Eric D.

Come on! Is nothing sacred anymore? Worst part is that Michael Bay's company, Platinum Dunes, is doing it. So far they have made nothing but remakes and sequels. It's sickening. I don't know about you, but I'm finding it harder and harder to call myself a horror fan these days with all the garbage coming out. I have always loved Near Dark and feel that it is still one of the best vampire flicks out there. So I think it's safe to say I'm not happy about this. Plus the fact that Bay and his coworkers will be making a lot of money off of this is just salt in the wound.


http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=13104

devilshalo

Platinum Dunes is no different from Dark Castle doing horror re-makes.

Eric D.

So what. A remake of a good movie is still a remake of a good movie. I don't care who is behind it. But just look at the deal Bay and Platinum Dunes have cut themselves (see link). That means that they will be rolling out the remakes/sequels like crazy. Dark Castle will never be that active. Plus they can't seem to get the rights to the big stuff like PD and Bay can.

Mr. Cinema

I liked the remakes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Amityville Horror, which were both Bay productions. This will probably be similar. Sure, there's better new horror out there, such as The Descent, but I think Bay's remakes are worth watching and definitely better than the PG-13 teen "horror" crap like When a Stranger Calls.

devilshalo

So what's your point? You complain in your first post that Bay's Platinum Dunes is gonna remake Near Dark. So I ask, how is this any different from Zemekis/Silver's Dark Castle doing remakes. So your reply is to defend a remake as long as it's a good remake? But you hate that Bay's company is doing so?

BTW, Dark Castle has been able to almost put out a film a year since House on Haunted Hill. Platinum Dunes has done about the same by putting out a film a year with TCM.

Eric D.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm not defending remakes at all. I hate them. I'm saying that no matter who remakes a good horror film, they are still remaking it. The company doing it doesn't matter to me. In this case it just happens to be PD, and they seem to be getting quite aggressive latley. They also have The Hitchher and The Birds in the pipeline.

Edit: Also you pointing out that another company does remakes is kind of silly and pointless. Like I don't know that? The reason why I talked about PD is that they are the ones behind Near Dark. If it was another studio or company, I would have mentioned them instead. So I say again in regards to Dark Castle...so what.

devilshalo

Because everything you put into your first post seems to scream "I hate Michael Bay's low budget horror shingle because he's Michael Bay and he's gonna make a shitload of profit."

I put Dark Castle in there because it's another well known horror shingle by another well known director Zemeckis. It seemed like your first post was just finger pointing a particular company because of Michael Bay's involvement, especially with the line about making a profit.

Eric D.

Jesus, don't put words in my mouth buddy. Did you even read my post? I actually don't hate Bay as a filmmaker at all. I'm just upset that one of my favorite movies is being remade. Get that through your head. I then mentioned PD because, as I've stated before, they are getting very aggressive in the remake business. Now that they have a new deal, that means that they will be remaking many more classic horror films. Something that I don't want to happen. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

devilshalo

What words am I putting in your mouth?

Eric D.

"I hate Michael Bay's low budget horror shingle because he's Michael Bay and he's gonna make a shitload of profit."

I'm guessing at this point that you must work for PD or just love remakes as opposed to original films.

joefrog91

Near Dark is one my favorite movies. I can't stand remakes.

Eric D.

Devilshalo,
One last thing. Did you even read the article I linked to in my original post? Because it is written in the same tone as this thread. And for the record, I have a problem with PD because they only put out remakes. Not because I'm a fanboy who loves to hate on Bay and everything he touches. If Joe Schmo ran PD, I would have used his name instead of Bay's. Now if PD put out original films as well, I would have no problem with them. You keep on picking and choosing certain things I said and taking them out of context, and are completely ignoring everything else. It all boils down to Near Dark being remade now. It's a perfect film imo and I'm pissed that they are going to remake it. That is why I titled the thread "Near Dark remake in the works". I only talked about PD in order to give some more info on the subject. Excuse me for having an opinion and not liking remakes.

And yes I know, Dark Castle does only remakes too.

MechanicalMan

If hating on Michael Bay is wrong, I don't want to be right.

devilshalo

Dark Castle was originally created to do remakes only (of William Castle films), but has since branched out. Of course, they've been in existance since 1999. Platinum Dunes has been around since 2003. Are you going to change your stance if PD suddenly puts out something original?

If you go back and use the search function, you'll see that I've also started threads about remakes. I'm not a fan of remakes when the source material is already classic (even by cult standards).

Another remake... but Battle Royale???
Another comedy remake: Summer School
More horror re-makes Part 2 (Bay at it again) - this time... The Birds
More horror re-makes... next up - The Hitcher

Your first post gives off the Michael Bay fanboy hater-ade. Do you not see that? And yes, I read the skewed article. Did you read the original article from Variety?

Dunes digs up rich Rogue deal

Platinum inks three-year pact with Focus' genre arm

By MICHAEL FLEMING

Platinum Dunes has found a new haunt at Rogue Pictures.

Rogue, the genre arm of Universal-based Focus Features, has made a three-year first-look deal with Platinum's Michael Bay, Brad Fuller and Andrew Form. The troika will produce fright fare budgeted under $25 million and receive as much as 10% of first-dollar gross -- one of the richest producer deals in town.

Platinum, which has already completed production on a Rogue remake of "The Hitcher" for April release, will kick off the deal by remaking "Near Dark," the 1987 pic about a cowboy wooed into joining a roving band of vampires. Samuel Bayer, helmer of such videos as Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit," is attached to direct. Matt Venne is writing the script, and Charles Meeker and Amy Kaufman also produce. Production begins early next year.

The producer also will steer a remake of 1987 pic "The Changeling," which Rogue already had on its development roster. Separately, Platinum Dunes is remaking Hitchcock's "The Birds" for Universal Pictures.

While the WMA-brokered gross deal seems frighteningly lucrative in the current cutback climate, Rogue actually matched the terms Platinum Dunes received in its previous deal at Dimension Films. Platinum Dunes gets 10% when it brings in a new project. If Rogue assigns Platinum Dunes a project from the U library, the figure is less.

Several studios chased the Platinum Dunes deal because of its profit track record.

New Line today releases Platinum Dunes' third film, the $16 million "Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning." Platinum launched in 2003 with a "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" redo that cost $9.5 million and grossed $107 million worldwide. Its second effort, remake "The Amityville Horror," cost $19 million and grossed $110 million worldwide.

Bay said he started the genre company as a way to break in new directors with low-cost fare. The first two pics grossed more than their negative budgets on opening weekend, which remains a goal with each succeeding film.

"A fun venture has turned into a full-fledged business," Bay said. "It has grown because it's a good business model. If you can make these films in the $16 million range, it's hard to lose."

Fuller said they chose Rogue partly because of a relationship they developed with co-prexy Andrew Rona and Universal co-chair David Linde.

"When Platinum Dunes was just Michael Bay and his buddies and nobody took us seriously, David raised the money for 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' when he was the co-head of Focus," Fuller said. "He was the first one to believe in us as producers. I'd met Andrew Rona when he was co-president at Dimension, but when I worked with him at Rogue on 'The Hitcher,' he left us alone to make our movie and was there when we needed him."

Eric D.

Oh my God. It is just so painfully obvious that you are only reading the parts of my post that you want to. Try reading my last post again...I already addressed that. This seems to be becoming a running theme with you.

I know what I wrote, and it's not Bay "fanboy hater-ade". I'm pissed off about the remake and Bay's company for doing it. Not Bay himself. Not once did I slam him calling him a hack or whatever people use against him these days. You sir seem to have a very difficult time getting that through your head. The only thing my first post has "hater-ade" for are all the remakes being put out. And it just so happens I singled out PD because they are doing Near Dark. So why the heck would I bring Dark Castle into it? Unless I missed the rule where every post has to cover similar companies to the one being discussed. And yes I read the Variety article. Forgive me sir for not linking to that instead of the condensed Joblo verison.


And may I ask exactly what point you are trying to prove with all this bickering? That Dark Castle also has a lot of remakes? Knew that. Oh and that companies can release other kinds of projects in the future? Really? I never would have figured that out by myself. So I guess that's why Warner is not just doing musicals anymore huh. And and before you tell me, I already know that the sky is blue, we live on a planet called Earth and I have five fingers on both my hands.

Edit: Huh! For someone accusing me of being a Bay hater, which I'm not, I love the thread title that you posted, "More horror re-makes Part 2 (Bay at it again) - this time... The Birds". That seems like a much bigger slam of Bay then my thread which slams remakes. Plus you put it right in the title itself. Now I see absolutely no point in continuing this ridiculous argument with you. It's utterly pointless since you can't even make up your own mind.

Bareit

Why is remaking Near Dark a bad thing? You can still continue to love the original and completely disregard the remake. I, personally, didn't like the original. The story was weak as was the acting but that's just my opinion.

MechanicalMan

I'm not a huge fan of the original either. But I think there are valid reasons to hate remakes.

- Remakes always suck.
- Remakes are often made of very successful and/or very good films--not flawed, obscure movies where the material may actually be better served by a remake.
- Remakes can supplant originals to some extent--they may become more popular than the original, people who see the remake first may not have as much appreciation when/if they see the original, people may be less likely to watch the original, etc. It particularly irks me if great, modern foreign films are replaced by shitty remakes in the US (WTF).

devilshalo

Really, taken in context that my first thread (More horror re-makes... next up - The Hitcher) created 04-18-05, 09:49 AM, I think that the next thread (More horror re-makes Part 2 (Bay at it again) - this time... The Birds) created 04-25-05, 10:22 PM (threads created 7 days apart) is appropriate being that both are produced by Bay (and at the time, were featured on the same front page of Movie Talk). But if your stance on Bay and Platinum Dunes fails to see that, then think what you think... since you know, you seem to think I do the same.

Ok, so let me get this straight... 1) you hate remakes, 2) you hate Platinum Dunes for making remake, 3) [according to the Variety article] Michael Bay said he started the genre company (Platinum Dunes) as a way to break in new directors with low-cost fare. "A fun venture has turned into a full-fledged business," Bay said. "It has grown because it's a good business model. If you can make these films in the $16 million range, it's hard to lose.", 4) you hate that Bay will make a lot of money off remakes that he's bringing into his company, but that 5) you don't hate Michael Bay as a filmmaker.

I think I'm caught up.

So will you be seeing The Departed this weekend?

devilshalo

And my take.. I doubt they (or anyone) could ever do a remake of Near Dark any justice. The barroom massacre by itself is a classic that shouldn't be touched or attempted.

Bareit

I'm gonna have to disagree. They may suck most of the time but not always. John Carpenter's "The Thing" is a good example of a great remake. I also happen to like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake and many people like the Dawn of the Dead remake.

That's the point. Remaking an obscure movie would not make sense. The reason for remaking a movie is name recognition.

What's the harm in that? If someone likes a remake over an original, that's their choice. The fact that people may enjoy a remake to an original that I may happen to love does not take away from my enjoyment of that original.

Eric D.

Close. #3 Is not a point that I made, it's just a Bay quote. #4 is backwards, I don't hate Bay for making money, it's just that the money will lead to more remakes.

And I will not be seeing The Departed this weekend. I'll probably see it next weekend due to my schedule. I know that it will never top the original, a personal fave of mine, but I like Scorsese. What you have to understand is that the reason why I'm opposed to remakes so much is that they leave little room for original stuff to come out. Hardley anybody sells a spec script these days anymore. All studios want to do is play it safe and remake something that they know will find an audience since the original was successful in the past. Remakes are also bad in that no truly original ideas can come out of them. The screenwriter is restricted in a sense that they can't depart too much from the original idea because the studios don't want to take that risk. Also, I find it very embarrassing that filmmakers in other countries are constantly coming up with original ideas and all we can do is just remake them. People always complain that there are no good writers left in Hollywood. That is not true, there are plenty of good writers but they are just not allowed to write original stuff. Because remakes tend to make so much money, I can't really blame the studios for not wanting to take a risk on something different and have it blow up in their face. It is a business after all. But if Hollywood keeps this up long enough, it's going to burn itself out. They are really stretching now as it is with some of the films they are choosing to remake. But I do want to point out that not all remakes are awful films, some of them are pretty damn good. It's just the effect that they have on the industry as a whole that I find so distasteful. If Bay started that compnay to give up and coming directors a shot, and if the films are cheap to make, they why not take a fucking risk on something original once in a while. Sure it may end up being garbage like See No Evil, or it could be something amazing like The Descent. So that is why I don't like PD. They are only about the money despite saying they are for the filmmakers. If they start taking risks and making original stuff, I will love them. Twisted Pictures on the other hand rules. They take risks on original stuff and look what happened...they got a fucking franchise out of it.

MechanicalMan

I honestly don't think I've ever seen Carpenter's The Thing. I'm planning to watch it this month during "the contest." My expectations are pretty high, but it's hard to imagine liking a Kurt Russell movie. I haven't seen the TCM remake and don't intend to. The Dawn of the Dead remake is overrated, forgettable, and nowhere near as good as the original.

Well, that's obviously the perspective of someone who is making money off the film, but why would I feel that way? As a moviegoer, I don't want to see a shitty, embarrassing remake of something like Psycho. If people want to do some remakes, it would be nice if they could be just a little more creative about it. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this. Enjoy Psycho, Manchurian Candidate, Citizen Kane, or whatever bullshit remakes come along, but that's not what I want to see.

What's the harm if people never bother to see the original? If their opinion is tainted by seeing a remake? If a foreign film doesn't get released here because some asshole would rather make a bastardized remake for the US market? There is a whole generation of people who think of "Ice Ice Baby" when "Under Pressure" comes on the radio.

GoldenJCJ

I'd watch a Platinum Dunes remake over a Dark Castle Remake anyday.

While I've only seen one or two PD films I have to say that they aren't all that bad. Everything that I've seen from DC has been absolutely terrible...and the bitch of it is that they had the potential to be great.

Platinum Dunes, IMO, at least seems to understand that when going for a gory, grisly movie you go all the way with a hard 'R'. Something I think has been sorely missing in horror movies of the past several years.

I still love the originals and can appreciate them both for what they are --two version of the same source material; nothing more nothing less.

marty888

Some remakes are good, some are bad .... and some are simply a bad idea. NEAR DARK served its material perfectly, and there is no reason to remake it. It's not as if it has great public awareness (it was never really a hit, and is more of a cult favorite), and most people probably won't even know it's a remake. But the brains behind the scenes see a few things that make megabucks and can't control their hard on. Someone should lean over and whisper in their ear: "Wicker Man, All The King's Men, Wicker Man, ALl The King's Men, Wicker Man ..."

Linn1

The majority of remakes suck. Very simply, The Thing doesn't make up for that. The Thing was a remake by a director that could DIRECT and a team of actors that could ACT. Remakes today are in most cases missing one or both of these things.