Who saw it? Was it a sequel or a remake?
Is there any possible way Fright Night 2011 could have preceded this?
shareI've seen it... And you are right, it was a remake ! The characters names are the same, but they don't know Peter Vincent, Evil Ed is still alive, the bad girl vampire is a called Gerri instead of Jerry (wow how original) and many scenes from the first movie happened again in this one. So yep it's another remake, though they tried to fool us by calling it Fright Night 2 ! I'm disgusted ! Why did they do that ? A normal sequel would have worked much better !
shareIt really could have been a good theatrical sequel to the remake (but, the remake bombed :( ), the set pieces are pretty good, especially the blood bath, the Ed character could have been a new character and Peter Vincent could now have a TV show. So yeah, it's a bit frustrating, but this movie is ok if you just treat it as its own remake.
shareIt could be possible that the reason why they called this "Fright Night 2: New Blood" is because they couldn't use "Fright Night." To me, it seems like this may have been a remake that was being done on a low budget and may have ended up being shelved after completion instead of released, and then after the big-budget remake was a success, they released this with "Fright Night 2" on it (it'd make sense, especially how many here have noticed how much more this remake plays closer to the original "Fright Night" than the remake did, and out of all the actors in the film, Jaime Murray is the only noticeable "big name" in the film). I could very well be wrong and the writers and director of this film hated how the remake didn't hold true to the original and made this one in an attempt to make a better remake.
But this one's eating my popcorn!
Um, no, why would they use Fright Night when a remake was just done. It made more sense to call part 2, then say "new blood". They have been using the word "new" in sequels like this for a long time, it almost always means that it is in the same universe as its predecessor, but with either all new characters, or the same characters with a new cast.
Just because they made another remake and not a sequel, doesn't mean that these guys hated the first remake. could be that there was already a story set up in Romania, but then decided to plug in the fright night characters to use the popularity of the title
I never said they didn't hate the first remake. I said that there's the possibility that this was the first one made and then shelved, and then when the bigger one was made, this one was released as a "sequel" instead of a remake, primarily because this comes off more of a remake than the previous one had. Big difference.
But this one's eating my popcorn!
why would they shelve a movie on purpose!?!?!!
primarily because this comes off more of a remake than the previous one had.
yes, you are correct, this is ANOTHER remake of the first movie, no one
is denying this. your theory about this one being made first makes no sense.
it is very simple. they made a remake a couple of years ago, with Colin ferral.
then, TO CASH IN, these other guys decides to make another remake.
but instead of being pretentious about it, and calling it fright night, which
would be saying that they are totally dismissing the remake that was just made,
they decide to be smart and just call it part 2, its done all the time, it
was very smart. just because it's a "2", doesn't mean it has to ne a sequel.
look at Halloween III, not a sequel. Halloween originally was supposed to be
sequels with different story lines, basically leaving mike myers story to rest.
when the 3rd movie did poorly, they went back to the mike myers story line.
share
why would they shelve a movie on purpose!?!?!!
There's a few reasons. One of them is the film being incomplete (such as the incomplete remake of Near Dark or the incomplete Gone in 60 Seconds 2 (1989), which is not the case for this one), the film lacks a distributor (this is what happened with the remake of Red Dawn and the movie Cabin in the Woods, which were both made by MGM, which went bankrupt before their release and movies sold to another distributor who shelved them for a while after that. This one is also not the case for this film) or that the studio doesn't want to spend the money to release the film that they have no faith that it would gain any revenue (normally these are released when an actor that is in the film has gained some buzz due to another movie that was successful. An example is the movie All About Steve, which was made in 2007 and released two years later. The film starred Bradley Cooper pre-The Hangover fame and Sandra Bullock before her comeback with the movie The Proposal (2009). I suspect this is the case, especially since that Jaime Murray is the only recognizable name in the entire group of actors in the film, and has gained some recognition in the U.S. recently not only for her guest appearances on Dexter, but as a regular cast member for the show Defiance. Here is a link to a page that lists quite a few more examples of this example: http://www.pajiba.com/box_office_round-ups/how-15-shelved-films-releas ed-after-an-actors-breakout-role-to-exploit-his-or-her-newfound-fame-p erformed-financially-.php)
And with the above, you now see how my theory "makes sense." If you don't, then that's okay, it may not make any sense to you, but it makes more sense than them just doing a second remake of the first film when the first remake was successful enough, and slap "2" on it when it clearly doesn't acknowledge any of the events of the first film (when they easily could have done a remake of the original "Fright Night 2", kept the connections and just had new actors in the roles, which has been done many times before). Yes, I am familiar with the Halloween film series and know about Halloween III: Season of the Witch being different from the Michael Myers story. But there's a big difference from trying to take the series into a different direction and then switching back (as you yourself pointed out), and doing a remake of a film that's already been remade (as you believe is the case).
And BTW, these "other guys" you mentioned happen to be the same people that produced the first remake (so, by what you believe is the case, that means that the producers of the first remake decided to do a second remake of a film they've already remade. Try saying that five times fast). Trust me, stranger things have happened (for example, I heard that in Germany, someone took a film called Menno's Mind (1997), which dealt with virtual reality, and tried to pass it off as a sequel to The Matrix a year or so after the first film was made and long before the sequels were even written).
But this one's eating my popcorn! share