Badmovies.org Forum

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8663516/ (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8663516/)

STOP STOP STOP STOP F**KING STOP!

I don't even care about Child's Play and I was furious about this. I'm SO goddamn sick of all these remakes!
Pretty much every horror remake is bad. These Disney remakes are cancer and the Lion King looks like a crime against humanity and the art of film making as a whole.
I'm just sick to death of Hollywood remaking EVERYTHING.

Let me look into the future and tell you something right now. The Child's Play remake is going to come out, it's going to have a terrible Rotten Tomatoes score, critics are going to hate it,
fans are going to hate it, general audiences are going to hate it, and people are going to forget it even existed. You wanna know how I know?

Because it happened to the remakes of Robocop, Total Recall, and probably some others that I can't remember off the top of my head because they were that forgettable.
Yeah, sometimes we get lucky with remakes like the 2010 True Grit, which managed to surpass the original. But it's extremely rare and the reason
why those movies are good is because they had talented directors at the helm with a passion for the original.
It happened to Hellboy and it's going to happen to Child's Play. If I wasn't an absolutist when it comes to freedom of expression I would want a fifty year ban on all remakes.

I can't tell you how to spend you money but if you're willing to take a recommendation from me:
Don't see a remake unless you're completely convinced it's going to be good. Don't even watch it in the hopes for a laugh.
Don't hate watch it just to complain on the internet.
Do NOT give these people your money. If you do, then this s**t will keep happening.

TBH it looks a lot better than the silly comedic ones that have came out over the past two decades. I'm glad they are going back to being serious. It's not the original but I think it looks decent.

the CHILD'S PLAY films are the absolute definition of 'bottom of the barrel' as far as popcorn horror goes....so a remake of it is like somewhere underneath the barrel.

Pass.

It's a killer doll. How can you possibly take that seriously?

Agree with the OP so hard. Remember also the remakes of Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween, what an insult to the great directors that made them.

Personally, I have zero problem with remakes.  They do nothing to harm the original (sometimes, in fact, they bring new awareness to the original for people that might not otherwise have heard of them).  Also, they don't keep other, more original films from being released - there are still plenty of them that come out all the time.

I'm not saying I enjoy the remakes (yeah, most are bad, and I don't personally see many of them), but I also recognize that there are new audiences out there that appreciate a more modern aesthetic on a tale that we loved 30 some odd years ago.  The remakes are made for them.  I know that many people will say that there was nothing wrong with the originals, so people should just go back and watch those, but, for the most part, the whole aesthetic as mentioned above of filmmaking has changed.  We have to just accept that this isn't the 70s or 80s anymore and modern audiences (most of whom are just casual filmgoers that see everything at a Cineplex, as opposed to devoted film buffs) are used to that more modern approach, so those kinds of movies will land well with them.  Much more than the vibe that we're used to.  The good thing is, I have the option to NOT go watch them, which basically points to why they don't bother me...

Going off of your list of bad ones, I'd add a few that I've actually had fun with in semi-recent years... Silent Night, IT, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Black Christmas, Sorority Row, Dawn of the Dead, Evil Dead, The Hills Have Eyes, Fright Night, The Crazies, Maniac, Willard, Piranha 3D, My Bloody Valentine 3D...  Just to name a few!  Granted, not a single one of them is better than the original in MY eyes (except, perhaps, Willard), but I still dug them and had a good time, and even enjoyed some of the new approaches they took.  To go back further, without remakes, we wouldn't have The Fly, The Thing, The Blob, Cape Fear, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Cat People, etc...

I think, sometimes, we just have to take a step back and realize that we can't view everything within the spectrum of thinking it was made specifically for us.

I kinda hate to admit it now, but I was a big fan of the first three Child's Plays back in the day. I was in high school when the first one came out so I was definitely a member of the target demographic for them (i.e. teenybopper horror nerds). I haven't seen any of those first three films in years, though.

After the silly Bride of Chucky and especially Seed of Chucky (which gave up all pretense of being a horror film and went straight for slapstick farce), I'd had enough.

However, my kids talked me into checking out the last two direct-to-video installments (Curse of Chucky and Cult of Chucky), and I was pleasantly surprised by them, they dropped all the goofy stuff and went back to an old school suspense/horror vibe. Unfortunately the new remake does not pick up where those two left off.  

I understand that Chucky creator Don Mancini (who has written every C.P. film and directed the last three) has nothing to do with the remake, and in fact he's kinda P.O.'d about it cuz he felt he'd gotten the franchise back on track in recent years. Supposedly he wants to continue "his" version as a TV series?

I get your points, but really...does this apply to any other examples of media/art etc? should we have a re-paint of the Mona Lisa, which younger art fans can appreciate? Should Sgt Pepper be re-recorded by Rihanna and Ed Shearan, because the Beatles version just won't cut it in 2019?

personally I don't think audiences should be pandered to in this way.  and yeah, it does actually annoy me. even the option to 'not watch' doesn't work because simply knowing that remakes of films like THE OMEN even exist is enough to make me groan. ------ #firstworldproblems and all that.....

It does apply to SOME examples of media/art, but not others.  It's kind of hard to compare, really.  With the Mona Lisa - I'd say no.  That is a singular vision, worked on by one person and considered the world over as a masterpiece in it's field.  Child's Play is the work of many, many people (even if it began as an idea by one) and considered the world over as a movie that some people liked pretty well.  Not even in the same ball park.

As far as music goes, that's a more complicated issue.  I mean, many, many songs are remade (covered) all the time, and often entire albums are even redone.  But, generally, I don't know if it's so much because we don't feel that modern audiences can't handle the original so much as it is newer artists (or, sometimes, older artists) paying tribute to a song or album that they love.  Obviously, often, it's just a money grab as well to put a modern pop twist on an old song as well.

I'm not sure if I'd consider this 'pandering' so much as it is taking another crack at a movie, but giving it a modern touch that may appeal to modern audiences in a way that the original did not.  It's all business.  If there's money to be made, then they are going to do it.  And, again, there are still plenty of original ideas being made and these older movies still exist in their previous form so I just don't see the harm that's being done.  Like I said above, without that "pandering" that you mentioned above, then people might have said that we should have just been happy with previous versions of The Thing, The Fly, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, etc...  Those are legit masterpieces of the genre by a pretty wide consensus.  And, I also mentioned a ton of other ones that I thought were pretty fun that most audiences seemed to enjoy, so they're not without their merit.

Also, you DO still have the option to not watch.  That option really does work.  The fact that the mere existence of The Omen remake p**ses you off so much, despite the fact that most of us probably forgot years ago that it was even made, just speaks to my previous point that most people who are so opposed to remakes are only looking at it from the perspective of what THEY want and how the movie should be made for THEM. 

Ok, but surely saying that remakes are done mainly for modern audiences to enjoy, implies an equal level of 'selfishness' on their part too? that they have to be given a revamped version because the original wouldn't tick X, Y, and Z boxes for them?

 I just used THE OMEN as an example... it's the whole concept of a 'remaking' a classic original vs. making a new original movie from scratch which I don't like. From a creative and a financial perspective it just seems lame to me.

Maybe I'm being too idealistic about the subject, but it's how I honestly feel...

I actually LIKED the HALLOWEEN remake better than the original film.
But yeah, most remakes suck.

Isn't the Child's Play remake done by the same folks who did the IT remake?

Blasphmer!!!  :hot:

The EVIL DEAD  remake made me wanna puke!

I don't mind folks making lame sequels or rip offs...but this s**t is worse than BAD...it's boring.
Garbage like BRIDE OF CHUCKY is fantastic, if you ask me. But just doing things like this is mass media exploitation. But it always has been. $$$ takes the fun out of everything.

Some other movies that didn't have to be remade...
.LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT
.I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

The only value of these films are the shock appeal. Why remake them, when you got junk like SAW and HOSTEL?

.The TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE has been massacred I don't know how many times!
It's all about $$$.  :bluesad:

I used to be firmly anti-remake, but I've learned some of my favorite movies were already remakes.

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? First made in 1918.

Ben Hur (1959)? Made twice before.

The Music Box? Laurel & Hardy had already made that short with a washing machine.

Granted these are all remakes of silent movies, but there are other good remakes; The Horror of Dracula, The Swiss Family Robinson, The Mysterious Island, etc.

I am a bit baffeled by the Lion King Remake. What can it add? It still doesn't look real. And I'm miffed that they're apparently remaking Pokemon: The First Movie as an all CGI feature. But, as a rule, remakes are not bad.

What do you consider a remake?
I would not consider the 1931 FRANKENSTIEN a remake of the 1910 version any more than I would consider the Lee/ Cushing 1957 version a remake of Karloff's classic.
Re making a charecter is not the same as remaking a movie.

I would only consider it "selfishness" if the modern remake somehow diminished or hurt the original in some way.  Both sides benefit - the studios make money and modern audiences get a movie that fits their wheelhouse.  We, as the original audience, still have the version we love (probably in a newly released fancy blu ray package with lots of extras when they do remake).  I think, like I had mentioned, the selfishness part comes in us expecting every movie to be geared specifically to us and only us...

Oh, I know that The Omen was just one example, but there are also a ton of examples of good or enjoyable remakes.

Think of it this way, too.  A lot of the movies that we hold precious - are they REALLY all that great?  Or, do we just see them through rose tinted glasses because of the time period in which we saw them?  The very movie that this thread is about - Child's Play...  sure, it was a fun little throwback, but is it REALLY all that untouchable?  Even The Omen - a nice 70s horror flick, and yeah, the remake sucked, but a lot of these movies - do you really think they are so good that there shouldn't even be the consideration of taking another crack at them for modern audiences?

I think we just hold the stuff we remember from our youth as precious.  We have to consider the perspective that EVERYONE does the same thing, so the remakes serve as the movies that today's youth are going to enjoy at their peak time.

In those cases both are adapting Mary Shelley's novel. Adaptations are different than remakes. You wouldn't say a new film version of "Hamlet" is a remake of the first-ever movie version of "Hamlet." I think "remake" means a new version of an old original movie script. To movie marketers, however, a "remake" is just a new version of anything that made a lot of money the first time.

my short answer to that is yes, basically. both in principle and in practice. however it's not that they're so good, as much as they've already been done. so move on. create. take a risk. I'd rather see someone be original and flawed, than be a successful copycat.

also this 'modern audiences' thing...what does it even mean? when I was 17, 18, I was being blown away by movies like DEEP RED, CLOCKWORK ORANGE, JAWS, etc which were all over 20 years old at the time. Who are these modern audiences that can't even digest or relate to anything which strays outside their own generation's cultural reference points? seriously , screw and 'movie fan' who needs that type of mollycoddling in order to appreciate what they're watching...!!!

anyway I feel like we're going round in circles, both making the same points each time. and I do kind of get where you're coming from, but we obviously just have different opinions about this

I'm not interested in this one, but it does have one very strange thing about it: the original continuity is STILL going, with plans for a TV show in development with the original writer-director attached.  I'm not aware of any other film series that has had that happen - a remake when the original series is still going with the original creative mind.  Very odd.  For those who haven't seen it, Curse of Chucky is actually quite good and worth a watch.



Here's a kind of interesting question: is the 80s Little Shop of Horrors a remake? 

But yeah, a lot of things that are called the "good remakes" are really new adaptations.  The Thing from the 80s for instance, is just a much closer adaptation of Who Goes There.  But the Fly probably qualifies as a really good remake, as even though the original is based on a short story it's clear the original film was the primary inspiration.

I feel like there are plenty of filmmakers out there who do a lot of original stuff, so there's a lot of that out there.  But, there are also filmmakers who will probably never be capable of that - they are more servicemen that can churn out horror remakes (that, lots of people enjoy, so it works out).  

I just think we have to remember that not all moviegoers are movie buffs like you and I may be.  Sure, you (and I) dug movies that were far before our time, but that doesn't mean that everyone is the same.  For some people, movies are a passion.  For others, they are an activity that they do on a Saturday night at the mall when they don't have anything else to do.  They could just as easily go bowling.  Unfortunately, both audiences are valid and need to be addressed - the money from those audiences goes a long way towards making sure the movies that we like can still get made.  It's kind of like the difference between someone who is a huge foodie snob that only eats at 5 star restaurants versus that guy that sometimes just wants a really greasy burger and fries.  Horror remakes are like those greasy burgers.  Or, someone that will only listen to classical or jazz music versus someone who wants to thrash around to some trashy death metal or 80s hip hop.  Not everything HAS to be special, I suppose...  I don't think of it as mollycoddling so much as trying to reach as many people as possible.  When you consider how many people are going to go see Endgame this weekend, perhaps us, being in the minority, are the ones that they consider to be mollycoddled.  Filmmaking is a business...

With the ridiculously large number of distribution models out there, there's room for everything.  The "original" ideas don't sell tickets in the same way, so, in a lot of ways, we need these no brainers to keep funding the industry we love.  They wouldn't do it if they didn't make money.  And, I just don't feel like we should hold all moviegoers to the same standards that we aspire to.

You're right - we are just kind of going in circles, but I'm enjoying the debate for what it's worth.  I definitely respect your take and can fully understand why you feel that way.  We've been burned with crappy remakes SO many times, that one sometimes can't help but think they are a bad idea.

Well said. It's important to remember that even though we like "bad" movies, we're all still snobs... we demand a certain standard of awfulness in our crap, and turn our noses up at mere mediocrity!

That's a problem I have; making any movie is a huge risk, even if the story's already been told. It's always been fairly rare for a film company to create something original; they'd adapt books, popular plays, comics, etc. Problem is movies have largely taken the place of other forms of entertainment.

Blame home video. Used to be a distributor could re-release a film every 5-10 years to reach a new audience in theaters. Today, it's hard to get folks back in theaters for an old movie; they can watch those at home.

Different assumptions about what a movie is. When I think of a movie as purely a work of art I'm staggered by the cost; I can create art with a 10 cent pencil. When I think of a movie as a product I can understand the cost better; product development's expensive. It is art, but it's commercial art; to paraphrase Walt Disney you have to make money to keep making movies.

This is a fantastic point that I meant to mention in my diatribe, but completely forgot.  Another thing that we have to consider for modern audiences is that, not only might they enjoy having their own Child's Play movie, but why shouldn't they get their own take at the full theatrical experience of a new movie?  Sure, they can go revisit the original on blu ray, but this is a completely different era. 

I dunno, man. Back in 1973, I liked old horror films better than the ones I seen in theaters. Cream always rises to the top.

As far as CHILD'S PLAY -Not a big fan. I could care less. In fact I do care less. I'm minus less!

But, not everybody likes older things (personally, I think there's nothing wrong with favoring what's current, especially if you're young), and not everybody considers the same things to be the "cream."

(http://i.imgur.com/Nn3Zn77.jpg)

^^^ OK, now that poster's actuallly pretty damn funny.  :teddyr:

You can practically hear the Disney people goin' "Ohhh no they DIDN'T!"

Those CGI graphics already p**s me off.

I have the strange feeling the remake will come out, and be forgotten about quite quickly. I enjoyed the originals but not enough to care either way about a remake. I do like the poster for it though.

Being serious and taking it seriously means two different things. You can have a serious film but it not be realistic.
Oh and it's getting pretty good reviews, I knew the trailer looked good and everyone bashed it.

I just hope in the remake someone knocks chuckle down,  sits on his head and let's a massive,  horrific fart. At least that would be briefly entertaining.

I'm not against remakes if the new version has something to add.  I'm against "let's just make this exact same movie again for money" remakes. 

This movie I'm against because the original series is still going and still good. 

Also the Chucky redesign kinda sucks. 

i haven't seen this one yet but the last one i saw was i think Seed? and that's a decent one i dunno about any of the others yet though to be fair. honestly this is a series that really NEEDS to Die and badly. my favorite one has always been Part 2 actually kinda how like in the Friday the 13th films part 2 has always been my favorite one as well

Not watched the movie or even seen any trailers but the screenshots I've seen of the doll don't exactly grab me and make me want to see more. I'll most likely end up watching it one night when I have nothing better to do.

There have been two since Seed.  Curse of Chucky and Cult of Chucky.  Cult is pretty good and Curse is just great.  Both of them ditched the campy aspects and went back to being full horror. 

i might take a look at those 2, CM, if that's the case. i liked the first one, but when they got goofy it ruined them for me.

I watched up until the annoying kid from Star Trek turned up and then I was unable to watch any more.

whatshisface? wil something? he IS annoying, and a dreadful actor.

He is also terrible at rolling dice, or just playing games in general. He very rarely seems to win any.

wait, is HE on that show about noncomputer gaming? i've seen it listed on one of the techie channels.

I don't know if he still does it, but he did have his own show on Geek & Sundry where he played board games with other people, generally minor celebs and fellow gamers but sometimes you could be surprised by some of his guests. He generally loses.

Found out about the show when I was looking for some videos to help decide what games to look out for.



Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7DvEIfrP84#)

So I read in a Facebook group I visit that the plot of the movie is a guy from Vietnam that gets fired from a toy factory. So, in order to complete his revenge, he infiltrates the place and removes the violence inhibitor chip from the doll (because all toys have one of those), completing his evil plot.

Oh, and the name of the guy is Chong Lee Wei, instead of Charles Lee Ray.

I didn't even looked if it was right because it sounds so retarded, even for Child's Play standards.

The best way to enjoy this movie would probably beto load DVDs of it into a skeet machine and see if you  can turn them into clouds of scintalliting rainbow particles as they are flung across the sky...

Come to think of it,  "Bad movie skeet"might be a fun sport after all. Anyone wanna grab a shotgun and join me?

That, more or less, matches the descriptions I've read. 

Seriously? Troll 2 has a better synopsis than that and what does that tell you? and Troll 2 is so bad that i could not get past the first i think it was 10 minutes of it cause the acting was so bad and painful to watch that i dunno how anyone else could get through one sitting let alone love that film.

but than one can also prolly say that about the child's play remake nobody as asking for either