Horror Movie Fans, let's have discussions...

Pretty funny...as I know it was mentioned earlier in the thread...but while looking for new trailers...I came across this little gem of a semi-cult classic...

The Return of the Killer Klowns from Outer Space in 3D
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1979370/

 

LMAO!!!

Holy crap...

 

Sequel ARE Remakes.Plus Phantasm and Hellraiser have more than enough
Sequel or *Remake.
I think you've spent way too much time watching Zombie movies,I do.
Your'e the kinda horror fan still looking for that perfect Horror film.
And therefore watch EVERY New Horror Film.I chose my Horror carefully.
Like a Connoisseur !


* more aptly referred to as a " follow-on or follow-up "
A Remake is something remade from,especially a new version of a movie or song.

 

Wow....now remakes are sequels??? Really?? Apparently you DON'T know the difference between the two...

I think you've spent too much time huffing paint or something to make asinine claims like above...I do

No...I watch horror movies because I enjoy them...

It's apparent you aren't since you can't tell the difference between a remake and a sequel or make the ridiculous claim that all horror movies are revenge based...

The only thing you are a "Connoisseur" at is trolling....in which I give you the highest props at...you are among the finest of trolls...

 

Foolardi has a point...jus tlike my date movie analogy..

but Foolardi, where is the revenge undertone in these horror movies, I can't find it....



Candyman
Texas Chainsaw Massarce
Jaws..lol
the Excorcist
Halloween

 

Notice you didn't mention JAWS 2...

 

No,Lowly I couldn't possibly know about Horror movies.I basically just gave
a thumbnail outline of about 4 or 5 Horror movies as far as plot and villain
and motive.Which is about all any Horror movie attempts to establish.
The rest is just fluff of setting,minor characters and Motive.I like the - Halloween -
series and yes they are ALL Remakes or Sequel or new versions of how Michael
Myers is still alive and itching to wreak revenge.I like the Villain of Michael Myers.
I think you either take Horror movies too seriously or are attempting to
make them more legit than actually meant.A Horror Movie should NEVER be taken
as seriously as say ... - Doctor Zhivago - {1963} or -The Grapes of Wrath - {1940}
You are aware of the distinction,I presume.

 

*Beware of useless trivia ahead*

John Carradine went from GRAPES OF WRATH to SHOCK WAVES, the latter begin much more entertaining and also starring Brooke Adams as a young lovely titted babe.

There are plenty of horror movies every bit as serious and worthwhile as DR Z and j CHRISTIE. You are just too inept a critic to see it.

 

OMG ... This in stunning.You're unaware as to the original reason
Michael Myers - Halloween - came back to Haddonfield.He waited.He patiently waited his
entire childhood and teenage years for a chance to escape and go back and get
his sister.What do you call that.Myers came back to Haddonfield to Look { Avenge/Revenge }
his own Sister.WHY ... ? But how could that be he butchered his older sister as a child.
Why would Michael patiently wait to avenge a sister he already killed.Because Laurie " Why Me ?"
was actually the biological sibling of Michael and Judith Meyers.Her name was changed
to Laurie Strode because she got put up for adoption after the death of her parents.
That is one of the benefits of a Sequel or Remake to add into the mix new details of the
Protagonist and Antagonist making the suspense last.
There is no question Michael was Going after Laurie.Absolutely none. He was
Avenging her.Which is Revenge by any other name.

 

You such a GaS man.Way out there.Like if Cloud 9 was to pass by,you'd actually
get up from yer desk in that cubicle and go outside and wave like Opie of mayberry.
You the kinda person who at Thanksgiving Dinner couldn't stop talking about how yummy
that huge Bowl of Potato Chips,and how lumpy the Gravy and dried out the Turkey.
I think in his span of Career there were like about 27 movies that John Carradine
couldn't manage to make an appearance.

 

No sequels are NOT remakes...

Even without providing the definition, everyone knows they're not the same...

 

I will concede that point given true Remakes are total
attempts to duplicate the original.And that most Sequel carry on with the original
by following-up and furhereing the stroyline.
Like the Movies - Of Mice and Men - where one stars Lon Cheney jr. and the other
John Malcovich.Those are true remakes.
So yes there is definite CONTRAST between a Sequel and a Remake.
But then so to with a Sequel and a Series or a Serial or Spin-off.
Technically I am wrong.
Therefore I bow before err.

 

Since the subject is now sequels let's consider the Universal horror movies of the 1930s and 1940s.
The original Mummy (1932) presents a monster who,11 years after being revived reappears without bandages, speaking modern English with only a very wrinkled face to hint at his age. The next four movies: The Mummy's Hand, Tomb, Ghost and Curse have no connection to that one though they use the same footage for the flashback. They also take the story from the 1910s to the late 1900s with no updates on wardrobes or technology.
Dracula (1931) is followed by Dracula's Daughter. She burns her father's body hoping to free her from the curse. It doesn't work. Son of Dracula acknowledges the first movie but doesn't comment on the second. The fourth Dracula movie (House of Frankenstein) denies the second movie. The last one (House of Dracula) contradicts all previous appearances of Dracula.
That movie is also the fourth Wolfman movie but gives no explanation how he revived after dying in the third one.
House of Dracula is also the seventh Frankenstein movie. This is what I want to talk about.
The second movie begins with Mary Shelley talking to Percy Bysshe Sheley, George Gordon, Lord Byron and Dr. Polidori and proceeding to tell what happened next. The third movie, Son of Frankenstein begins a generation later with the monster stagnant and a mysterious man named Igor with a broken neck with a wooden plank in it. Igor had somehow revived the monster and used it to kill people. It became immobile but Igor was put on trial, hanged and pronounced dead, but somehow survived.
I searched for years for the movie in-between, but there isn't one. Would any of you like to help me write the screenplay?

 

Therefore thru process of deduction the movies you cite are examples of Not Remakes,
nor Sequel.But more Series.A Series is a string or series of Film with shared situations,
chracters or themes, and related Titles,but with little other inter-dependence,especially
with respect to Plot or significant character development.
That Definition care of AMC Filmsite and - Film Terms Glossary -.
Therefore if one is asking for a Remake of Phantasm then the Movie Title
would have to be the exact one as the Original or - Phantasm - {2012}
Or a Remake of - Halloween - {1978} would have to be - Halloween - {2012}.
Sequel are works that present the Continuation of characters,setting,events of a story
Previously made.
I think the problem with Both Sequel and especially Remake would have to do with
copyright laws and/or infringement.Keeping in mind things like statue of limitations.
In say ... - Of Mice and Men - there would need be the consent of whoever owns the rights
to the book { Producer who bought those rights from author } or possibly
John Steinbeck himself.And how those right are transferred after the death of a Producer
and/or author.
Original movies are also sticky.Like it took 3 decades to finally get :
- Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - made.

 

In the case of Steinbeck, I can guarantee he did not sign away exclusive rights, he didn't need to. He likely signed a single use license for X amount of time after which the rights would automatically revert back to him.

A lot of remakes are such a departure from the original that they are barely remakes at all. Carpneter's THE THING, being a case of taking an original and amping it up into brilliance. THE BLOB was remade in 1988 (written by GREEN MILE, SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION director Frank Darabont < random trivia) and it was actually pretty true to the original, although much better.

 

The Thing & The Blob were both really good remakes...

I thought the Night of the Living Dead remake with Tony Todd was a worthy remake, as well...

The Dawn of the Dead remake was awesome too...

 

I can't remember but I researched Steinbeck years ago.His life story and
inside the intricacy of his writing style and how it came about.
I seem to recall Steinbeck had special arrangement on I believe - Grapes of Wrath -
to sit-in on the making of the Film and offer input.I don't know if that meant
having as much say as the Director in scene changes on the set or not.
Steinbeck's Bio is interesting and worth a look.He was a Great Man.

 

NOTLD 1990 is a guilty pleasure. I have some real problems with it, mainly in the acting which I honestly think is Savini's fault. But I love the film, the locations are perfecto and Pat Tallman is mostly great throughout. The zombie designs and efx are stellar.

The DAWN remake I really liked the first time I watched it, but it has not held up as well as NIGHT for me. A good deal might have to do with those stupid fast zombies which I really don't care for, but also I found most of the characters to be caricatures. Weird, first viewing I was all over it like stink on a monkey, then not so much.

 

We can agree on that. A man who captured America in it's time. GRAPES is one of my favorite films.

 

This Remake bidness is gnawing at me.As a lifelong Film buf there's something too
cavalier about the idea.The most obvious being ... how necessary or relevant.
I don't think it possible for a movie like - Phantasm - to be improved upon.As it stands
the movie was ideal.Like - Halloween - {1978}.
Can anyone cite for me a remake that was better.Certainly one like - Of Mice and Men -
with great acting like Burgess Meredeth can't be improved upon and the Gary Sinise
version made a stab but fell short.The ending being a key example.

Frank Langella's - Dracula - {1979} was the best,however I prefer the Christopher Lee
Hammer Films Series better.Especially - Horror of Dracula - {1958} my favorite followed by
- Dracula has Risen From the Grave - {1968} because the Rupert Davies character { Priest }
is perfect.I never miss the almost entire line of Dracula Series from Hammer come Fall.
It's like a ritual with me.

Certainly there is no need for another Dracula.Or Frankenstein.
But I gotta tell ya the recent Anthony Hopkins Wolfman adaptation or Remake
- The Wolfman - {2010} starring Benecio Del Toro is far and away one of THE Best
horror movies ever made and THE Best Wolfman.

 

^^^This right here...

 

I don't know if you can answer this but someone can. How would you navigate through the three films that include the Hulk? The first disappointed
me in several ways. I saw part of the second one on tv months ago but walked away leaving the tv on and occasionally peaking when I heard good sound effects. It seemed to acknowledge part of the first film while contradicting other parts. Marvel's the Avengers seemed to present a different Hulk and a different Dr. Banner. It may be that the audience no longer cares whether the stories fit together.
Next let's consider the two longest-lasting franchises of all time: James Bond and Tarzan.
Bond's brief marriage at the end of the sixth movie was mentioned several times in later films, assuring the audience that this was the same man who had defeated Dr. No, Goldfinger and Blofeld even though the actor had changed. However when Halle Berry came out of the water looking like Ursula Andress he didn't say, "She reminds me of that girl in the Bahamas 40 years ago."
Never Say Never Again was a rogue film that allowed for age progression and political changes. However since it was mostly a remake of Thunderball and included a living Blofeld it was clear that Bond's past adventures had not included events found in most of the official Bond films.
The original Casino Royale was a comedy, featuring David Niven as a retired James Bond brought back to solve a crime spree that was wiping out secret agents all over the world. He complains that they gave his name and number to a sex maniac, thereby acknowledging that the other Bond films were considered true.
Bond, obvious by mannerisms but not named, appears briefly in the American spoof Our Man Flint, exchanging secrets with Flint as they have a fake bar fight, therfore not impacting the series in any way.
Tarzan first appeared in film in 1918 and the role was handed down through a series of actors through the 1960s. Some were obviously sequential, but every few films they started over. In the 1980s came two movies that left no room for sequels and the Disney animated film leaves little room for advancement.
My question therefore is: does anyone really care what these moviemakers do with these legendary characters as long as they get to see them one more time?

 

I'm Old school and don't buy into the theory of More is better.I want less.
Less is better.Like good liquor.Drink the best but drink LESS.
Same with Film.There is So much crap out there especially Horror and Comedy
it's impossible to keep up witjh all of it.Why Bother I know basically what I'm
looking for in a genre.Almost every other week I watch a new release that is
not worth renting.Willem Dafoe was in 2 of them.
- 4:44 Last Day on Earth - {2011} a movie I just don't get or care to.Sometimes a
movie attempts to can con you into thinking it's more dynamic and relevant than it really is.
- The Hunter - {2011} was actually pretty good.Somewhat slow but it held importance for
me.It had believability and a sense of purpose.I like movies that flow and demonstrate
continuity.That's why most Black Comedy is crud.Like - Catch-22 - {1970}.
However Continuity is not very necessary in most Comedy.But it is to degree in Horror.
Some Movies shouldn't be made like - Heaven's Gate - { 1980 } which was TOO expensive
and sprawling a storyline and WAY to long.The movie wasn't focused enough to establish
any interest.I feel the same about - Reds - {1981}.
I do however feel - The Deerhunter - {1978} is exceptional an already a Classic.
I still like Universal Horror.Because those movies were very high quality.
From the Cinematography to the sound effects to setting and of course acting.
There'll never be actors like the ones used in those.Boris Karloff,Claude Rains,will always
be in a class unto themself.

 

In my opinion, the best in horror right now is coming out of Asia.

The original Japanese Grudge series (especially the very original straight-to-video versions). The US versions were just okay.

The original Taiwanese(?) version of The Eye.

The Korean A Tale of Two Sisters


Outside of Asia:

The People Under the Stairs

Session 9

The Hills Have Eyes

28 Days Later

The Devil's Backbone

Quarantine

The Shining

 

The people under the stairs, I haven't watched that movie in ages. My brother and I sneaked into that movie like 4 times when it first came out, great movie, though not very scary.

I agree with you on the grudge and the eye remakes, I liked the original versions better than the remake.s

Spain also has some pretty good movies that we see the remakes of. Quarantine for example is a remake of REC, which I thought was better. I would also recommend The Orphanage and Shiver.