When I say "actual" remake, I mean a remake that's not a scene by scene, line by line reshot. Like the remake for Texas Chainsaw Massacre as opposed to a Psycho remake (like this movie did). Oh, keep all the classic songs in it, yes, but change the dialogue and plot to be an actual remake/retelling that's more original. Would this have been better rather than what they did?
shareI honestly don't think this needed to be remade. And after watching this attempt, I'm pretty sure I'm right.
_________
No, David. No one is happy in a poodle skirt and a sweater set.
You must remember that the initial RHPS reception was terrible. It was something about that particular film that brought people around.
Fox doesn't understand that. But the fans should.
"Our Art Is a Reflection of Our Reality"
I didn't think the original was awful. I don't think anyone in the theater thought it was awful. Maybe I've misunderstood you?
shareThe original film received bad reviews and no business upon release.
BUT its unique charm shone through in midnight revivals and made it a mega cult hit eventually.
That's not the sort of lightning you catch twice, and this "remake" has proven it. The original is an amazing event with performances that have become iconic.
You don't recapture that. You don't need to, once it's committed to film.
"Our Art Is a Reflection of Our Reality"
Sorry, back in 1975 I didn't really pay much attention to reviews or "success" of a movie. I saw it at The Castro theater in San Francisco, and the audience loved it. Of course, the audience and film were made for one another....
_________
No, David. No one is happy in a poodle skirt and a sweater set.
The film was released in August of 1975 in London and 8 US cities and was pulled shortly after due to very small audiences. It wasn't until April Fool's Day 1976 that RHPS found it's home in midnight showings (first in NY) then across the country.
If you saw it in 1975 then you were one of the very few.
I'll say this, if they ever do a legit remake, then do a direct adaptation of The Rocky Horror Show stage play. Don't try to do a shot by shot remake like they did with this new 2016 version. That annoyed me. Because there were some logical things they could have added, but it seems like the only thing the director knows about Rocky Horror is the 1975 film. The problem with the 1975 version, as much as we all may love it, it's missing a lot of stuff that was from the stage play. Like for example, the stage play actually explains why all of the characters that were against Frank, all of a sudden have an orgy the next scene. Another thing that doesn't make sense in the 1975 film version, is that Rocky is a mute, yet he could still sing. But in the stage play, Rocky has normal intelligence. So he can both talk and sing. Also Columbia's death makes more sense in the stage play. So it's frustrating that the director chose to ignore all of this. Yes, I know. Fox doesn't own the right to the stage play. But that bull! How can they add Trixie in this new version, but they can't add these bits and pieces from the stage play? Makes no sense.
shareWell, the Time Warp sounds like the Roxy Cast version of The Rocky Horror Show, so does that count?
Criminals:
The stupid ones get arrested,
The smart ones get re-elected.
No. Because I dislike the Roxy version for three reasons. 1.) It isn't the original, despite what it says on the album cover. 2.) Roxy recordings sound like pop songs, rather than soft rock. 3.) Roxy recordings aren't exactly accurate to how it was played on stage at the Roxy theater in 1974.
shareOther than Tim Curry as Frank, I find the remake MUCH better than the original. I don't understand why they find the origins better. The remake has a bigger budget. It's more colorful and the cast is much better. Especially Adam Lambert, Victoria Justice, Ben Vereen and Reeve Carney. They're much better. Only Tim Curry though can do Frank.
shareOne thing I found myself thinking as I was watching it is that I was wondering if Shock Treatment will be next and if that remake will somehow become the smash hit while this one gets swept under the rug, opposite to what happened with the originals.
But yeah, you would think that they could have tried to expand on the story or give a new twist on the story or something. They gave everything a makeover and included some nods to the audience participation side of the fandom, but mostly stuck pretty close to the original script.
The original movie is arguably a perfect version of what it was trying to go for so either doing a sequel or changing things up would have been better.
share