Martin Remake
-
ddwookie — 10 years ago(November 20, 2015 12:35 PM)
Well, they shouldn't have remade Psycho, Dawn/Day of the Dead, Halloween, The Fog, Assault on Precinct 13 or Poltergeist, but they did. The new Friday the 13th I just look at it as a part 12, with F vs J as a part 11.
The remake of Dawn, outside of not enough big feasting scenes, too many characters to not care about and not enough human/zombie interaction (thanks to the mall being closed in the remake) was a fun zombie romp, and aside from the first Return of the Living Dead, one of the few to have successful running zombies. The infected in 28 Days/Weeks Later as well as Deodato's City of the Walking Dead were infected, not technically dead, so I have no problem with them windsprinting around. After Dawn '04, though, it was like everybody had to jump on the band wagon and have running zombies.
It's only my opinion. Climb down. -
I_Bystander — 15 years ago(September 17, 2010 01:34 AM)
Yes, I think Martin should be brought to a new audience unwilling to accept the slow pace and poor production values of the original. More-so Jack's Wife / Season of the Witch, though. I have no problem with remakes and would rather see a remake of a gret film than another poor film about fast cars and fisticuffs.
-
zerobeat — 15 years ago(January 29, 2011 08:26 PM)
The best remakes have indeed been ones where the original wasn't excellent. The original versions of The Fly, The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatchers were never considered the best in their day, but had some decent premises. I'm sure that if IMDB existed 60 years ago, these films would haven't gotten great reviews by all and many would be espousing how they "could have been so much better and here's how".
The Day The Earth Stood Still, Manchurian Candidate, Village of the Damned, Planet Of The Apes considered excellent in 1951, 1960, 1962 and 1968. The remakes had nowhere to go but down (if they weren't going to just copy them verbatim).
A remake of Last Action Hero would be nice. So many missed opportunities with that neat premise. -
Cletus_Yokel — 13 years ago(February 04, 2013 03:51 AM)
The original versions of The Fly, The Thing
John Carpenters The Thing isn't a remake, it's a re-adaptation of the John W. Campbell Jnr story "Who Goes There?". Just like the 1997 Mick Garris Mini Series The Shining is a re-adaptation of the novel by Stephen King, not a remake of the Stanley Kubrick film. -
political-terror — 11 years ago(June 16, 2014 02:26 PM)
Who would you choose to play Martin, I can't think of another actor capable of doing justice to John Amplas's performance, then there is the era it was made, pre-MTV pre-Internet pre-cell phones the awesome decade that was the 1970s. Which studio today would put money into a gory and disturbing vampire drama without any CGI? If you are looking for a contemporary vampire picture which whilst not the same as Martin, but may well have taken some inspiration, I could recommend a viewing of Let the Right One In.
-
Ore-Sama — 11 years ago(October 11, 2014 07:35 AM)
Why not just make another character driven vampire film? Why a remake?
I'm not saying the movie is dated because people are from 1970. I don't like it when people don't understand what someone is saying so they make up a meaning for it.
When people say that something is dated, it means that the ideas don't translate over very well to a modern audience.
If someone can't get the ideas behind Martin, that's a reflection on them, not the movie.
I mean good lord, if we're going to criticize movies based of how well a modern, casual film goer can understand them, we'd have to dismiss the entire filmographies of Tarkovsky, Antononoi, Felini, Renoir, etc. That's absolutely ridiculous.
"It's just you and me now, sport"Manhunter
-
Robbmonster — 11 years ago(January 06, 2015 08:37 AM)
I know this thread is now old, but it is a good one, with lots of well-articulated thoughts (I mean that).
I'm someone who is basically opposed to remakes in general for a number of reasons. But in regard to Martin, I don't think the quality and clarity of the story and themes could be better brought out with a bigger budget and shinier photography. I think all a remake would serve to do would be to simplify the themes and ideas of the film and make them more obvious. I very much doubt if Martin's subtlety would be maintained in a modern remake. Subtle movies are so rare these days, almost everything produced is about maximizing the target audience, and I am not being cynical when I say this.
You say that remakes don't take away from the quality of the original, and that it will always be there, but this is not strictly true. If Martin were remade, many new people would discover the original because of this remake. And it would surprise me if someone seeing the original Martin after having seen a modern remake would be overly impressed. It could come across as the same thing, but not as 'good'. A remake certainly can tarnish its predecessor, however unintentionally. To think this would not happen is naive.
Another reason I'm opposed to remakes is purely selfish. I'm an aspiring screenwriter trying to get original screenplays looked at, and seeing endless remakes and reboots and reimaginings and last films in a series being broken in two in order to maximize profits is very disheartening.
Less remakes, more original ideas, says I. Or, if remakes must be done, do as someone else on this thread suggested and remake bad movies into good ones, as opposed to good ones into average ones.
Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds