Episode 140 - From The Hip X (on the road again)

[misterd]

Jun 12, 2010 2:17:05 GMT -5 necronomics said:

Film makers, perhaps not. Studio, absolutely. Even the people who defend the new nightmare speak about how heavy the studio's hand was across the production which in the end left an inconsistent Freddy and mixed story line. Now I ask at what point did they stop to think about the franchises history and ask what they could bring to it?

Now I personally think everything after dream warriors went kinda down hill with the exception of new nightmare, in fact i cannot think of a single horror franchise that has managed top maintain its momentum. But is it to much to ask if these works must be remade that they actually do something with them. I would rather watch a laughable movie about an abandoned town that Freddy caused, then a poor retelling of a movie that didn't need to be remade.

In an ideal world Platinum Dunes would look towards Dawn of the Dead or the Thing to see how its done. But they don't. They take things we love under the guise of giving them to a new generation and the response to their films is "meh". So I don't see why they should get anything but our contempt.

Unless you're in the studio and at the production meetings, you don't know what they do or do not "look to", what serves as their inspiration, or what they are trying to bring to the story. We know there was meddling involved - but if they didn't care, why would they meddle? We know there were many reshoots, but why? What was wrong with the original production? Was it just poorly done, or did it stray too far and turn off fans? Yes, more often than not "studio notes" tend to be bad things, but there have been a few times where studio interference has actually helped a film out when the director has gone off the rails (see Event Horizon).

And to say they don't do anything new seems to ignore a good chunk of the complaints. "Jason doesn't set traps/take hostages", "Michael isn't white trash", "Freddy better not be innocent" etc.

There are problems with film in that it is both art and industry, and sadly the emphasis on the product side is never greater than when dealing with an established franchise. So I can understand the quandry a filmmaker is in when trying to balance bringing in something new without changing the old so much they alienate the base. Something, BTW, that didn't really work well with The Thing (a huge flop at the time of release) and the new Dawn (which initially pissed off a large segment of the base) - and neither franchise has ever been as big as Freddy.

Now Platinum Dunes has done enough of these that a pattern can be established, and one can fairly knock them for the product if you don't like it, and get some sense of what they feel is the right tone and balance of old and new. But again that's looking at results, not motivation or process.

But in the end, the old fans have to acknowlege the following:

1. All of these films made more money than Drag Me to Hell and many other "better", original horror films.

2. Many of the old fans still walk into theaters, knowing what was done before, knowing what to expect, and still fork over their money, just to walk out and bitch that they were right all along.

In the end, the studio will follow the money, not the criticism, and its hard to blame them.

[maarow]

Jun 9, 2010 17:32:23 GMT -5 wolfemann said:

In the process of trying to methodically strip away every rational explanation (as I heard one reviewer say The Exorcist does skillfully), they fail to show what works best for me in an exorcism story - the emotional and spiritual oppression and degradation of the victim. We see Regan tearing herself apart, yes, but we don't really get any sense of what it's like for her beyond the physical. This is why Paranormal Activity works better for me - the focus in that movie is what happens to the characters, and particularly Katie's gradual falling apart and eventually succumbing.

I think you're approaching it from the wrong angle. The Exorcist is, broadly, about good versus evil; more specifically, God versus the Devil, and the fallout that their eternal war rains down on us mere mortals. Regan is, more or less, a MacGuffin; a device, however grotesque and vile, to bring the characters together to contemplate their big thematic concerns.

What are those concerns? Faith, mainly, and man's place in the universe. Are we nothing or everything? Ridiculous puppets or divine descendants? Karras is the main character. Disillusioned, doubtful, trapped in existential angst, Regan's plight is his test. He undergoes what is know in pretentious screenwriting terms as the "character arc." The implications of his internal struggle are profound, resonating at the core of the human spirit. He embodies that age-old quandary, the search for meaning. He is the audience's spiritual stand-in.

That is the intention of the story. Now whether or not Friedkin and Blatty executed this in an appropriate way is up for debate. 360 degree head spins, pea soup vomit, crucificial masturbation? Not terribly subtle. Viewed almost four decades later it has the stench of parody on its own. But then again shock value never did put up much of a fight against time.

Of course the exorcism proper is, relatively speaking, a small fraction of the running time. Important, certainly; the culmination of 2 hours of theological anxiety must needs be a show-stopper. Too often, though, its overstated antics are all spectators take away from the film as a whole. Theatricality is an indulgence that should have damned the enterprise from the start, but ontological crises persevere, and after all, what is the Biblical God if not a bit of a showoff? With His burning bushes and global floods and parting rivers He certainly understood that a cosmic song-and-dance was the only way to get the ecumenical auditorium of His creation to shut up and take notice. So, in the light of such precedent perhaps The Exorcist can be forgiven its hyperbole.

Personally I found the movie most effective in its quieter moments: the inexplicably aborted clock, pendulum caught mid-swing; Karras' nightmare; most of all, the endless and painful medical tests. We put so much trust in the medical world to cure our ailments; how can we not fear the day when it fails us? The day when studious men and women, for all their pedantry and education and superficially authoritative accouterments, simply have no answers. My sister became severely ill when I was in seventh grade; she got so dizzy she couldn't stand up. The first doctor my mother took her to shrugged and wrote it off to allergies. Fortunately my mother had the clarity (or suspicion) to get a second opinion, where a brain scan revealed a potentially fatal brain tumor. My sister is fine now, but finding out that doctors are not infallible supermen, that they can save or destroy lives based on whether or not they have the right idea or piece of information at the right time, was more than a little unnerving.

So where do we go when the physical world offers no solutions? The same place The Exorcist goes: the metaphysical realm. Supernatural circus aside its message is ultimately a hopeful one. If there is a devil, there must be a God (let us not dwell on His inability or unwillingness to hold demonic forces at bay). And if there are demons, they can be defeated by even the lowliest mortals, the ones who carry fear and doubt tucked neatly in white collars, in a moment of sublime sacrifice.

In the grand scheme of things, perhaps that's not so frightening.

[hammermancunian]

I dunno i think Freddy running down the street in the original NOES with the big wobbly rubber arms is still fairly creepy.

[Tom]

Jun 13, 2010 0:21:34 GMT -5 misterd said:

But in the end, the old fans have to acknowlege the following:

1. All of these films made more money than Drag Me to Hell and many other "better", original horror films.

2. Many of the old fans still walk into theaters, knowing what was done before, knowing what to expect, and still fork over their money, just to walk out and bitch that they were right all along.

In the end, the studio will follow the money, not the criticism, and its hard to blame them.

Well said sir. I can't fathom the mentality of some to continually support something they claim to hate so much - and it is support. Whether people walk out of the cinema complaining or not, the guy in the suit who green-lit the thing still has your money.

I hear it all the time "I hate remakes", "I can't believe they're remaking Nightmare on Elm Street". Heaven forbid someone actually has the courage of their convictions and boycotts them. Perhaps those people do exist, but they're certainly a rarity. Every case I can recall of people objecting to the fact that Nightmare got remade, they still went to see it, even after a lot of the buzz was less than good. They came out complaining, but like you say Misterd, they've already sent that message, they've contributed to the bottom line.

I personally have no problem with remakes, I went to Nightmare and it wasn't as good as I'd hoped, but it certainly wasn't as bad as a lot of people say. If I'd have objected to the fact that it got made, I wouldn't have went - simple as that. I didn't like Transformers, so I didn't go and see Transformers 2, it's pretty easy to stick to your guns I find, rather than going out of your way to be offended by something.

[mundays]

Jun 17, 2010 2:31:18 GMT -5 Tom said:

I hear it all the time "I hate remakes", "I can't believe they're remaking Nightmare on Elm Street". Heaven forbid someone actually has the courage of their convictions and boycotts them. Perhaps those people do exist, but they're certainly a rarity. Every case I can recall of people objecting to the fact that Nightmare got remade, they still went to see it, even after a lot of the buzz was less than good. They came out complaining, but like you say Misterd, they've already sent that message, they've contributed to the bottom line.

Truth.

But... It's a bit C22 isn't it? Because I (and doubtless most people on this forum) would be equally cross with people who are vocally critical of things without seeing them. Sadly you are unqualified to rant about how awful it is remaking nightmare on elm street without at least seeing what they've done first. That's just as annoying.

[necronomics]

Jun 17, 2010 2:49:01 GMT -5 mundays said:

Jun 17, 2010 2:31:18 GMT -5 Tom said:

I hear it all the time "I hate remakes", "I can't believe they're remaking Nightmare on Elm Street". Heaven forbid someone actually has the courage of their convictions and boycotts them. Perhaps those people do exist, but they're certainly a rarity. Every case I can recall of people objecting to the fact that Nightmare got remade, they still went to see it, even after a lot of the buzz was less than good. They came out complaining, but like you say Misterd, they've already sent that message, they've contributed to the bottom line.

Truth.

But... It's a bit C22 isn't it? Because I (and doubtless most people on this forum) would be equally cross with people who are vocally critical of things without seeing them. Sadly you are unqualified to rant about how awful it is remaking nightmare on elm street without at least seeing what they've done first. That's just as annoying.

After what they did to Friday the 13th I swore that they would not receive another cent from me and they have not. I agree entirely with voting with your wallet and do so.

[Tom]

Jun 17, 2010 2:49:01 GMT -5 mundays said:

Jun 17, 2010 2:31:18 GMT -5 Tom said:

I hear it all the time "I hate remakes", "I can't believe they're remaking Nightmare on Elm Street". Heaven forbid someone actually has the courage of their convictions and boycotts them. Perhaps those people do exist, but they're certainly a rarity. Every case I can recall of people objecting to the fact that Nightmare got remade, they still went to see it, even after a lot of the buzz was less than good. They came out complaining, but like you say Misterd, they've already sent that message, they've contributed to the bottom line.

Truth.

But... It's a bit C22 isn't it? Because I (and doubtless most people on this forum) would be equally cross with people who are vocally critical of things without seeing them. Sadly you are unqualified to rant about how awful it is remaking nightmare on elm street without at least seeing what they've done first. That's just as annoying.

I'm not sure it is. I think objections to the fact that a remake exists and the criticisms about the quality of a remake are kind of two different things - there are two different arguments at work. What I'm talking about are those who hold a position of, a remake shouldn't exist:

"Remakes are bad, the movie industry has no originality, Nightmare On Elm Street is a classic, it shouldn't be remade"

Those people to me seem to be coming from some moral standpoint, and I do think if these people go to see Nightmare, then they might as well be wearing a mink coat at an anti fur rally. Their standpoint isn't one of quality, it's that it shouldn't exist regardless of quality, for whatever reason.

I absolutely do think those people should have the courage of their convictions, or at least wait until they can see it via, borrowing a DVD from a friend or watching it on TV if they feel that strongly.

There were enough middling to bad reviews of Elm Street to make a fair assessment that if you had doubts, they were more than likely not going to convince you - so I do think that if people STILL go and see it, then you really have to question why. Are they going just so that they can moan about it? That to me is bizarre. It really would be like me going to see Transformers 2 just to complain about it, when the critics were doing that for me already.

[mundays]

I do agree with you Tom, just playing devils advocate a bit really. Not entirely sure there is any grand moral standpoint to diassproving of nightmare on elm street being remade myself (certainly nothing akin to being anti-fur anyway!) - its more of an irritant really so whether or not it warrants any equally grand boycotting gesture is down to the individual and I suspect few consider it worth making a stand over.

But the question you pose is valid nonetheless, as to whether or not the reason for these people going to see it is so they can just moan about it, not for us to answer really - I think the series of events and considerations that take place before we have a night out anywhere depends on quite a lot (I saw Sex & The City 2 last week! Think that was my idea?!) . But this is as good a place as any to ask I suppose, surely there must be someone on this forum who was extremely opposed to NOES being remade who read the reviews and then still went to see it? Perhaps they can tell us why?

[necronomics]

I can't speak for NOES but I can for Friday. I was furious at the TCM remake, its what started me on my anti Platinum Dunes kick. When Friday came out in Australia it was released the day before friday the 13th. Me and my horror watching pals decided that was pretty cool and decided to go and see it on Friday the 13th. I knew in advance it was going to be shit, in fact there was a running bet on how long it was going to take for me to storm out. But the reason I went, besides to go with my friends, was hope in that they could do it well. And that's the thing, I think a lot of people go with the hope that it may be good. When they walk out disappointed it fuels the fire.

[Tom]

Jun 17, 2010 7:52:43 GMT -5 mundays said:

I do agree with you Tom, just playing devils advocate a bit really. Not entirely sure there is any grand moral standpoint to diassproving of nightmare on elm street being remade myself (certainly nothing akin to being anti-fur anyway!) - its more of an irritant really so whether or not it warrants any equally grand boycotting gesture is down to the individual and I suspect few consider it worth making a stand over.

But the question you pose is valid nonetheless, as to whether or not the reason for these people going to see it is so they can just moan about it, not for us to answer really - I think the series of events and considerations that take place before we have a night out anywhere depends on quite a lot (I saw Sex & The City 2 last week! Think that was my idea?!) . But this is as good a place as any to ask I suppose, surely there must be someone on this forum who was extremely opposed to NOES being remade who read the reviews and then still went to see it? Perhaps they can tell us why?

Good points well made sir.

[therottoenone]

Jun 17, 2010 8:45:20 GMT -5 necronomics said:

I can't speak for NOES but I can for Friday. I was furious at the TCM remake, its what started me on my anti Platinum Dunes kick. When Friday came out in Australia it was released the day before friday the 13th. Me and my horror watching pals decided that was pretty cool and decided to go and see it on Friday the 13th. I knew in advance it was going to be shit, in fact there was a running bet on how long it was going to take for me to storm out. But the reason I went, besides to go with my friends, was hope in that they could do it well. And that's the thing, I think a lot of people go with the hope that it may be good. When they walk out disappointed it fuels the fire.

I actually lied The Friday The 13th Remake. I felt like it was a better movie than the original and how they kept some of the poriginal parts in it. I also liked how they showed jason without a shirt and showed the extent of his deformities. Also how they made him more realistic and less supernatural. I thought thsat was better then how he was in the original ones. And to be honest I think the sexual elements were more prevalent in this film than the original and actuallly had nudity. i don't remember seeing any of that in the first f13 and the woemn look better in this film. also the kills were FANTASTIC>

On a side note i am really excited to see Predators. I am so pumped for this and am waiting patiently. I hope there is a midnight showeing.

[Scary Gary]

I liked the F13 remake as well, but I didn't care for some of the elements. I didn't need to see him kidnapping anyone, nor did I need to see his man-cave. But I liked the run down Camp Crystal Lake set and the potato sack headgear. I just wish they would continue with the sequels.

[hammermancunian]

All i can remember of the F13 remake..the one thing that stays in my mind..was the tits.
That and the "ooh look its him from Supernatural" moment.

[Scary Gary]

Jun 19, 2010 5:35:03 GMT -5 hammermancunian said:

All i can remember of the F13 remake..the one thing that stays in my mind..was the tits.
That and the "ooh look its him from Supernatural" moment.

Perfect nipple placement.

[mundays]

Jun 19, 2010 11:38:21 GMT -5 Scary Gary said:

Jun 19, 2010 5:35:03 GMT -5 hammermancunian said:

All i can remember of the F13 remake..the one thing that stays in my mind..was the tits.
That and the "ooh look its him from Supernatural" moment.

Perfect nipple placement.

What? Him from Supernatural?