Original vs Remake

the main reason for poor box office scores is because of the economy is screwed up and ticket prices are extremily high

I hate remakes from my generation (late 70s to early 90s). I'll never forget seeing the original as a kid on VHS tape in the summer of 1986! I was blown away and it is one of my all time favorites!

This remake was a desperate Netflix rental this weekend. I also saw it got good reviews from Roger Ebert and other critics. I figured, how bad could it be? So I broke my generation remake rule..

They should have changed either the name of the movie or at least the names of the old beloved characters.

In the old version, Charlie and Amy are average good kids. They didn't come off as nerds or the cool kids. They both had average looks for the 80s.. In this one Amy is super hot and part of the cool group so Charlie becomes part of it being with her! In the old version, it seemed like Charlie and Amy felt sorry for Evil Ed so they let him hang around. This one Charlie wants to avoid him because he's the creepy nerd making him look bad!

I know times change so in these modern times you couldn't have Peter Vincent as a TV horror host like Sir Graves or even Elvira because kids wouldn't understand. But having him as a Kriss Angel or David Blaine type felt outdated too! I hoped they would have had him like an Art Bell or George Noory type doing a Coast to Coast AM show on the radio or a YouTube show!

And then we get the awful tacked on backstory that vampires actually killed Vincent's parents a few decades ago and it just happened to be Jerry himself!

The scene with "turned Amy" wasn't nearly as long or as scary as the original!...The added on group of turned teen vampires added nothing to this new movie!

Then there was Charlie's mother. I love Toni Collete but that whole scene of the house on fire then the car chase was just the worst led by her! Way too mellow acting like it was really no big deal what was happening around her for most of it!

And lastly the final scene! No tease at all of a final scare or the characters looking over their shoulders with an odd noise or sight unlike the original! Even the end credits were annoying! I sat through them thinking we'd get a tease if they hoped to make a sequel. It was nothing more than an actual highlight recap of the entire movie itself!

Say what you like about this film, but the music score was amazing

Uhh no. It was incredibly bland and forgettable.





Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

Who cares about the box office when discussing the quality of a film, seriously? IMDb's number 1 on the top 250 BARELY scratched the surface when it bombed. On it cost 25m to make, and made a little over 28m.. And look at it now, one of the most beloved films of the 90's.
Now I'm not trying to compare the quality of these films to the quality of the Fright Night remake, but just merely pointing out the fallacy of bringing up box office numbers in a discussion of a films quality.



If this was a good film in it's own right, of course it wouldn't matter if there was zero box office. The quality would be it's own reward so to speak. But in this case, the lack of box office is deserved. It's a dreadful film and added up in toto, it's box office is just another indicator of how badly received it was. It's just another discussion point in this film's case as to how bad it was. There's brilliant films out there that make no money, yes indeed. But sometimes - frankly, often - bad movies make little money, as is the case here. Just as sometimes box office isn't an indicator, sometimes it actually is. Like here.

Back to what the OP is saying, I haven't yet seen the original, but I've been meaning to for a long while, long before I even considered watching the remake. I watched the remake over the weekend though as it looked like some easy fun, and I was pleasantly surprised to find it so exciting, well acted & fascinating to watch. I really enjoyed the film's characters also, particularly Jerry & Peter Vincent, of course. I do plan on watching the original ASAP.

If you haven't seen the original then do yourself a favor and seek it out. I have no idea how old you are so whether the film will be 'dated' or not to you but even taking that and the change in tastes over the last 25 years to junk food as opposed to a decent meal, so to speak, there's no way you would not see the original was better written with deeper levels of characterisation and just all out a better story.

Where did you hear this? Can you prove he said that, because I think that maybe you misunderstood. The only thing I can come across of Farrell criticising the film was simply that he was a huge fan of the original and in reading the script he was hoping it would be crap, but he loved it & went with it.

I have not misunderstood. Simply because you don't know of the incident, don't assume people bringing it to your attention must somehow be a cretin. I am not the first, nor the only person to have brought this up. He was a guest on The Late Show as I understand it, and in an unguarded moment when questioned about the film he said it was "sh#t". This has, as I've said, been brought up by a bunch of different people here and no, I have not found the clip so can't personally verify it. But as a bunch of other people have all described it the same, and considering Farrell's candidness about the films he's not pleased with that he's been involved in - and the fact it IS verified he was playing up on set after various takes in protest over how he disliked the studio interference and dumbing down of the characters - I can well believe it. He's most certainly made people aware the script they shot was a rewrite from the script he agreed to do and was not pleased about it.





Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

Awww, it's so nice to know a random stranger on the internet pities me. That's me told, and I vow to change my ways immediately. You've made me see the light, I tells ya. But as you obviously haven't read my comments thoroughly you've gone off on a tangent about remakes. I don't have a problem if they're good. This one was not. Not in any way, shape or form. As to you not knowing that adults could act so childish and petty, please. Either you're truly reaching for a way to insult while not knocking your own holier than thou missive, or you've never left your home since birth and this is your first time on the internet. I'm guessing I know which, troll. Still, at least you have your love of crap films to comfort you. Toodles, numbnuts.




Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

All the Piranha movies had in common was the title and piranhas killing people.

The original has aged horribly.
_________________
How? The special effects were state of the art for a bigger budgeted horror movie of it's time and most films have an outdated look to them as times goes by, so will this remake. You can say this about any classic horror film from last century and this can't be helped due to contemporaries.

The original Fright Night-85', is full of gothic atmosphere, 80's nostalgia and even kitsch, that makes it a real charmer of horror\comedies. The script was witty and the characters were far more amusing and interesting. While vampires and the boy who cried wolf are not exactly original stories, the film was originally presented and I don't recall seeing anything like it that had gone before.

I have seen this remake twice, first in 3D at the cinema and then on blu ray a couple of years ago. I quite enjoyed it in 3D and was interested to see what they would do with the story, and my friend who had never seen the original was enjoying it, so I got amusement out of his own enjoyment. Upon second viewing, I started to scrutinize what was wrong with it. It's an acceptable remake, but the main characters were just not as endearing and the dialogue with newbie lingo\idioms, is only representative of how unappealing many of the younger generation can be today. It was designed to pander to an age demographic and it backfired by flopping. I do however, think that Colin Farrell was perfectly cast as Dandridge. He does tend to be box office poison for some reason though.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩

[deleted]

lol, you guys talk about the original like it's some gripping, intense masterpiece. Get over it, you may like it, but it's not all that great. Sure for a vampire movie maybe, but look at the ton of vampire movies that are pure garbage. So yes, comparing it to the likes of the lost boys 2, the original Fright Night is a masterpiece. Comparing it to everything else, it's a lame, ordinary vampire flick with no originality or depth. Stop talking about it like it's Shawshank, seriously

Kenny, try reading comprehension. No-one here is comparing it to quality drama in other genres. As has been stated many times, it was a massive success within the horror genre so stop whining if we actually present you with facts about the original production - and they are facts, well known. It's no Shawshank, indeed, but no-one is saying it was. It was however one of the most successful horror films of the 80's whether you like it or not, that fact stands. That said, go reading about the production yourself - another fact is it's widely noted for being far more developed in script and characterisation than most other horror films so just because you don't like it personally doesn't make it a lame, ordinary vampire flick. That's the last thing it is and is widely known for being the opposite of that within the genre. Like I say, personal taste is one thing, but at least try and have the facts on your side when you want to make a pronouncement on a films inherent quality.

And while I can agree with you, Fright Night was no Shawshank in terms of drama and quality, well, the same thing can be said about this remake, except here, Fright Night 2011 was no Fright Night 1985. By a larger margin than what seperates the quality of Fright Night and Shawshank, too. Both Shawshank and FN 1985 at least had award winning writers, directors and actors known for quality on both stage and screen, known also for professionalism. The best that can be said about FN 2011 is it had a 4'6" drunken Irish actor, famous for his massive eyebrows and the fact he's open and frank about deliberately giving bad performances when he doesn't like the script he's working with.







Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

The original is a lot better. Of course I'm a child of the 80s and saw the original first, so there's that. However I see a lot of other remakes prior to viewing the original, and I typically find the original to be a better movie. So there's that. Originals are just usually better.

Maybe you two should start up the Stephen Geoffreys Fan Club. Where you can discuss the amazing depth that others find nonexistent in terrible overacting.

Sorry but there was no CGI in the original Fright Night. It was all hands on makeup and props. Which I still find better in a lot of cases.

You have a point destroyerwod, and I'll take it further. Movie ticket sales are going down across the board. It's a different world now then it was then. Back then you had limited tv and the movie theater. Now you have tons of ways to get entertainment. You have netflix, redbox, video stores, hulu, internet (pirating), and lastly, movie theaters.

I can't tell you the last time I spent $10 to see a movie. With all the options out there, not a lot of people see films in theaters anymore.

For the record, I like the movies each in their own way, but one would have to analyze more than box office sales to get the full picture, it's not exactly fair to say one did really great and one bombed unless they did so at the same time without the variances.

You have been compromised. Abort mission, destroy phone. *Dwight throws phone off the roof*

crypt keeper rules " hello kiddies" a proper horror movie must have his intro!

Does it really matter? It's just my opinion.

"You don't like rice? Tell me, Michael, how could a billion Chinese people be wrong?"