Martin Remake
-
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