Why does Hollywood feel the need when no stories are available to them (No suprise) they have the nerve to rehash superior foreign films into s hit, dumbed down versions that "fit" into the american culture and you have the inclination and the stupidity to think that they are superior to the original.
You make me sick.
Why are you asking us? Most Americans don't know what the hell really goes on in Hollywood. And people who hate entire cultures for one section of the people who live there are truly the ones who are sickening.
"Hill House, not sane, stood by itself for eighty years and might stand for eighty more."
One director does something you don't like and all of the sudden it's "AmericanS." You make ME sick. It's the same with our government. They do something someone disagrees with and all Americans are A-holes. What's wrong with you? Calm down, man. I've been to almost 30 countries all over this world. People are people no matter where you go. Obviously you're into sci-fi/horror, so use that as having something in common with an American, even if you don't like his choice. Not that your opinion makes any difference to me, but is it really fair to bash an entire country and it's people because a director decides to remake a hit? Kinda weird, dude. Kinda weird.
share
The original looks even BETTER after this catastrophe !
I agree with you on the remake aspect, but I think that stereotyping all Americans because of what a couple of fools do in Hollywood. I could say that in your country everyone has terrible teeth, or that everyone is a snob, but again, stereotyping is nothing more than a bypass of thinking. Are you, yourself slow?
"Honey, get me an anxiety pill."
[deleted]
I'm American and I wasn't involved with the remake. So get it right you twat. And more importantly, American filmmakers are also remaking American films. So WTF is your point?
Oh wait you don't have one. This is a post to simply bash Americans. And you people call us ignorant. That's rich.
And based off the rating for both, it seems more people liked the original you *beep* pathetic useless twat.
The phone is dead. Do you hear that, Vitus? Even the phone is dead.
Well I liked the movie...
“PC Games pwn console games so bad it’s not even funny.”
^ Take this mook to be stoned to death.
completely disregard the Novel?
This is A Sig
---
IMDB...its not fanboard
Like the entire American population, excluding 20 million illegal aliens who worked for cash under the table, I too was on the record as being closely involved in the decision to remake VOTD and then was integral in the rewriting of the original screenplay (the original was, btw, written by AMERICAN Stirling Silliphant based on Britain's own John Wyndham's Midwich Cuckoos), and then we--the entire American population--promoted a campaign and then a national election to select the cast. I was one of only 350,000 who voted for Dame Judith Anderson over Kirstie Alley.
OK. Joke's over. John Carpenter remade The Thing, and his remake was much closer to the original stort story, with his shape-shifting alien creature, than was the original movie. Far from being "dumbed down", it was intellectualled up. And Carpenter was rewarded with critical acclaim and box office apathy.
As someone else who grew up on 50's science fiction, I can easily understand the desire to remake the movies we remember so fondly. Difference is, most of us can never do anything about it. The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Day the Earth Stood Still [coming soon], Invaders from Mars (that one had different US and British versions! I don't know which the remake was based on.), War of the Worlds, The Blob, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Godzilla, The Time Machine. I can't think of the many more, but some have worked as remakes--like The Thing. Some, like VOTD, have been pretty poor. And some have been so bad as to be an embarrassment (War of the Worlds).
I'm still waiting for Them, Creature from the Black Lagoon, When Worlds Collide, Forbidden Planet, Monolith Monsters, Quatermass and the Pit, The Monster That Challenged the World, and It Came from Beneath the Sea, and that great European masterpiece, The Trollenberg Terror.
How many American horror movies did Hammer studios re-make and rip-off? Where is Hammer now? Did they not have any original ideas to keep their studio running? Hollywood has become lazy and remakes everything, but don't let the British/European teacup call the pot black, okay gov'nah?
shareI like both movies. Sometimes remakes are bad, but when it is a novel or a short story it is not really a remake. I think it is a different sight on the same book or like painting the same model by 2 different painters.
A remake would be more ( in my opinion) a new movie based directly on a previous one, like the hills have eyes ( here, I liked the remake more than the original) or King Kong.
I wanted to watch a movie based on Oliver Twist recently, but I can't see which is the remake in the many adaptations. They are all different, and I certainly don't want to see the one made in 1912 just because it is the first one ever, all the other being remakes. But the 1912 version is already a remake of the novel for a different media, or am I really really wrong ?
I thought this was a good remake.
I'm a million different things, and not a one you know.
As far as American re-makes are concerned it was terrible, but not all American re-makes are the same, just their re-makes of classics that can't be improved on and are just vehicles to make a bit of spare cash!
shareThis was way better than the original. The original was so one-dimensional and the characters were almost as emotionless as the children. It really only works as Cold war analogy/simple horror movie. Carpenter's is more dramatic and intense dealing with more issues that make it timeless. I think the acting was much better too espicially Reeve. I love the ending with David surviving who has learned to show emotions to blend in with humans. The original's ending didn't really have much of a point. It is not really a remake either but another adaptation of the novel.
share GrandNagusZek; you hit the nail on the head there mate. Totally agree. Carpenter's version, NOT remake, is soooo superior to the first version of Wyndham's book. I tend to believe that people who prefer the original focusing more on the scares and not the content of the film. Carpenter's film has such a complexity. I love that the film is so much about today's dilemma when the so-called "normal" people are not capable to adapt to different people, to certain minorities in society. I love the dialogue at the barn between Ch.Reeve and his daughter, it's so philosophical and so true! People either prefer the road of "individualism" like those children or certain villagers (even the priest), which means "the stronger you are the better you survive" exploiting others for his/her own success/survival. Or they prefer the road of "adaptation" which i think is the most humane way, it's a straight way to worldwide peace as a matter of fact, because this way of life suggests the view that we all are "one" and should care about each other as much as about ourselves. I also find it amazing that Reeves's suicide at the end seem to make people think a little. As if Carpenter was trying to say that killing any "life force" on this planet makes you killing your own humanity as well, in a way. I see there subtle philosophical signs and messages that make me really think about the subject matter like "survival".
Anyway, this film has so much more to offer, it's not just a horror film, in fact I don't think it belongs to any particular genre. It's more like a human drama with supernatural elements in it. I strongly believe that Carpenter was extremely ahead of his time with this film, its content and its message. Maybe the style fo the film is dated, hell it was dated already in 95, but the content of the film is still very fresh and actual. For this reason I think this film will survive.