I Spit On Your Grave (2010) Remake

[Peter Neal]

This might belong in a seperate thread, but I seriously don't get this overwhelming (old-school-fan) hositility against the current wave of genre remakes- at all.
First off: Nobody has erased our cherished originals from the planet; they don't get exchanged with the remakes, which we can either choose to watch- or not.
I don't like most modern action films, still I hardly feel the need to complain about them whenever a new "Transformers" etc is announced.
I must have also lived in a completely different dimension or time-zone over the course of the last 20 years, as I can't seriously recall mainstream Hollywood producing any more "original" horror movies in the past prior to the "remake wave".
Standalone original new horror flicks and sequels to new horror are still made, as in the years before (and certainly after)- but many fans seem rather interested in moaming about remakes they're most likely not to watch anyway instead of checking out more of the "new stuff"- probably because it's "too modern"...

Just my two cents.

I'm still curious about the "I spit..." remake and expect something remotely stronger (also thematically) than the "Last House" redux, which I also enjoyed.

[Daemonia]

As I've said earlier, I'm not against remakes and I've enjoyed a fair few of them - my issue is with the sheer volume of remakes we've been seeing over the past few years. I'd just like the occasional original film to come out of Hollywood.

As for erasing the original, of course it doesn't, thankfully! However, I have noticed a disturbing trend on other film forums, where the younger element truly do consider the originals of these films redundant in the wake of the remakes. So that's definitely not a good thing.

[vincenzo]

Additionally I don't get the overwhelming pleasure some people get in seeing these old classics remade. Do they really think the original versions are so in need of remaking and if so why? I can only put it down to a sense of disappointment with the original version, and the (somewhat peculiar) view that they can be remade better. Something many true genre fans will rightly disagree with.

The view that new versions are a 'rethink' rather than a 'remake' is equally bizarre. I haven't seen one 'rethink' that has been 'rethought' better than the original. 'Cash-in' or 'rip-off' would be far more apt descriptions and I for one think genre fans deserve better than that.

Personally I would sooner see new ideas being explored, rather than old ones badly recycled.

[Daemonia]

Also, why remake a film when you can do a sequel. Not only are you returning to the source and having your own go at it, but you can also tell a new, fresh story. For instance, A Nightmare on Elm Street is really all about Freddy and the dreamworld he inhabits. Why not do a new take on that, take the best of what's gone before and deliver a fresh, new instalment. Why go back and remake the first one? We know the story, why tell it again? If I want that story again, I'll re-watch the original - I don't need another identical film.

[Gigantor]

I can smell the stench of it already and not in a good way,They should of done a sequel rather than remaking it.I use the term Remake loosely as I can't see them making it to close the original film at all .The one silver lining in with most remakes as i said before is atleast we usually get a decent DVD release of the original film but i don;t think that will be the case with this one.

[vincenzo]

Originally Posted by Daemonia

We know the story, why tell it again? If I want that story again, I'll re-watch the original - I don't need another identical film.

Fully agree.

[Philleh]

Didn't Anchor Bay have their hands in The Crazies re-make? And I thoroughly enjoyed that film, so maybe they can do it again? And not being a fan of the original I won't mind any differences to the plot... i.e not so much rape.

[vincenzo]

Originally Posted by Philleh

not being a fan of the original I won't mind any differences to the plot... i.e not so much rape.

I dislike the rape scenes too but wouldn't a toned down version somewhat emasculate (to coin a phrase) the original's strongest impact, and therefore make a remake even more pointless than it already is?

[Peter Neal]

Originally Posted by vincenzo

Additionally I don't get the overwhelming pleasure some people get in seeing these old classics remade. Do they really think the original versions are so in need of remaking and if so why? I can only put it down to a sense of disappointment with the original version, and the (somewhat peculiar) view that they can be remade better. Something many true genre fans will rightly disagree with.

I can only speak for myself, but I find them curiously interesting from a narrative point of view. What gets changed? What's kept? What's the take on the core story today compared to the original? Changes in style, technique, acting etc...As I take the recent "remake wave" as nothning more or less than one of many passing trends mainstream horror has experienced over the years, I certainly don't really deem them harmful to the genre in the long run.
Which brings me to the younger crowds, who rather go for the "new stuff" than the oldies- just like we would do if we were right now in their place.
I mean, how many of us have begun their "horror fan career" with Lugosi's "Dracula" rather than the latest 70's/80's scare flick we caught up with in our own teens?
Again, I'm 100% convinced that those younger fans, who'll deliver a true passion for the genre, will most certainly get around to cherish the originals- and those just hanging on to horror now as long as it's hip- well, they wouldn't have cared about the original "TCM" or "I spit..." in the first place.

As for the "sequels vs remake" question: When talking about the big horror franchises I'm rather all for remakes than sequels, because even the most die-hard "Halloween", "Friday, the 13th" or "Nightmare on Elm Street" fan will easily admit that the makers of the countless sequels have driven the plots of those franchises into incoherent oblivion, so how far would you have to "go back" in the series's narrative to be able to fashion really worthwhile sequels?
I find it far more appealing to start from scratch with the original premise and give the elements which worked in the past a new angle- much rather so than doing a 9nth. "Halloween" without either Jamie Lee Curtis or Donald Pleasence, "Jason XI" with the Hockeymasked One stalking "Earth II" or "A Nightmare on Elm Street: Freddy's Not So Dead" with Kruerger's daughter again in the lead and none of the "Dream Warriors" in sight.

Whether we're talking new sequels or remakes, my strong guess would be that the long term purists of either series would feel neglegted by those latest teen horrors....as "teen horror" has always been mainly catering to the younger audience's tastes of its time.

[vincenzo]

Originally Posted by Peter Neal

I find it far more appealing to start from scratch with the original premise and give the elements which worked in the past a new angle

We saw the results of this in the Halloween 'remake' - and what a load of old bilge it was too.