Why did they remake such a crummy movie.

[Abraxas]

This is just a rant, if you like the movie, bully for you, I didn't.

OK, just saw the remake of the texas chainsaw massacre. It was like watching a car wreck happening over an hour and a half. I am now going to force my friend to watch the big blue just to get even .

Why would anyone remake such a crappy movie and produce an equally crappy (if not more so) remake. They could have replaced all the footage with pictures of a slaughterhouse and all the dialog with random soundbites from horror movies over the last 30 years and it wouldn't be any worse. This goes into my top ten worst movies ever.

gack.

 

[Barendd Nobeard]

Reasons for a re-make:

(1) Money
(2) Someone thinks they can do it better


Usually, people think they can do it better (in the artistic sense), and then someone in charge of money thinks it will be more profitable.

[ edit - Today, cynic that I am, I think the money consideration comes first; then they find a hack to "re-imagine" the original. ]

Regardless of what you think of the original, it was very successful. Cynic that I am, I believe the reason for the remake is that someone thought they could make money with a remake. The name alone will guarantee a certain amount of box office.

I never saw the remake, so I don't know how it compares to the original. But the original TCM has very little gore in it. The people making the film were trying to get a PG rating and cut most of it out. Ironically, they were barely able to get an R rating because the film was so shocking at the time. Nowadays, nothing in the original in that shocking, so the film loses much of what made it appealing (and appalling) back in the 1970s.

I will always have fond memories of it because we watched it at my bachelor party. Right after "I'm Gonna Get You Sucka!" What a doublue feature!

Now that you've piqued my curiosity, I may have to rent the remake to see how truly bad it is. Thanks!

 

[Crothian]

Wehat makes you think that "being a good movie" is actually a requirement for it being made? Hollywood makes and remakes many crappy movies. They get some hot star, or directors name attached to it, promise to do it cheap, and then get it funded. Beign good rarely seems to have anything to do with it. It just needs to sound good to someone and then they convince others and a little luck makes a movie.

 

[trancejeremy]

Interestingly enough, IMDB rates the original as a 7.0. Which means the movie definitely has a lot of fans.

Even the remake gets a 5.9, which is pretty good.

Now, you want to see a bad horror movie, go into your local Best Buy and get one of those 10 and 20 packs of horror movies for $10-20. Some are actually pretty decent, but quite a few are downright terrible.

What I've never understood, is why they remade the movie "Maximum Overdrive". Except they called it after the real title of the Stephen King novel. "Trucks". I mean, AFAIK, MO bombed, despite having a great song by AC/DC written for it (Who made who?). Why would a sequel minus AC/DC and the all-star (sorta) cast do well?

Or similarly, the remake of The Shining. With the guy from Wings playing the role of the crazy guy. Now, the original movie might have room for improvement, but Jack Nicholson made that role famous.

Or going outside of horror, what about the remake of The Big Sleep? With Robert Stack playing Phillip Marlowe? But it was re-set into the 70s (the present day). Which didn't make sense, because the whole plot wouldn't make sense in the 70s. (I dunno if it was covered in the movie, but it involved in part a pornography ring, which was illegal back when it was written, but not in the 70s)

And don't even get me started on the Shaft remake.

 

[Crothian]

Trucksand the latter shining, weren't those made for TV movies? Completely different market then made for movies movies. Those just care about TV ratings and they want them to be more for the gerneal populace thuse the guy from Wings.

 

[Berandor]

On-topic link: http://www.orion-online.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/23/421bd87164ede

 

[Viking Bastard]

And don't even get me started on the Shaft remake.

Just to nitpick, but that's technically not a remake as much as a independant sequal/spinoff.

You see, it's not The Original Shaft, it's The Original Shaft's Nephew.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Title draw, cult following, and THERE IS NOT AN ORRIGINAL IDEA IN HOLLYWOOD!

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I actually preferred the made for TV The Shining. If I hadn't read the book first it might be a different story.

Kubrik's version was better on all technical matters but paid only lip service to the book.

The Auld Grump

 

[Abraxas]

Well you're all probably more or less right - I had just reached a crappy movie overload. I keep letting myself be dragged to see these kinds of movies. I always say never again, but two or three months later another one comes out, or one that I managed to avoid is brought over and its crappy horror movie all over again.

The sad thing is, I like bad B-grade horror movies, its the ones with halfway decent budgets and some interesting effects that still suck that drive me crazy. The odd lighting in the remake is really nifty (actually, nifty lighting effects are one of my weaknesses) but the rest of the movie - augggg

I really hope that someday, someone will make a horror movie where the victim isn't a babbling idiot doing babbling idiot things and the monster/creature/antagonist is just horrifyingly smart and evil.