This film doesn't need a remake; it's fine the way it is.
You've seen Guy Standeven in something because the man was in everything.

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

No.
"The only rules that really matter are these:What a man can do,and what a man can't do."-Capt. Jack

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

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.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

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.

I recently watched the new True Grit. Much better than the old one.

Think about a recent movie that you give high praise to, maybe your favourite of the year.
Now think about a remake in a decade or three. Necessary???

Very well said.

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.

yet, they are going to keep remaking them because people like, you, I, and everyone else, still go see them.
"Just because I rock it doesn't mean I'm made out of stone."
-Me, Myself and Irene

Example = Hairspray in 2007

This message has been deleted.

Paul Dano as Martin

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.

Really?? Do you have a link you can provide for more information?

This message has been deleted.

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.

Yes, I like to follow up with what I started. Why don't you try addressing the subjects being posted. If you don't have anything productive or worthwhile to add, then don't post. It's as simple as that.
This thread is titled "Martin Remake", I started it because it's a subject of interest to me, and you don't see me posting the same stuff elsewhere. I am not opposed to people posting their reasons why they don't like the idea, as long as they are constructive with it and take into consideration what I've said rather than simply being dismissive and attempting to be belittling.
I find it interesting you see my actions as "sad", yet here you are revisiting this thread and taking the time to point that out. I wonder which is really worse

It is sad when I visit the "Martin" boards and see you are still posting in this same thread about the remake.
www.myspace.com/deadravensrock
www.youtube.com/nightofthelepus

"I think a lot of the depth and richness of the original would almost certainly be lost. The social upheaval of urban America in the 70's (viz. secularization, deindustrialization, white flight) is a major theme in Martin, and the way Romero skillfully and (relatively) subtly works those issues into the movie gives it a lot of the resonance it has."
I suppose this is probably why I said the movie seemed a little dated. You're not going to find many people who grew up in later decades that are going to understand those themes clearly - and it's not because they aren't intelligent enough, it's because they didn't live through it. However, the idea of "real life vampire" could easily be carried over and given different social commentary (and I think both of us would agree that this would be the challenge to doing a remake) it could take one interesting idea and put it in a setting that would be more relatable to today's audience.
"the kind of working-class ethnic white people this movie is about have largely left America's urban areas now."
Maybe a place to start would be to take the thematic concerns and put it in a suburban setting.
Social commentary could still certainly exist. In fact, that's what I like about Romero's Martin so much, is how maleable and flexible his idea is. He seemed to have effectively done this with some of his zombie movies, and I don't see any reason why he couldn't do the same with his "vampire" movie.

I just think it would be interesting to see how they would flesh out the same ideas given another opportunity and greater funding.
What do you mean by this?
If you mean something along the lines of the idea, of not knowing if Martin is actually a vampire or not. Then a remake is not what you are after, this is what non remakes (aka original films) do anyway. And therefore making the idea of remaking any specific film unnecessary. Take slasher films, a lot use the same basic idea, and flesh them out in new stories for a different audience, same with and story grouping.
If you mean something else, please explain.