Okay. I'm not much a fan of remakes. The trend which sadly began with the PSYCHO remake in 1998 and catapulted the horror genre into the dedicated horror fanatic's worst dream with the admittedly awesome 2003 version of THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. I was first in line to decry every announcement of the plethora of "re-imaginings" hitting cinemas (and quickly into the direct-to-DVD market... hello APRIL FOOL'S DAY and DAY OF THE DEAD). The horror fan's animosity has been re-affirmed time and again with some serious suck-ass new versions of BLACK CHRISTMAS, FRIDAY THE 13th, and the incredibly lame PROM NIGHT. After a recent conversation with an actor/friend on this very subject, however, I found myself arguing in, if not favor, at least the defense of the remake... I was aghast myself, but here's a few reasons why we should all stop bitching about them...
The remake is nothing new to the film industry. An original version of THE WIZARD OF OZ was made in 1910, before being made again in 1914, 1925 and the 1939 version we all know and love. And those still aren't all! If you include TV remakes, cartoon versions and variations, imdb lists at least 43 freakin' versions!!! The same goes for A CHRISTMAS CAROL (52 versions), DRACULA (19 versions), FRANKENSTEIN (16 versions)... and these are just the remakes that actually contain the same title... imagine all the takes which took the story and simply slapped an alternate title to make it seem fresh.
Remember your parents bitching about our "new" movies ripping off their flicks? How their versions were so much scarier (they really weren't)? Gen X grew up on a plethora of remakes - and fairly decent ones at that - of our parents films... THE BLOB (1958/1988), THE FLY (1958/1986), NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968/1990), THE PIT & THE PENDULUM (1961/1991), THE BAD SEED (1956/1985), LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (1960/1986), and the double remake INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1956/1978/1993). Many of them were actually rip-offs of our parents TWILIGHT ZONE episodes including killer mannequins (TOURIST TRAP - 1979), and battery operated grandmas (THE ELECTRIC GRANDMOTHER - 1982) -- not to mention 1983's TWILGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE.
Well, kids, we are now the parents. Sad as it may be, I did the math and if I'd married and had a child right out of high school, said brat would now be 19 years old. The fact of the matter is that the bulk of horror films are made for 15 year olds. I'd like to think the horror genre is as loyal to me as I am to it, but the truth is people my age - and this is mass audience I'm talking about - don't go to see horror films. Our home lives and dealing with jobs, children and recessions is terrifying enough. We might be willing to catch it on TV in a few down moments, but over-all we're giving our kids $10 to go get out of our balding hairs.
This also moves into why a FRIDAY THE 13TH, PART XII or A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 8, or SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 6 are likely never going to get made. Aside from the arguable concept our favorite franchises have essentially run out of steam and story ideas, we, the Gen Xers, are not going to pay to see these titles at the theater (again, we're talking mass audience - not devotees). Our kids won't go either: they have been raised in a world of RIGHT NOW. If anything is more than 5 years ago, it may as well have been made in 1910. It shocked me as well, but all of my cousins who were under age 25 in 2003 had never seen the original TEXAS CHAINSAW or DAWN OF THE DEAD... and didn't really care to. Worse yet, they didn't know MY BLOODY VALENTINE, BLACK CHRISTMAS, THE FOG, PROM NIGHT, et al even existed in original forms. Sad, but true. So, if you're a producer looking to make more money off a proven product of the past to a mass audience of 15 year olds, are you going to take a chance on PART 23, or go back and try to present it as something entirely new and in the moment to oblivious kids with cash to burn?
I am the first to proclaim "the original is so much better," mainly because our films had characters with an ounce of enthusiasm and charisma. Just compare A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET's 1984 ass-kicking and booby-trap loving heroine Nancy to her whiny, depressed "artistic" 2010 counterpart. But I've accepted that the 2010 Freddy was not meant to scare me. He already did 26 years ago.
At the end of the day, movies are a business. We, the fans, love them. We dedicate ourselves to keeping their memories, their existence alive. The characters in them are like friends we get to revisit anytime we want on DVD or download. But we did not create them. They are not our babies raised from birth. They were born to people with $$ in their eyes and hearts. That's what speaks to them. And until remakes no longer make them $$, and audiences stop going because there is no character or actual story development, then they will continue to go into production (hello PET SEMATARY, THE BIRDS...). So your duty is to accept that you can't stop it, so just take the younger generation and explain something much better, with more bloody heart, exists. The remake may suck, but at least it opens the possibility to our favorite gems being rediscovered.
A FEW REMAKES WORTH YOUR TIME:
THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974/2003)
THE HILLS HAVE EYES (1977/2006)
INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1956/78/93)
THE BLOB (1958/88)
THE FLY (1958/86)
HALLOWEEN (1978/2007 - The first half of the remake, not the second)
DAWN OF THE DEAD (1978/2004)
LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (1960/1986)
FRANKENSTEIN (1931/94)
DRACULA (1931/92)
THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972/2009)
HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL (1959/99)
I do not think that my life is scarier than that of anyone else, but I still slap down my dollars for any remake or new fright that might release me from the burden of my own day-to-day and give me a little perspective. I mean, like it has been ages since I have had to deal with a zombie in real life. Just saying.
ReplyDelete