this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
11 points (100.0% liked)

Horror

337 readers
13 users here now



This community is dedicated to those of us that love horror and want to discuss that.

Want to know what horror movie should watch next? Post here and ask the community!


Rules so you don't get your head blown up:

Rule 1 - 18+You must be 18 or older to be active in this community.


Rule 2 - No spoilersIf you want to talk spoilers mark the post clearly! Preferable as NSFW.


Rule 3 - No self promotion / SPAMSpamming will give you an instant ban.


Rule 4 - Be civil and respectfulDon't be a dick.


Rule 5 - No real gore images / videosImages or videos depicting real violence or gore will not be tolerated.


Rule 6 - No discussion on piracyLinks to illegal content will get you a ban. This includes links to torrent sites and any other ways of sharing content that is copyrighted.


Rule 7 - Use NSFW tag when appropriateIf there is anything in a post that might be sensitive, then make sure to tag it as NSFW. This include images with gore. If you post a picture that has gore or might be graphic please write this above the spoiler tag!


Rule 8 - English onlyThis community is for english so please only post english posts and comments.


Breaking any of the above rules will make your posts removed and your user banned depending on the severity.


Want to help this community grow? We're always looking for moderators. If you don't want to be a moderator you can always make posts to help us grow that way.

Contact us if you're interested in becoming a mod!


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

With the remake of Speak No Evil out I was thinking about this topic. I can find that there are times where it's OK to make remakes and times where it's not. I like Chris Stuckmann's take on it; if it adds something more to the movie than what was already there to begin with go for it. But if it's just a frame by frame remake what gives? Why should I not just watch the original movie?

Speak No Evil is a really amazing movie that I really have a hard time understanding why they would make a remake of. It really did not need one, the original is really so good and effective that It will scare most people.

What do you guys think about this subject?

Spoiler alert: Do not watch the trailer of the remake if you haven't watched any of them. It's going to totally ruin the movie as it spoils mostly everything involving the plot.

top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

I think even shot-for-shot remakes are fine when done right, which isn't very often. My most anticipated movie of this year is Eggers' Nosferatu remake

[–] TyrianMollusk@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I think they're sad, creatively bankrupt exercises that generally shouldn't get made, but on the other hand, it's good when they at least do different things or bring real ideas to the table. Tons of horror movies really aren't very good, so you'd expect doing a good thing better to be a slam-dunk, but it's rare for a remake to actually take that and execute. Even a frame-by-frame remake has the potential to do better and bring out the best in a proven idea, or even fix something that wasn't appreciated from the many limitations a lot of old horror worked under. That's one aspect more specific to horror that makes remakes potentially a lot more useful to do, but it's still an issue that people making remakes happen are usually doing it because they don't have something better.

Friday the 13th (2009) did a great job mixing polish, old ideas, and tongue-in-cheek series self awareness that all make it a fun way to enjoy what was good as well as what was bad about the early F13 movies. Then you have things like Shutter, where the remake is basically the same but still manages to be worse at every opportunity on top of the weird and pathetic jingoism. That was just ugly all around, and pollutes the movie space, so now we have to be forever careful to clarify Shutter (2004) instead of Shutter (2008), because the only thing seeing the remake does is reduce the impact of seeing the better movie.

[–] Ab_intra@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Shutter

Oh shit. Is there another version of this? I've watched the remake apparently and didn't even know there was another, better version.. I actually liked the remake but I'm adding the original to my watchlist!

Also I kinda agree with mostly everything you're saying.

[–] Lisk91@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

In my opinion, the only three (technically speaking) horror remakes that I can think of, which are actually very good are:

The Thing (1982) [forget the 2011 version]

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)

In these three particular cases, the directors have successfully enriched the original stories by expanding on specific aspects barely hinted in the books or previous works. For example, the theme of sexuality in the vampyrism of Dracula or the true feelings of paranoia and isolation depicted in The Thing. All this with the addition of amazing visual effects, and great actors interpretations.

[–] Ab_intra@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Many good points here! I personally think The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday the 13th (2009) and A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) are pretty good remakes myself. I cannot say I've gone this deep into it like you have in your thought prosses, but I think they add some elements that makes it work. The story in these movies are maybe not worked on so much but they did a decent job at making these movies "modern" if you will.

I now see that I'm contradicting myself by what I wrote in my OP but my view is maybe a bit more nuanced than what I wrote there.