it happened with the new Halloween.

[–] jakemon45 (971) 5 years ago

Remakes don't ruin the originals.

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 5 years ago

in a way they do just their existing because even if you don't watch the remake the fact that it exists really hurts the original film because you sadly think about it existing.

[–] jakemon45 (971) 5 years ago

I guess if that's enough to ruin it for you, that's your problem not the remake's. That's pretty ridiculous, really. I'm a big horror guy, and Halloween is my joint. I can't tell you how often I don't remember the remake even exists. I'm reading a book about the Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th movies. Every time it mentions the remakes I'm like "oh yeah, the remakes", and then I move on with my life. Not at all a difficult thing to get over.

[–] Wuchak (8110) 5 years ago

Some horror remakes improve upon the original (and a few vastly so):

- The Last House on the Left (2009)
- My Bloody Valentine (2009)
- Black Christmas (2006)

Some remakes are too different to compare to the original:

- House of Wax (2005)
- Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
- Piranha (2010)

Sometimes they just can't beat the original:

- Psycho (1998)
- Night of the Living Dead (1990)
- Carrie (2002 & 2013)
- Piranha (1995)
- The Amityville Horror (2005)

Some are too similar in all-around quality to pick one above the other:

- Fright Night (2011)
- The Fog (2005) (I know I'm going to get flack for this, but I really appreciate this remake)

Some aren't necessarily better, but they're scarier:

- Friday the 13th (2009)
- A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Some just aren't good:

- Prom Night (2008)

[–] charliekelly (1018) 5 years ago

Wow. So the "Black Christmas" remake is better, huh? I may have to watch it, now. I've always avoided it because I liked the original.

[–] Wuchak (8110) 5 years ago

The tacked-on ending of the 2006 remake almost singlehandedly ruins the movie, but I was absorbed in the story up to that point, which -- to me -- is the best indicator of a quality movie. I found the original 1974 version dull by comparison, particularly the first half, but it picked up steam in the second. And the open-ended climax was interesting.

But I strongly prefer the female cast in the remake; they're just all-around superior IMHO. Of course Olivia Hussey is attractive in the original, albeit cold, but Margot Kidder as Barb is one of the most obnoxious characters in cinema -- a real turn-off (so is Mrs. Mac, but less so). Thankfully, Barb's only prominent through the first half.

[–] charliekelly (1018) 5 years ago

I might watch the newer one then and meet you in the middle haha. I just read a few reviews that it wasn't good and just took their word for it. You're the first person that I've actually spoken with about it.

[–] Wuchak (8110) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hurricane (1908) 5 years ago

Each to their own, but I find the original to be a far, far superior film.

I don't much care for the remake.

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 5 years ago

yeah, exactly, this person doesn't know a thing about films and horror films. like ok, so black christmas from 2006 is better than bc from 1974? and so is last house on the left, the amityville horror and my bloody valentine? also what is piranha from 1995? and really the fog from 2005 is about as good as the original? and no friday the 13th reboot wasn't scary at all and the remake of a nightmare on elm street was just slightly scary, it wasn't anywhere near as scary as the original.

[–] Mrmojo4700 (20441) 5 years ago

I only agree with one of his selections. I did think Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) was better than the original.

[–] hurricane (1908) 5 years ago

The Black Christmas remake is not better. Ignore that.

[–] sslssg (27744) 5 years ago

I preferred the original Black Christmas to the remake. I think it might just be the grittiness of it? The remake wasn't bad though. I'm not sure that it needs another remake though and it's only been 13 years since the last one.

I usually don't mind remakes, but I'm getting really, really sick of them.

[–] untildawna (103) 5 years ago

That's so silly, how do remakes "ruin the original"? You sound ridiculous. No once is forcing you to watch the remakes, and the existence of a remake doesn't just magically ruin the original film. If anything remakes HELP the originals because they can get younger audiences and people who may have never seen or heard of the original to seek out the original film.

[–] lukejbarnett (1869) 5 years ago

not true. remakes are made for people to watch them because the makers sometimes feel people don't want to watch an old movie so they think of updating it and young people usually don't watch movies that are from before the '80s.