MovieChat Forums > The Hills Have Eyes (1977) Discussion > The remake of this......in fact about an...

The remake of this......in fact about any remake


I will never see them........

I've seen a few remakes and finally decided to stop because it never improves the experience for me........so what's the point?



Oh wait, except for Cape Fear

reply

I tend to disagree with - and avoid - remakes based on principle.

I would much rather see original, brand new stories being brought to the screen rather than an endless parade of remakes, reboots, re-imaginings, and the like.

As someone who writes original stories and is often told by agents that there is 'no market' for original stories (not the agent's fault), it's very disheartening.



Never defend crap with: "It's just a movie"
My work:
watch?v=uwRqc0KSkJ0
watch?v=z74-vDDDmTU

reply

When you watch remakes, you have to be cautious, because 95% of all remakes are bad. Though, that being said, the remake of THHE is actually one of the 5% good remakes out there. And it doesn't hurt that Craven gave his support. Same can't be said about the A Nightmare on Elm Street remake, which was horrible.

I also agree with whom ever said the remake of Night of the Dead was a great remake. It was an updated version, but kept true to the original's gist, and hell, Romero wrote the script, so it didn't go without the master's touch. Like THHE remake, it's one of the few remakes that the original creators have had a part in. Seemingly that's how the Child's Play remake's going to be(it's going to be headed by Don Mancini(who was the writer of the original).

reply

THHE 1977 was a scary film. THHE 2006 wasn't just scary, it was utterly disturbing!

I think the 2006 remake was probably done for a couple of reasons:

1.- there were a rash of old, low budget horror movies being remade with a larger budget and advanced technology in that era. If wes Craven was involved in THHE 2006 then it was perhaps because he didn't want to be left behind in the rush?;

2.- THHE 1977 wasn't particularly gory, and was not a jump-scare movie. THHE 2006 had increased elements of both; probably deliberately.

I've always thought of THHE 2006 as an update rather than a remake. An update with advanced technology, a cast of established actors, increased gore, a high budget and more jump-scares/disturbing scenes, all of which were not as evident in THHE 1977


Perfection is boring - flaunt the imperfection!

reply

THHE 2006 is pretty much the same film ( a little updated, as you above me said ) just continued. Which is appropriate, considering THHE '77 just kind of ends, which is something that I like and don't like about the film.
However, my biggest issue with the film is what they did with the mutants. They made them a bunch of freaks who can't think straight.
Were they disturbing? Sure, but they just aren't the original family. The original family is far better.

The Saw: Speaker of truth and defender of the entire Texas Chainsaw original series.

reply

i could never get the point of remakes.

i dont mean "different adaptations", like those of hamlet, romeo and juliet, dracula, crime and punishment etc. these stories didnt become famous as films.

but seriously, what's the point of remaking of a movie? i would only watch a remake if i want to see its original version but it's not accessible. no dvd, no vhs, no broadcast on tv, not on youtube, no subtitle etc... so as a last i choice i would see remake.

reply

Sometimes remakes improve on the original (in my opinion The Thing, The Hills Have Eyes, and Mother's Day are some examples) but most of the time for me it's just fun to see a different take on a story.

Rob Zombie's Halloween for me was fun because it takes the characters we know and love (mainly Michael Myers, Dr. Loomis, and Laurie Strode) and gives them slightly different backgrounds and motivations. It's not trying to improve on the original or replace it, it's just trying to show you a different version of these well established characters just like they do in comic books with famous superheroes and villains. The original is definitely better, but the remake is a good watch.

Remakes can also simply be tributes to the original film and it's sequels. Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Dawn of the Dead and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre are examples of this. Pretty much any Platinum Dunes remake.

I'm not saying all remakes are good, or even watchable. I find The Fog, Prom Night, When a Stranger Calls and April Fool's Day among others to be pretty bad. But not all remakes are pointless, and some are pretty fun to watch if not better than the original. It's pretty ridiculous to think that any movie is better just because it's the original. There's more to judge a movie on than whether it's the original or the remake.

P.S. - When I say I enjoyed THE THING, THE HILLS HAVE EYES '06, and MOTHER'S DAY 2011 more, that doesn't mean I didn't like the originals. They're all good movies I just think the remakes told the stories better.

"Cinema is everything to me. I live and breathe films -- I even eat them!"
- Lucio Fulci

reply

[deleted]

THE REMAKE IS BETTER TO ME!!! THE ORIGINAL IS KINDA BORING





COME ON HOME WITH ME

reply

what is the point? MONEY


Rob Zombie is one of the greatest directors today

reply

ALL movies are about making money. And your signature is hilarious.

reply

That is so stupid. And unfair. Not every remake is made by the same people. Some of them are really good, like this one.

Just because you didn't like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, or the Halloween remake, doesn't mean the hills have eyes is going to be just as bad.

reply

[deleted]