ShockTillYouDrop.com

Posted by: Scarehuman on March 5, 2009 at 12:06:37

Its lovely to read news about a completely unnecessary remake of one of the greatest films of Wes Craven right beneath an advertisement for yet another completely unnecessary remake of one of the other greatest films of Wes Craven.

Sheesh, he must feel completely honored or completely outmoded.

Posted by: heat on March 5, 2009 at 12:24:11

Scarehuman, just do like me and minimize your screen, that way the only add you see is the delicious goodness of Domino's oven baked sandwiches. But I guess that might be unnecessary too since Freddy is also oven baked.

Posted by: ray on March 5, 2009 at 12:43:06

Craven, like Carpenter, doesn't seem to care about anything but a paycheck. Why else would he be the one behind remakes of all of his"classic" films other than Nightmare. It seems he's getting paid for remakes of Last House, People under the Stairs, Shocker...ETC. and he was also the driving force behind the great Hills Have Eyes remake and the stupid sequal

Posted by: Captain_Arlong on March 5, 2009 at 13:15:14

Hai guyz, let's judge something before we even see one single photo or clip of it!

Posted by: gneah3 on March 5, 2009 at 13:36:38

I wanna know how you guys think Wes Craven has nothing to do with this remake.
Because i recall that Sean S. Cunningham produced Friday The 13Th remake.
so you people need to just shut the funk up.

Posted by: Luis85 on March 5, 2009 at 14:54:15

*****ing about re-makes/reboots is so BS and damn tireing..Just cause someone may not want to see a new version then so it makes it fair to complain/boycot it before even seeing a damn trailer/pics???a film can not"suck",it is all OPINIONS and not a fact.

The old series are still there in memorys/vhs/dvds/old merchendise/tribute vids in youtube and so why cant this one/other new version of films be on a movie shelf??I have all halloween films in my dvd shelfs along with the RZ version and I also have the new special editions of the F13th films and I will have the new one there too,I', sure I'll have this new version along with my NOES dvds too.

Posted by: ray on March 5, 2009 at 15:27:16

I can't complain about remakes because to many of them are alot better than the originals, like Hills Have Eyes, Departed, My Bloody Valentine, Texas Chainsaw, and Friday the 13th was better than the ENTIRE original series(IMO) so I think a Remake of Elm Street could be really good

Posted by: Evan on March 5, 2009 at 16:16:14

did i really just log on here and read someone saying that the remakes of texas chainsaw and friday the 13th were better than the originals?? thats the craziest thing ive ever read on a message board in my life...

im done ripping and *****ing about remakes because they are never going to end so its a waste to talk badly on them...

i will say though in my opinion it is pathetic to see what is going on with wes craven these days..i guess after that piece of **** red eye and piece of **** hills have eyes 2 and piece of **** cursed he has learned his place and realizes the only way he will be relavent any more is to cash in on his old movies...
before you all rip me apart for saying that.. i just have trouble believing in a director anymore that is not only producing remakes of a lot of his movies..but is also cashing in on the scream series which ran its course long long ago..

Posted by: ico on March 5, 2009 at 17:28:16

I know this is alittle off topic but i was wondering if there are any movies that are a remake of a remake. I don't mean a movie that was remade twice like the Mummy or the Night of the Living Dead. An example to my question is that there have been rumors of a remake of John Carpenters The Thing which is itself a remake. So i was just wondering if there is already a remake of a remake or will The Thing be the first one?

Posted by: Never Comments on March 5, 2009 at 19:18:03

ico: INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS has been remade 3 times.

Posted by: ico on March 5, 2009 at 19:22:38

Never Comments

"ico: INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS has been remade 3 times."

No. The third was a remake of the first one. I'm talking about a remake of a remake.

Posted by: ike on March 5, 2009 at 20:52:58

The reason there are so many remakes is simple. They make money pure and simple. I see most people in here complain about them and how they suck compared to the first ones. First off I am old enough to remember chainsaw, freddy and the rest. I saw them all at the movie theaters. I loved them all at the time and still do. Lets face it most horror films from back in the day had very small budgets and could never do what can be done now. I like some of the remakes and some not so much. Friday was exactly what I thought it would be, no suprise there but I was entertained by it. As for chainsaw your nuts if you did'nt like that. It was slick and I have two words for you: Jessica Beal, now that is a hot woman. I look forword to seeing a new Elm Street. Most of the nine hundred or so other Freddy movies sucked anyway and I love that burned up son of a thousand maniacs...

Posted by: Never Comments on March 5, 2009 at 23:25:03

ico: Each INVASION movie has been a reinterpretation of their original literary source material. The latest remake actually bore very little resemblance to the first movie (the closest to the original would arguably be the 1978 version).

Both INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and THE THING are based on books. The Lugosi version of DRACULA was based on a stage play which was adapted from the book. This same stage play was the basis for the screenplay for the 1979 version of DRACULA with Frank Langella. Same source material, reinterpreted.

I'm not sure what your point is. BODY SNATCHERS and INVASION are remakes, reinterpretations of the same source material. Add to that the fact that they're saying that THE THING is leaning more towards being a prequel to Carpenter's 1982 movie, and your argument kind of disappears.

Posted by: ico on March 6, 2009 at 00:47:12

Never Comments

Carpenters The Thing is a remake of The Thing from Another World (1951) which is, itself, based on the story Who Goes There? by John Campbell, it just so happens that Carpenter's version was closer to the source material but it's still a remake.

The movie, Invasion, is a loose remake of the first Invasion of the Body Snatchers, not the one from the 70's with Donald Sutherland. When Warner Bros. baught the rights to make the movie they baught the rights to the first movie so in other words it's a very loose remake of the original 1956 movie.

And i know that each Dracula movie is based on the book and not a remake and thats what i'm saying.

What i'm talking about isnt an argument it's a question. I'm wondering if theres ever been a remake of a remake. If (and the question is IF) they remake Carpenters The Thing, it will be a remake of a remake. If they remade the 1998 version of the Mummy (not the, original, 1932 version) then that will be a remake of a remake. I was just wondering if thats ever happened before.

I have been told i have an encyclopedic knowledge about film, everything i've said on here just popped out of my head as i typed but this is something i don't know about and was just wondering.

I also know that the next Thing movie may be a prequel, maybe even a sequel, but i wasnt sure if anybody knew that and it worked as an example for my question.

Posted by: mrjimm1 on March 7, 2009 at 08:34:36

This is the first time I've heard of a remake of a remake. But there could be some mainstream movies that fall into that category. It doesn't really matter, though, because remaking a remake seems like they are making a very superfluous movie. The effects aren't going to be any better than Carpenter's Thing, despite all the advances in cgi and makeup effects. I just hope Hollywood cools it with all of these remakes. I'd rather see original stories than remakes.

Posted by: Doc Meathook on March 7, 2009 at 15:32:04

Are there any people in Hollywood left with an original idea???

Posted by: Terrie Batson on October 4, 2009 at 23:03:35

i agree with u mrjimm1 on stop making all these remakes they suck half the time and also the original is always better than remakes anyway no matter what it is and robert englund is the best and #1 and always i grew up watching all the nightmare on elm street i have all of the whole collection on dvd set and i'm 32 years old and no new man can take the place of robert englund but that's my opionion. i know some people out there agree with u fill me so u r 100% right mrjimm1 on your saying hollywood needs to quick and knock off the remakes for real dogg!