| Author | Message | ||
     Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
A list of Hollywood remakes/sequels in development: http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/450292/75_movie_remakes_and_reboots_currently_in _the_works.html | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Thanks, Chris... that's me depressed for the rest of the day.  | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.165.4 |
FOR FUCK SAKE!!!!  Alien. Conan. The Birds. The Crow. FOR FUCK SAKE!!! A remake of Red Dawn. Wasn't the original a big enough pile of gung-ho, ra-ra right-wing foreign policy, we-have-to-bomb-fuck-out-of-the-third-worlders-and-overthrow-their-democraticall y-elected-governments-or-we'll-be-invaded-by-the-godless-commies-and-they'll-put -us-all-in-camps BULLSHIT to start with?! FOR FUCK SAKE!!! Drop Dead Fred? Drop Dead fucking Fred? It's not even that old! Half of these films are barely a decade in the past. They're even remaking American Fucking Pie which is so recent it's practically a fucking embryo. I'm singling out Drop Dead Fred in particular because it's giving that talentless waste of DNA Russell Brand something to do in the public eye other than eat shit and die. FOR FUCK SAKE!!! Videodrome remake to be scripted by the writer of Transformers 3?! FOR FUCK SAKE!!! And movies I grew up with- Highlander, Robocop, Fright Night, The Black Hole... Barbarella (OK, that'd been out for a long time when I was a kid, but imagine the effect on an impressionable teenager of watching Jane Fonda's zero-g striptease in the opening credits...) FOR F-- (Bestwick's head explodes, a la SCANNERS. At least they're not remaking that. Yet.) Talentless. Parasitical. Soulless. WANKERS. Off now remove bits of brain matter from the carpet. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 61.216.47.147 |
I agree, Simon. It's appalling. Hope you managed to find all of your head bits... | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.165.4 |
Most of them, thanks, Huw. If anyone finds a left ear let me know. But obviously you may need to speak up.  | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
The omission of a SCANNERS remake was clearly an oversight: http://liveforfilms.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/weinstein-talks-scanners-hellraiser -and-an-american-werewolf-in-london-remakes/ | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.165.4 |
And an 'American Werewolf In London'?????? >>>Mushroom clouds erupts, rising over Swinton<<< | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.143.133.88 |
The Alien prequel has been news for ages. It's going to be in 3D, too - just as I predicted! | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 89.19.81.14 |
No! Don't tell me Didley Squat has gone all William Castle too! | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.143.133.88 |
He has. It better be bloody good. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
I gave up going to see remakes quite a few years ago... even when they're sort of good (e.g. 'Dawn Of The Dead' which a friend insisted I watch on DVD with him) they're still not as good and I don't see the point in making them or me wasting my time watching them. The last remake I remember being seriously impressed by was the early 90s version of 'The Blob' - which performed the miracle of actually bettering the original. Now you can't get hold of it for love nor money. How many others can anyone mention that did the same trick - and I don't mean were "pretty good" or "interesting reinterpretations" but actually BETTERED the original?!?! | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
The Thing - John Carpenter | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Nice one, Weber. Both versions are genuine classics but Carpenter's edges it by returning to the source material and those still fabulous effects - fuck CGI!! Two near-miraculous examples don't justify a conveyor belt industry though... Before anyone mentions the equally great 70s version of 'Invasion Of The Body Snatchers' I think of it more as an inspired sequel rather than a remake. The other two versions both sucked imo. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
Abel Ferrera's remake was excellent, if you could get past the attack of the killer spaghetti special effects. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
I was really disappointed with it, Weber. Thought the idea of limiting the action to an Army base didn't work as it detached the alien takeover from real life too much and drained the story of suspense. Compared to the recent pile of shite version, though, it has to be seen as something of a masterpiece lol. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
That scene with his wife was worth the price of admission by itself. "There's.... no one...like... you...left!" If I'd made it I would have made one change, when she shot her Dad, I wouldn't have had him melt. I would have let him bleed to death on the floor in front of his daughter. Really add to the horror stakes. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
Cronenberg's The Fly Aja's Hills have eyes | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.165.4 |
Fair points there, Weber- Carpenter's The Thing and Ferrara's Bodysnatchers. Huston's Maltese Falcon was a remake too. Scorsese's Cape Fear wasn't bad, though I still prefer the J. Lee Thompson original. Remakes can be great, same as cover versions- Eva Cassidy's versions of 'Fields Of Gold' or 'Autumn Leaves' are simply beautful- but most of the time they're crude, godawful butcheries of inspired originals, stemming from a venal and soulless industry that produces a cheapened, dumbed-down, desecrated travesty of the original. And the worst of it is hearing younger folk who see the remake saying it's better than the original- because it's got the latest bland disposable pop-tart pretty-boy/girl in it, or more likely because any rough edges that might actually snag on your brain and induce thought have been sanded away. Hardly any of the current crop inspires confidence- OK, the Coens are doing one of the remakes so that might be alright- and Michael fucking Bay just should not be allowed to make films at all. Ever. In fact, he should be killed outright with a flamethrower for crimes against sanity and the intellect. Ahem. Sorry. Just when I thought I'd passed completely from rage to melancholia... sigh. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
The problem isn't with remakes per se, some of which are exceptionally good. The problem is the rubber-stamping of remakes, reboots, and sequels by all the major studios in lieu of original material. Two nights ago my wife and I were reminiscing about the high quality of various episodes of the old Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock Presents series, many of which were adapted from short stories of the era. A great deal of original fiction is being created today, much of it with great ideas and approaches to the subject matter. Hollywood would be far better off mining this resource for films than it is cannibalizing itself. The argument, I'm told, is that there is a built-in audience for these reboots, that there's less risk involved, but whatever success reboots currently enjoy has to be built on diminishing returns. Eventually filmgoers will figure out that these remakes are cheap and derivative and they'll stay home -- I hope sooner than later. | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.165.4 |
Amen to that, Chris. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.236.71 |
I've enjoyed nearly all the horror remakes, even as guilty pleasures - I know they're "bad," but I enjoy them all the same. The worst of the lot, imho, were three: the remakes of THE STEPFATHER, PROM NIGHT, and WHEN A STRANGER CALLS, and all for the same reason - whomever made these, toned them down, diluted the violence/horror, I guess aiming for a younger audience - the result was shiny excrement. But the rest...? Forgive me, Simon, I want Michael Bay to keep making these remakes for many years to come, because if he doesn't... who will?... And DON'T go telling me all these original horror movies being produced are anything great to rave about either! Let alone better than the remakes for that reason alone! Come on now, that's just silly! | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 98.220.97.79 |
>> And DON'T go telling me all these original horror movies being produced are anything great to rave about either! Let alone better than the remakes for that reason alone! Come on now, that's just silly! Seriously, Craig? Which remake was better than THE ORPHANAGE? Or better than [REC]? Which one was better than PULSE (KAIRO)? The one thing that the films above have in common -- other than the fact that they all have been (or will be soon) remade by Hollywood -- is that they were created from original ideas and from outside the American studio system. I'm certain studios are passing on ideas like these to remake movies like TERROR TRAIN and DISORDERLIES and COP AND A HALF. Remakes aren't the solution, they're the problem -- or at least half the problem. The other half being the "original" ideas Hollywood greenlights for hack directors like Michael Bay. >> if he doesn't... who will? Anybody. Please God anybody. Somebody needs to take away that man's director's license. He doesn't make movies, he makes sharp instruments capable only of prying money out of the hands of fools. Gary Coleman with a lobotomy could make better movies. A hamster could make better movies. That block of fuzzy sherbet in the back of my freezer could make better movies. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.228.7 |
Seriously, Chris? Are we doing the "better than" line of comparison? What horror novel is "better than" HAMLET? Yes, that's exaggerated, but you get my point. There's equal good and bad in both, and you can't compare best to worst (or even mediocre), that's not fair.... And I thought, actually, QUARANTINE equally as good as [REC} - both had elements that were lesser than, and better than, the other. As for remakes, I stand by BLACK CHRISTMAS, TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, THE RING, and THE HILLS HAVE EYES as being fine, entertaining movies in their own right. I just love horror movies - theatrical ones, not made-for-DVD ones, or made-for-TV ones, they're of a whole lesser order altogether - and I lament the potential death/dearth of these films... the others are just so much smaller, however fine their other qualities... and Michael Bay has the ability to get these things made as studio-releases, still... like his upcoming NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET... let's all hope - why not, right? - that's it's a great one.... | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.165.4 |
This is Dr Headfark, Simon's personal physician. Simon will be unable to post on this thread as planned, having suffered an embolism after reading Craig's posts above. I'm sure your thoughts and prayers are with him for a speedy recovery. I would just like to add, in closing, that Chris is absolutely correct in his assessment of Michael Bay's directing abilities. It is a little known fact that while directors such as Dario Argento suck donkey dick in Hell, Michael Bay is to be regularly found tromboning them. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
OK, the Coens are doing one of the remakes so that might be alright They screwed up the Ladykillers - mr Tom blandypants-shit-overrated-up-his-own-arse-fucking Hanks really wasn't the right choice. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
'The Thing', 'The Fly' & 'The Blob' I agree bettered the originals but I haven't seen anything since (including 'The Hills Have Eyes' & 'Dawn Of The Dead') that was no more than okay or quite good (improving not one whit on the original) while the vast majority are complete bollocks. The only answer I can see is a zero tolerance attitude to this kind of shameless money-grubbing from all genuine fans of great cinema! | ||
| Richard_gavin (Richard_gavin) Username: Richard_gavin Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 65.110.174.71 |
I doubt that Hollywood's endless stream of remakes is rooted in the film industry being "bereft of imagination." I suspect that it's more a case of very, very savvy marketers taking full advantage of the internet age. Once upon a time film companies had to spend millions to advertise and promote their title. Today all that is required is someone in a studio marketing dept. to post something online. They say "A remake of Jaws is in the works..." and then they let the film fans do their work for them. For free. Hollywood is fully aware of the sacred cow syndrome associated with certain classic films, espeically among genre fans. The "This is blasphemy!" backlash does precisely what the studio wants it to do: it gets people talking about their project. And for every outraged purist, there will be a few dozen or few hundred paying customers who either don't know or don't care about the original. They'll line the filmmaker's pockets. Thus the process will continue. It's an incredibly cost-effective way to get the word out. Original films are more of a financial risk. Remakes have a built-in audience, even if only a few take in the remake, that's more than an unknown commodity movie can promise. The more public venting, the more free advertising. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Yep, so just grit your teeth, ignore the hype and don't go see them... they're unworthy of wasting time or breath on. Zero tolerance! | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.165.4 |
OK. But Michael Bay still trombones donkeys in hell. | ||
| Richard_gavin (Richard_gavin) Username: Richard_gavin Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 65.110.174.71 |
Agreed. By the way, Simon, I'm reading The Narrows and am finding it jaw-droppingly brilliant. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
Just made the mistake of looking up Tromboning on a slang dictionary... I think I might be about to lose my lunch. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>> Seriously, Chris? Are we doing the "better than" line of comparison? What horror novel is "better than" HAMLET? Yes, that's exaggerated, but you get my point. There's equal good and bad in both, and you can't compare best to worst (or even mediocre), that's not fair.... I was only asking you, Craig: Which remakes are better than the three films I mentioned above? Of course I think the answer is "none." Of course any sensible person would think the answer is "none." And of course you, being Craig, no doubt think the answer is Gus Van Sant's PSYCHO. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>> I doubt that Hollywood's endless stream of remakes is rooted in the film industry being "bereft of imagination." I suspect that it's more a case of very, very savvy marketers taking full advantage of the internet age. Richard, I agree that remakes are easy money opportunities for Hollywood, but as I said in an earlier post, I think it's a matter of diminishing returns. It's very easy to build a buzz on a remake, it's true. But the biggest buzz I see right now is for a film called KICK-ASS, which is an original idea. Last year's biggest buzz was probably for PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, also an original idea. There are plenty of ways to employ the Internet to market a movie; making a remake/reboot is just the easiest one. And yes, I still think a roster full of remakes only shows Hollywood is resting on its imaginative laurels. I took the name of this thread from an interview with Keith Richards I once saw on television. He was asked what he thought of rap music and sampling. His face got all contorted, as though something awful had been placed in his mouth. He took several seconds to spit out the words: "It's... It's just... bereft of imagination," he finally said. Same goes here. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
No Craig thinks the Day of the Dead remake with a lovesick vegetarian zombie is the dogs undercarriage. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
Also, Richard, your "this is blasphemy!" marketing theory surely doesn't apply to THE BLACK HOLE or DROP DEAD FRED or ENDLESS LOVE or THE BEST LITTLE WHOREHOUSE IN TEXAS, does it? Surely these films aren't examples of savvy marketing opportunities -- they're examples of movie execs saying, "Well, hell, we already have a script, don't we? It can't cost us too much," and pressing the greenlight button. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Just made the mistake of looking up Tromboning on a slang dictionary... Do people actually do that or is it just some sick fantasy someone dreamt up... no need to answer, but I must cling to my cosy sense of reality.  | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
Yes, people do look terms up on slang dictionaries. Weird innit. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.243.238 |
I took the name of this thread from an interview with Keith Richards I once saw on television. He was asked what he thought of rap music and sampling. His face got all contorted, as though something awful had been placed in his mouth. He took several seconds to spit out the words: "It's... It's just... bereft of imagination," he finally said. And yet, can you really say an album like THE CHRONIC is "bereft of imagination"?... And if you were to ask my dad - a jazz musician/fanatic - he'd claim without question, that the Stones are beyond "bereft of imagination." It all boils down to taste in the end.... I like the remake trend in Hollywood when it comes to horror films - at least someone's making them at all! | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
But don't you want to see some quality new product, instead of some rehashed piece of shit that's nowhere near as good as the original was? | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.165.4 |
Course he doesn't. Remakes are always better because new is always better. ;) If the originals had been any good they'd've been filmed in colour, with CGI. By Satan- sorry, Michael Bay. Btw, Weber and Steve- Sorry for introducing you to tromboning. The concept, that is, not the practice (tis fervently to be hoped.) Richard- many thanks. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
I don't necessarily agree with Keith. I just remembered his interview. And I'm not much of a Stones fan either. Just to clarify, then, are you saying, Craig, that you approve of the trend of remakes only because otherwise Hollywood wouldn't make horror films at all? I don't really see any evidence to back up this claim, especially since horror movies are routinely profitable films. Why do you think Hollywood would give up on horror entirely if not for the remakes? | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.240.225 |
Chris, I approve of the remake trend, because I genuinely get a guilty-pleasure entertainment from the remakes, even the awful ones.... It's no more than that. Yes, Weber, I wish they'd make original work, but my wishing in one hand and you know what in the other. I don't get all bent out of shape over movies - uh-oh - I mean, of course, certain unmentionables notwithstanding.... | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
Your wishing in one hand? Is that what you call it? I call mine Junior. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Craig, cinema is not just "movies" it is an artform that is being crucified by the Hollywood machine. That's why I picked 'Antichrist' as far and away the greatest horror film of the last decade! Nothing else made in recent years has approached it for originality, intelligence, depth, subtlety and shock value. I was reminded, while watching it, of how routinely great horror cinema was back in the late 60s/70s. We need more of these kind of works... not endless outpourings of unimaginative, artistically redundant shite! | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.143.133.88 |
Hey - I've been buying some jazz! Miles Davis. He's awesome - breaking music into atoms and putting them back together in new, odd shapes. It's new to me but seems so advanced. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Miles Davis is God!! I have so many CDs of his I've lost count of them... and every one a classic. Play em loud, Tony! | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.143.133.88 |
He does sound good. In fact he's starting to make a lot of stuff sound shit. I fancy 'Get up With It' next (I think it's called). He was so far in 'the zone' he never really came back out of it. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
"Get Up With It" contains the half-hour-long masterpiece "He Loved Him Madly," Miles's tribute to Duke Ellington. Just jaw-droppingly brilliant. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
I'd be hard pushed to pick a favourite Miles Davis album. It depends what mood I'm in which era I feel like listening to... 'Birth Of The Cool', 'Round About Midnight', 'Miles Ahead', 'Kind Of Blue', 'Sketches Of Spain', 'Miles Smiles', 'In A Silent Way', 'Bitches Brew', 'On The Corner', 'Big Fun', 'Get Up With It', 'Amandla', 'Aura', and everything in between lol. The man was Jazz for over four decades! | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.143.133.88 |
His stuff just sounds so 'present'. I was chatting with a musician recently and he said the reason a lot of music now doesn't feel right is because a lot of it is sampled, even stuff that doesn't sound it, and that it's composed of pieces. He reckoned it's the organic quality to records like Davis that had been appealing to me. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
You're listening to some of the greatest musicians of their time playing out of their skins on those records. Miles Davis was an über-perfectionist who surrounded himself with no one but the best and then pushed them to the very limits... the results speak for themselves. Sheer genius! | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
I'm not trying to insult you, Craig, but do you have a problem with originality? Your whole criticial sensibility appears to valorise the predictable. When a film takes you by surprise, you find that unacceptable. If you'd been a reader of Weird Tales in the 1930s, you might have regarded Seabury Quinn as the magazine's best writer (and not been alone in that, of course). | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.251.181 |
Joel, I crave originality! My whole approach is analytical rather than prescriptive, and maybe that's where people mistake me. But it is my theory that every time a reader sits down to read, or a viewer sits down to watch a film, they are in an abstract state of "anxiety" as they are pulled along by the filmmaker/author into the unknown territory of the story. And I believe we want to be surprised in some areas, and we just plain don't want to be in others. A horror writer who eschews every single convention to the point where he's a romance writer, could be deemed "original" - he could also be deemed a failure, as a horror writer. Originality requires we still use some elements and conventions of the given genre; otherwise, what we've created as artists, cannot be classified within that genre. But no one escapes classification in this Universe I theorize, so even "Unclassifiable" is its own genre, once we've struggled through to recognize it. (Complete nonsense might be the only escape velocity - which would make FINNEGANS WAKE the only truly original work in centuries....) The best artists take the familiar, and create original works within that framework of familiarity. Your "conventional" rock band has a singer, drummer, lead guitar, and bass - and yet does every song by such a construct of four sound the same? It might be original to make the lineup a twittering parakeet, a kazoo, a cymbal-banger, and a guy with two rocks - it will be original, that's for sure - but... | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>> Originality requires we still use some elements and conventions of the given genre I suppose that depends on what you mean by "conventions," but I think I disagree with your statement, Craig. Every genre has its conventions -- meaning stereotypical plot elements or developments -- but I never mind when a writer ignores them. A horror writer who eschews every convention "to the point where he's a romance writer" still succeeds for me if his work performs the function of a horror story -- that is, if it produces fear or awe or disturbs me in a way particular only to horror fiction. Writers like Robert Aickman and M John Harrison often avoid convention entirely and still manage to hit the right notes. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
In fact, I'd say these days I prefer genre when the conventions are as attenuated as possible. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.251.181 |
Producing "fear" and "awe" are elements of horror - come on, Chris, it's not all about the thunder in the night and the tale of the ghost - there has to be SOME element that is associated with the horror genre to at some point or time to classify it in some way within the horror "genre." Otherwise, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE is a sublimely original horror novel. Now, there are those that bridge the gap - take that Graham Greene story I mentioned just reading, "The End of the Party" - horror or not-horror? It works as horror in a horror anthology - advertised as such - and so it has been collected in various horror anthologies. It also works outside the horror genre, because it doesn't overtly testify to being horror. But, again, shelve PRIDE AND PREJUDICE in the horror section at your local Borders Bookstore, well... that's just plain silly.... | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
A horror writer who eschews every single convention to the point where he's a romance writer, could be deemed "original" Could be deemed as the writer of the twilight series either... | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Good to see you've been converted to Graham Greene, Craig. Once bitten there is no going back. 'Brighton Rock' could be called as much of a horror novel as 'The Face That Must Die'. Both are equally disturbing and psychologically convincing portraits of a psychopathic mind that gain much from the seedy working class British backgrounds against which they are set. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>> there has to be SOME element that is associated with the horror genre to at some point or time to classify it in some way within the horror "genre." Again, I'm not sure what you mean here by "element" or "convention." Can you define those terms as you're using them? If you only mean "stereotypical plot elements or developments," as I suggested above, then clearly you can ignore them and be categorized as "horror." What are the conventions in Aickman's "Ravissante" or "The Houses of the Russians"? What are the conventions in M John Harrison's "Old Women"? What about Clive Barker's "In the Hills, the Cities"? Or Henry James's "The Aspern Papers"? Or Madeline Yale Wynne's "The Little Room"? Or Herman Melville's "The Tartarus of Maids"? Or Peter Straub's "The Juniper Tree"? Or Bentley Little's "The Pounding Room"? Or Kelly Link's "The Specialist's Hat"? Or Elizabeth Hand's "Wonderwall"? These stories have little (if any) of the cliched horror elements one might call "conventions," and yet all of them produce the effects of a horror story -- certainly all of them have been included in one horror anthology or another. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.234.82 |
Here's the best way to answer you, Chris: For the sake of example, I'll now state that NONE of those stories are horror stories at all. Now then, you argue to me why you think they are (or can be as well) horror stories. Take that list of reasons why, that you've come up with... and voila, there's your list of "elements." It's all really very, very simple....  | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 98.220.97.79 |
You know, for some of those stories I'm not sure I could give you an answer. But I take your point: everyone defines his own set of conventions. Okay. But if "Originality requires we still use some elements and conventions of the given genre," then perhaps the problem is that your proportions are suspect. The approximate proportion of convention to originality in the average Hollywood remake is somewhere around 9:1. Even you say these remakes are "bad." So if you "crave originality" why do you approve? Can you really say that the independents and foreign films (such as the three I've mentioned above) have a superior proportion? To rephrase Joel's question: Why don't you champion films with a greater proportion of original content? | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 98.220.97.79 |
Clearly I'm tired. Second-to-last sentence above should read "Can you really say that the independents and foreign films (such as the three I've mentioned above) have an inferior proportion?" | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.233.13 |
Chris, I don't think the original horror films like the ones you've mentioned above, need any kind of championing here! We're all fans of them, and they have many friends on this board... it's the ones I "champion" that have no friends at all, it seems.... I think it's possible to be entirely able to recognize and appreciate great original work, and still like the "garbage," for reasons it might be hard to quantify. I'm probably alone in enjoying the recent remake of FRIDAY THE 13TH. Why? For one thing, I derive stimulus-response pleasure from the conventions. For example: I enjoyed seeing teens stalked and staked in fresh ways (i.e., by the very fact of their existence, in a film not before seen), which reminds me of the joys of the original, and other, better films. The stalking-and-staking convention of this whole wide sub-genre of horror - you have to like that, or you don't like any of the films in this sub-genre. By the very fact I find a bemused entertainment from such films, am I also stating they are of high quality? No. But I derive entertainment from them, and so, hell yes Michael Bay - keep making your remakes! That's not going to stop the original artists from making the superior-in-quality horror films, or me from recognizing and enjoying those. I've said this before, but the film that has stayed with me the most from last year, is the Spanish film THE HEADLESS WOMAN. It is like the short stories you mention above, Chris - it easily skates by the horror labeling (such horror-skating stories like Lansdale's "Night They Missed the Horror Show" and Bradbury's "The Next In Line" come to mind), and yet it could fall under the horror genre, for some of its utilization of elements and themes, that are more commonly found in horror (disappearance of a character, with no one else believing the protagonist they even existed; an undercurrent of menace, of forces working against and manipulating the protagonist behind the scenes; memory loss, and the loss of sanity that the truth behind it might reveal; a terrible incident that may or may not have happened in reality; etc.). Most would never classify this film as horror, I don't think - but I do put it there. It's a work of high originality and subtle artistry and precision. And so, all this being said, that makes HEADLESS WOMAN the best horror film I've seen, the best of last year. It deserves to be widely seen, and more films like this need to be made, and I'd only be too pleased to see that be the case. ... And yet, I can still enjoy FRIDAY THE 13TH. But maybe that's just me. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.143.133.88 |
No - I agree. When we were kids we would have loved the remakes for another chance to meet an old friend. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
I've seen THE HEADLESS WOMAN. I liked it, and I agree it belongs at least in the periphery of "horror." And I agree that one can like original work and still like "garbage." After all, I own a copy of MARS NEED WOMEN on DVD. But I can't understand how you reconcile your last post with this statement: >> And DON'T go telling me all these original horror movies being produced are anything great to rave about either! Perhaps this is accidental, Craig, but I've noticed you have a tendency to introduce a controversial statement into a thread, and then when challenged on it, qualify your statement until it begins to have quite the opposite meaning. This may have to do with the fact that you're writing quickly. Or maybe you have occasional brain fog. Or perhaps you're just a slippery bastard. I know you've tried to say that one can't judge any film as being "better" than another, and perhaps objectively that's true. But opinions aren't objective things. Surely even you can see that the subtlety and artistry of THE HEADLESS WOMAN makes it a better film than the FRIDAY THE 13th remake? (I'm not saying you can't enjoy both. I'm only saying that one is easily subjectively better than the other, thus making another of your statements -- "[And DON'T go telling me all these original horror movies being produced are anything great -- ] Let alone better than the remakes for that reason alone! Come on now, that's just silly!" -- seem to mean quite the opposite of what you just said.) | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.232.47 |
I stand by that statement, Chris, and it's not contradictory at all - I'm confused by why you're even confused by it - but maybe the hinge is in the word "all" - literally, I mean, don't go telling me all these original movies being produced are anything to rave about... they are not all by any means great... and I don't worship at the idol of "originality," which means, I don't think something is better than anything else PURELY for being "original" - and so, you have my statement, that there's heaps of original garbage being produced, fully aware of and not denying the occasional gem (THE HEADLESS WOMAN, for example), and so... so, again, what's wrong with what I said?... (Now, if you're assuming I give slack to "garbage" remakes, and not to garbage non-remakes, not true either, I don't believe... I take a thrill out of any studio-produced/theatrically-intended horror film, and have gotten just as much visceral guilty-pleasure joy from, say, the THE FINAL DESTINATION and CAPTIVITY, as any recent garbage remake....) | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.232.47 |
Where did I say one film can't be judged as being "better" than another, too?... Unless one has qualifications by which to judge, sure, no one anything, is better than any other anything... and comparing two things from different universes is also absurd (what's better, a duck or Saturn?)... so, again, I'm all - ? | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>> Seriously, Chris? Are we doing the "better than" line of comparison? What horror novel is "better than" HAMLET? Yes, that's exaggerated, but you get my point. There's equal good and bad in both, and you can't compare best to worst (or even mediocre), that's not fair.... | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
Craig, you're driving me crazy. Clearly we're not communicating. First you say that "all these original horror movies being produced are[n't] anything great to rave about either!" Then Joel asks why you dislike originality. Then you say, on the contrary, you "crave originality." Then I say you seem to have contradicted yourself. Then you say, again, on the contrary, "I don't worship at the idol of originality" And you can't understand why anyone's confused. Now you're telling me that in your original statement, "And DON'T go telling me all these original horror movies being produced are anything great to rave about either" you were literally talking about "all" original horror movies. As if anyone in their right minds would presume to say that all original horror movies, all of them, are "great to rave about." No one has said that and no one would. All anyone said was that an original idea has a better chance of being effective than an old, tired one. Now, on the other hand, if you're arguing that Hollywood's original films and Hollywood's remakes are on the whole equally likely to be "good," I see your point, although I think it would be more accurate to say they're equally likely to be "bad," especially since Hollywood has such a poor track record with making horror films, especially in the past fifteen years. And finally, if you're trying to argue that originality is overrated, that it is only as worthy of appreciation as cliche, I think you need to do some soul-searching. Clearly you're misinterpreting something. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.253.15 |
We are not communicating, or not in the same language at least.... I am perfectly consistent, and let me explain how: Let's follow the train - everyone here is complaining about remakes - so I defend remakes (in one way) by saying "all these original horror movies are[n't] anything great to rave about either!" The mass of remakes are indeed no better, or worse, pound for pound, than the mass of originals, in the field of horror film-making. That is CLEARLY what I meant, can't mean anything else more clearly. Surely, then, when I say, "I crave originality," it might just mean I crave it when the film is actually something of quality. Come on, Chris, give me SOME credit - you can't really believe I'd give something kudos just because it's original! You gotta believe I'm capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time, right? Surely I might have meant I crave original horror films when they're good, not when they're bad, right? I just assumed that WAS assumed - but I guess I won't assume such things the next time.... (And that's exactly what I meant when I said "I don't worship at the altar of originality" - what else could I have meant by that?! - didn't that clarifying statement, clarify?...) Now as for "originality being overrated"... THERE'S a loaded statement! Sure, original horror films are wonderful. But if people are craving original horror films over remakes; and both are, on the whole, of equal weight in quality, or lack thereof; then yes, indeed, absolutely, originality is overrated if it is given a prominence. If there are three original pieces of garbage, and three derivative pieces of garbage, then they're ALL pieces of garbage, and I don't and would never say, "At least these pieces of garbage were original pieces of garbage" - that would be lunacy. Surely. Unless, unlike myself, one worships "at the altar of originality"... which, we've established, I decidedly do not.... | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 98.220.97.79 |
My head hurts. You say your statement "I crave originality" referred only to well-made originality. Why qualify it? Surely we were talking only about originality in the abstract. Values of "good" or "bad" are sort of irrelevant. If I ask you if you like apples, you shouldn't assume I mean rotten ones. I really don't know where you got that. Your statement was a response to Joel's assertion that you had "a problem with originality." He was not saying that you had a problem with "good originality" or "bad originality." Just originality in general. And given your responses above -- "you can't really believe I'd give something kudos just because it's original" -- I'd say he has a point. Originality is always to be preferred over cliches. This is a fundamental aesthetic truth. Any artist will tell you that. Any reader will tell you that. Walk into a writing class and ask the instructor what he thinks about cliches. Read Strunk and White. Take a course on aesthetics. Any argument that originality is inferior (or only as valuable as cliche) is unsupportable. This discussion is growing tiresome. I've said my piece. If I'm not communicating, I don't know why I should continue to bother. I'll let you have the last word, Craig. If someone else wants to try to parse all this out, please be my guest. It's too beautiful outside to trouble myself with this right now. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.248.180 |
It is tiresome, but in the end, it's very simple, Chris: Quality above all other things. No, I don't put originality above that which is not original, issues of quality aside - original crap doesn't trump un-original artistry. And I disagree that I was at all making a statement that "originality is inferior." And there is a difference between cliche, and convention - great horror might still abound in quite familiar conventions, but cliche always itself is a value judgment: a cliche IS something to be avoided - but horror has to utilize conventions, at least some, at least some times - or, again, romance is horror is western is science-fiction, etc. A horror work can abound in conventions, and be of a high quality, right? And something can be totally original, and awful. And I don't give points for original there. So, to sum up: Quality for me trumps originality. Quality originality for me is equal to quality un-original - these terms are so broad, but it's the "quality" that to me is important. Quality anything trumps crap anything, including crap original. And so on and so on and so on.... I don't confuse "original" with "quality," and therein lies the crux of our issue, I believe.... Perhaps there is the issue? But then all other elements must be firing, for me to value the "original" ones - so I can't really say I value the "original" over all else, though I do greatly enjoy that which is "original" over that which is not, all other things being equal... I guess I only value the "original," when all else is valuable; when all else fails, that which is "original" fails too... and now I'm down to the point where I'm pounding atoms with a hammer and pestle, and I find it unfair to be reduced to having to do this, but there you go... that's how I don't put the original on a pedestal and worship it.... | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.248.180 |
Stepping back a long distance, let me try and crystallize this: I think so many here seem to want to deny the existence of structures, forms, conventions, "templates," etc.... It is my contention that you cannot. There is only one way to be totally, 100% original in a given genre - and that is to write in a wholly different genre - i.e., to avoid 100% of the forms, templates, conventions, etc., of a given genre. At that point, you've failed within the given genre, however you've succeed at achieving 100% originality. Writers are anxious to be "original," it's an ego thing. No one wants to be "belated," as Harold Bloom might put it. But anyone working in a given genre, is belated by whatever conventions s/he uses, and they MUST be used. To deny this is crazy, surely? | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
I think you two are going round in circles driving each other crazy! | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.248.180 |
Wanna hop on for a ride on the merry-go-round, Stevie?...  | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
Christ, no!!!!  Was wondering what anthology you read 'The Destructors' in, Craig? I haven't read that one but do have it in the 'Twenty-One Stories' collection. Sounds good - he says, stating the obvious. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.1.163 |
It was part of that THE PORTABLE GRAHAM GREENE little paperback I found. It also has what's claimed to be an uncollected short story, "The Blessing" - though if that's later been collected, I'm not sure (this paperback is dated 1972). It also claims to have an "added scene" to THE HEART OF THE MATTER, which was never included in earlier editions - but I'm assuming this is all old news, and it's since been always included.... And yes, "The Destructors" was phenomenal! | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
My edition of THOTM is from 1983 with the copyright 1948 & 1971 - so you could be right. Just checked and there are three short stories that don't appear to have been collected anywhere: 'Church Militant' (1956), 'Dear Dr Falkenheim' (1963) & 'The Blessing' (1966). After I finish 'Conjure Wife' (brilliant so far!) I've decided to read 'Stamboul Train' (1932) next as it was the novel that sealed Greene's reputation apparently and in his own words; "In Stamboul Train for the first and last time in my life I deliberately set out to write a book to please, one which with luck might be made into a film. The devil looks after his own and I succeeded in both aims." Greene at his most entertaining is something to behold! | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.179.60.206 |
Have you guys seen the interview Graham Greene gave at the National Film Theatre in London? At the time he specifically requested no cameras, but the crafty folk at the NFT set up a camera in the projection booth and captured the whole thing, and it's been shown in the UK on tv at least once since his death. I'm glad the footage exists, but I also think it's a bit of a shame that they deceived him like that,. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.251.167 |
Allow me to beat said dead horse for one brief moment here: Take three albums - John Lennon's ROCK AND ROLL, David Bowie's PIN-UPS, and Siouxsie & the Banshee's THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS. All albums of covers; all, unoriginal albums; all, remakes - "rehashes," if one was uncharitable. Are they better versions than the originals?... Here is where qualifications like "better" and "worse" break down, and prove almost incapable of applying. Are they versions of quality? I'd dare say yes, because each applies a particular visionary style to the material, that both echoes the conventions/themes/material of the original; and yet represents them saturated with the covering-artists' unique stylings. They are not original, as others would like to apply the term "original" above... but they are, too... they are certainly products of some quality... isn't that all that matters in the end?... An illustration of why the unequivocal "remakes are bad" line of thinking, to my humble estimation, is a misdirection. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
Oh come on, Craig... a song only takes a few minutes to listen to while a film can take hours to enjoy or suffer through (and we can pick and choose what tracks to play from any of the albums you mentioned). So that analogy does not stand up! | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 98.220.97.79 |
>> Are they better versions than the originals? The question isn't whether they're better than the originals. The question is whether they're better than Lennon's, Bowie's, or Siouxsie's original music. And even you can't argue that, Craig. I'll go back to shutting up now. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.251.167 |
But why, Chris?! Why are you compelled to make that comparison at all?! Don't you see there's nothing compelling you to do that? And that bringing that up is a type of tangent?... Same with your argument Stevie - the time it takes to experience said artistic work, is irrelevant - another error in logic, one that is equally tangential. Lashes for both of you! | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.251.167 |
Chain of reasoning: My last post refers back to my statement about the original work being generally no better (than the mass of remakes); which is itself a response to the clear premise here in this thread, that remakes are ipso facto inferior to original work - the Original Sin of comparison I've been trying to respond to.... | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.251.167 |
And now I shall go back to - er, well, how about I START shutting up now.... | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 98.220.97.79 |
We're comparing the value of original works to remakes, no? Not remakes to their inspirations. It's you who's taken a tangent, not me. Imagine an alternate-universe 1970s in which record studios encouraged Bowie and Lennon to make only cover songs -- no originals. Would Bowie and Lennon do a good job with their covers? Sure. Would those covers be better than the originals? Some might be better, sure. Would they be better than Lennon's or Bowie's own songs, the songs from the 70s that we know they wrote, the ones that wouldn't exist in this alternate universe? No freaking way. By demanding remakes, studios ensure that even good artists make weak, watered-down material. I'm reminded of my friend Pat, who was excited to learn that his favorite artist, Peter Gabriel, was set to release his first new album in nearly a decade. On the day the album came out, I happened to be with him as he went into a local store to buy the CD. A sticker on the front of the disc alerted Pat that the album contained only cover songs. "Cover songs?" Pat said. "Ah, shit." He didn't buy the CD. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
Yeah, I've always thought of the "cover album" as something of a stop-gap in a musical artist's career. An easy option when the old songwriting juices have temporarily dried up or contractual obligations demand a new release. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
Mick, no haven't seen that GG interview but would love to. Bit underhand of them wasn't it! Come to think of it, I have no idea what Graham Greene actually looks like though I have a picture of a kindly old man in my head (weird that). | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.165.4 |
Steve, go here for a picture of Greene in his later years: http://wiredforbooks.org/normansherry/index.htm Or here for a portrait of both the younger and older (if you scroll down) Greene: http://bannednovels.blogspot.com/2008/10/greene-graham.html | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.180.46.62 |
Here you go then:-  | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.180.46.62 |
Oops, pipped at the post by young master Bestwick! | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
Gulp... he looks almost exactly the way I imagined him! Seriously!! |