Remake?


Does anyone know if this is a remake of the 1977 made-for-tv movie about a bigfoot creature terrorizing a ski resort in Colorado?

reply

It has to be. It has the same winter setting, a beast that looks like the same hairy white one from '77 and even the same overall concept. Yet strangely enough, they're not referencing the '77 film in the pre-release reviews nor has the IMDb given any credit to the writers of the first film for "original screenplay". While this is morally wrong, it's not legally wrong. The '77 film has fallen into "public domain", so anyone originally involved with it had no legal claim to it. It's rather silly of them not to acknowledge the original.

reply

Wow. It's a sad day indeed when remaking a 1977 made-for-netwrk-TV monster movie gives up a trailer that is already clearly inferior to the original.

At least John Schneider is a slight improvement on Bo Svenson.

reply

It's not like the original was a masterpiece either.

"Fate rarely calls upon us at a moment of our choosing."

reply

I have to disagree on two points. John Schneider's acting was just as boring as it was in LAKE PLACID 2. And, this Snowbeast had horns on the side of its head like the Wampa from EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (which is definitely _not_ in the public domain)!

So, unless a specimen of the latter was brought to Earth from Hoth, via Stargate, I think Syfy might be hearing from Lucasfilm's lawyers. ;-)

reply

It's rather silly of them not to acknowledge the original.


They did acknowledge the original since they gave it the identical title. However, beyond the name, the yeti-like creature and the Rocky Mountains location, the story and characters are totally different. The original movie ripped-off the plot of "Jaws" verbatim and just relocated it to a ski resort while this remake throws out most of the "Jaws" similarities. It largely takes place around a posh cabin in the Canadian Rockies. A ski resort is nearby but you'll barely see it.

I prefer this newer version. The story is just more compelling and you can't beat the cast, particularly the two women (although the original certainly had a quality cast). The creature's body in the 2011 rendition looks fake, however; although it's head & face look good, very malevolent.


My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

reply

No, it is not a remake.

Whilst it does share the snowy setting and the basic structure of a white beast offing skiers, that's about the only thing it has in common. This film does show a ski resort, but only for a couple of minutes - almost all of the action is set in a remote cabin and concentrates on a three person science team and a teenage girl. They are very different films.

reply

I beg to differ with you. This "non" remake has more things in common with 1977's Snowbeast than most "remakes" do today. Great examples of these include "Dawn of the Dead", "Friday the 13th", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and MANY others which now call themselves "Re-imaginings". This film even has the same 'guy in hairy white suit' monster!

reply

IMDb lists this movie as a remake of the 1977 movie Snowbeast.

"Do All Things For God's Glory"-1 Corinthians 10:31
I try doing this with my posts

reply

[deleted]

Yes and a very inferior remake with more gore and blood that is not needed. And once again, I just can not stand John Schneider's character. When he portrays a father, he usually has scenes where he speaks too roughly to children, getting too mad at them.

"Do All Things For God's Glory"-1 Corinthians 10:31
I try doing this with my posts

reply

And once again, I just can not stand John Schneider's character. When he portrays a father, he usually has scenes where he speaks too roughly to children, getting too mad at them.


I disagree. He plays a quality father who's compassionate, realistic and likable. I don't remember seeing him speak too roughly to his daughter and, even if he did, they had a good relationship and he eventually made things right.


My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

reply