Another pointless, not needed Hollywood remake...

[pelenor]

As reported By Mania.Com


It seems that Platinum Dunes has another horror remake ready to begin in the very near future, this one being a revision of the 1987 cult classic vampire tale NEAR DARK. Dunes' Brad Fuller and Andrew Form have chosen director Samuel Bayer to lead the project, says Bloody Disgusting. The original was directed by Kathryn Bigelow, written by Eric Red & starred Adrian Pasdar, Lance Henriksen, Bill Paxton, Jenny Wright & Jenette Goldstein. Filming will begin shortly on the project as it's being fast tracked by Rogue Pictures.

Plot Concept: The story follows Caleb Colton falling for Mae, a vampire drifter, only to find himself turned into a creature of the night. He joins the ragtag of drifters featuring leader Jesse Hooker, fellow members Diamondback & Severen. Chaos ensues when Caleb's family enter the fold.



I mean really. has Hollywood totally gone bankrupt in the originality department where all they can come up with is remakes of past movies? Geez.

[KillerCannibal]

TERRIBLE idea. Near Dark is one of the best vampire movies out there. I guarantee they're going to lose anything that made the original so captivating, let alone the loss of the amazing performances from Paxton and Henriksen. I'd say hopefully we at least get a new SE of the original, but the OOP AB 2-disc set was a phenomenal DVD to begin with. Boo.

[The Infidel]

I agree. Totally not necessary. The original had the distinction of intentionally avoiding using things found in regular vampire movies, including the exclusion of the word "vampire" throughout the entire movie, and I'm sure a remake will completely ruin that by throwing everything they possibly can into the movie to make sure today's clueless masses will make no mistake in what the movie is about.

[UAIOE]

I can't think of this movie without remembering the story Bill Paxton told about freaking out the train conductor with him in all his makeup. :lol:

[Zen Peckinpah]

Does Hollywood have a grudge against Eric Red? Second movie he wrote to get the shit-ass remake treatment!

First The Hitcher got sent to hell and disfigured to oblivion. For one, what I heard about how they changed the heroes from having the girl as the main persona and the guy as the supporting character pissed me off, let alone them being a couple. Also, Sean Bean is eternally Alec Trevelyan, and Rutger Hauer owned all sorts of ass as Ryder. Plus, he was Rutger f'n Hauer. Was Clive Owen not available?

But to hell with that, about this Near Dark remake:

I love Near Dark. Love, love, love, love it. I blind bought it when the 2-disc SE was $5 on DD based on Kathryn Bigelow's other work (namely Point Break and Strange Days) and the fact that it was a mini-Aliens reunion. That movie is intense as all hell, and yes, the revisionist take on vampires is going to be gutted here. I'm sure some unknown pretty boy is going to play the guy from Heroes' role in this, and someone on the Maxim Hot 100 list gets the Mae role. But there's no way in the hell compiled of James Cameron collaborators, NO FUCKING WAY that they'll be able to match the creepiness Lance Henriksen had or the overzealous sadism Bill Paxton has. I can't even think of someone who could carry off the intensity Paxton has in the bar massacre scene, and of course they're going to make that scene look straight from the TCM remakes and drop the dark humor he had. And I wouldn't be surprised if The kid vampire lives and gets the Lost Boys treatment and loses the vampire thing, which would suck even more.

Somebody should call Bill Paxton to get his Wayfarers, leather jacket, and razor-heeled boots to storm one of the Bay's meetings.

[JaxComet]

Would your average person even know that this was a remake? It's not like Halloween where everone has heard of it.

[The_Cube]

I've never heard of it, and I would consider myself someone who watches a few more movies than the average person.


Personally, I don't see why so many people have a problem with remakes. There is so much hostility when people talk about remakes. I don't think I've heard more hostility even when people are talking about their ex-wives. I usually enjoy remakes, especially if the original was an excellent movie. It allows you to see a different director's take on the same story. If the director changes some details on the story, so what. It's not like the director forces you to see the remake. If you don't like remakes, don't buy a movie ticket for a remake.

[Rad14]

Sorry, but I found the original Near Dark average to say the least.

[Daytripper]

I've never heard of it, and I would consider myself someone who watches a few more movies than the average person.


Personally, I don't see why so many people have a problem with remakes. There is so much hostility when people talk about remakes. I don't think I've heard more hostility even when people are talking about their ex-wives. I usually enjoy remakes, especially if the original was an excellent movie. It allows you to see a different director's take on the same story. If the director changes some details on the story, so what. It's not like the director forces you to see the remake. If you don't like remakes, don't buy a movie ticket for a remake.

Wow. Your response should be a drinking game. Every time you say the "R" word, we all have to take a drink ;)

[clappj]

Another vague, not needed thread title...


;)

[Kudama]

I loved the original up until the blood transfusion ending. It begs the question -Why didn't they keep leaving one of them human as a guard and trade shifts as a human? With a big enough group that will leave you more immortal than you're ever going to get without a human agent. Not to mention the "Oh noes! I've sacrificed my humanity for immortality!" kinda goes out the window when you can change your mind and still have lived all that immortal life free and clear.

The movie fell apart for me right there and everything that came before it was pretty much invalidated. The re-make will suck too.

[Giantrobo]

I don't know, I saw Near Dark and I could barely get through it. To me it wasn't nearly as great as many make it out to be so a remake couldn't hurt in my opinion.

[Bugg]

I guess a remake of Scream must be in the works. -rolleyes-

I don't get it at all. It's not a popular enough movie to have big name recognition. It's not a film that could gain anything from more modern day FX, So what is the logic? While I might grunt at how Hollywood would screw it up, I can at least understand if they decided to do a remake of something like THEM or even another remake of The Blob.

[uncle-frank]

lol, waaaaay un-nessasary.

fuck hollywood cant you use your heads to make somethin remotely new..

[Giantrobo]

fuck hollywood cant you use your heads to make somethin remotely new..

I see your point. But you know, every year a few remakes or movies inspired by old films show up and most of the public doesn't even realize it unless the films are specifically marketed as remakes or reinventions like Zombie's Halloween. Here on dvdtalk people take film "seriously" so remakes seem like a bad thing, but to Hollywood it's another chance to make $$$$ from a <i>new</i> crowd.

[Legolas]

Also, Sean Bean is eternally Alec Trevelyan,

So your own typecasting of Sean Bean is why you're pissed off he was cast in The Hitcher remake?

[Charlie Goose]

I don't know, I saw Near Dark and I could barely get through it. To me it wasn't nearly as great as many make it out to be so a remake couldn't hurt in my opinion.
Same here, I didn't really care for it as a whole, although the bar scene was nicely done.

[sk8r1189]

Well, I haven't seen Near Dark yet, one of those few movies I've yet to get a chance to rent. But from what I have read, it would be a total downer if it was remade. I mean, look at the Halloween remake, they explained why Micheal Myers kills and there went the whole "Boogieman" theory - ruined the movie.

[UAIOE]

Count me in on the group who didn't care much for the movie.

I pretty much got it based on the mini "Aliens" reunion in the movie but after seeing it I can say it didn't make me wanna see it again or seek out more "vampire" movies.

I actually found the behind the scenes stuff (like the Bill Paxton story and Lance Hendrickson freaking a cop out) far more interesting than the actual movie.

[drcos]

The_Cube: When they remake a movie you liked and the remake sucks...(cough)Halloween(cough) do you still not care?

And the folks who "didn't care" for the original...why are you posting in this thread again? Find a post that interests you or is about something you did like and post there. While I have an opinion, I don't find it necessary to share it all the time with others especially regarding things I "didn't care" for in the first place.

[UAIOE]

While I have an opinion, I don't find it necessary to share it all the time with others especially regarding things I "didn't care" for in the first place.

Talk about an excellent time to take your own advice!

[sethsez]

And the folks who "didn't care" for the original...why are you posting in this thread again?
Because maybe they think the remake would be something that interests them, or because they're offering an alternative viewpoint on the subject? You can't expect a thread to just be an echo chamber.

That said, I have nothing against remakes. Film history is filled with them, many of which are classics. There are also plenty of shameless money grabs, true, but this applies pretty much everywhere in the industry and is hardly confined to remakes.

[drcos]

But the posts are not "I didn't care for the original, maybe the remake will be better." That would be a little different, wouldn't it?

And I looked at the thread once I found out what it was about, and was going to post my disfavor with a remake of a movie I thought was fine in the first place, but was displeased with these pointless posts (much like this one has turned into).

So let me re-iterate, the original was pretty good in my opinion and a (obviously shitty) remake would sully the vision fans such as myself have. But I'll go back to my hole now so that the self-important can elucidate their opinions to illuminate the dismal lives of the rest of us.

[Linn1]

Film history is filled with them, many of which are classics.

while most of them are complete crap. It doesn't help that they're now damn near their own genre in todays hollywood.

[Giantrobo]

But the posts are not "I didn't care for the original, maybe the remake will be better." That would be a little different, wouldn't it?

And I looked at the thread once I found out what it was about, and was going to post my disfavor with a remake of a movie I thought was fine in the first place, but was displeased with these pointless posts (much like this one has turned into).

So let me re-iterate, the original was pretty good in my opinion and a (obviously shitty) remake would sully the vision fans such as myself have. But I'll go back to my hole now so that the self-important can elucidate their opinions to illuminate the dismal lives of the rest of us.


Dude, get over yourself. :lol:

[drcos]

Dude, get over yourself. :lol:
I didn't care much for that comment :nopanic:

[sethsez]

But I'll go back to my hole now so that the self-important can elucidate their opinions to illuminate the dismal lives of the rest of us.
I'd say this is the most self-important comment in the entire thread.

A bad remake does not ruin the original. I do not understand that mindset at all. At least with film adaptations of books I can understand fans being anxious because if the movie is bad there will likely never be a good version of the story on film... it's generally a one-shot deal. But with remakes, you already have a good movie, so the failure of a remake doesn't affect anything. Unless you're an investor, you really lose nothing, and remakes tend to result in better DVDs and increased exposure for the original. God knows I'm glad the Aeon Flux movie was made, because until that damn thing was announced it looked like we'd NEVER get a decent box set of the original series.

And Linn1, I'm aware that most of them are crap. Most original movies are crap. Most people are not genious, most people are not visionary, and hell, I'd argue a good chunk of filmmakers aren't even competent. Remake or original, this holds true. But without remakes we wouldn't have the redone Ben-Hur, The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Fly, The Magnificent Seven, A Fistful of Dollars, The Maltese Falcon, or countless others. There are plenty of films with untapped potential, or possible alternate viewpoints or themes to explore, and the best remakes take advantage of this. They act as a supplement to the original, not designed to replace what had been laid down but to investigate it further.

Yes, sometimes it's just Hollywood stripmining the past for profitable ideas, but that doesn't mean remakes should be written off entirely. It all comes down to intent and execution, just like anything else.

[FRwL]

I've always wondered how this decade will be seen years from now especially now that we're near the end of it. If people thought the 80s was bad for its sequels, wait till they get a load of one of remakes.