Carrie Remake....Why Do They Bother?

[rebel_1812]

I saw the original and thought it was pretty average.  So I don't mind the remake.

[RCMerchant]

Remakes are ok if it's done entirely different.
DRACULA (1931) and FRANKENSTEIN (1931) had both been done as silent films,and even Chaneys HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1923) had been made in 1905,1911,and 1917.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOclcQDRSUo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOclcQDRSUo</a>

And the 1939 version,I thought,was the best.

Christopher Lee's DRACULA was good,and Carpenter's the THING was excellant.

But of course you get lotsa crap-such as the PSYCHO,the DAY the EARTH STOOD STILL,INVADERS FROM MARS,GODZILLA.....

[Allhallowsday]

Remakes are ok if it's done entirely different.
DRACULA (1931) and FRANKENSTEIN (1931) had both been done as silent films,and even Chaneys HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1923) had been made in 1905,1911,and 1917.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOclcQDRSUo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOclcQDRSUo</a>And the 1939 version,I thought,was the best.
Christopher Lee's DRACULA was good,and Carpenter's the THING was excellant.
But of course you get lotsa crap-such as the PSYCHO,the DAY the EARTH STOOD STILL,INVADERS FROM MARS,GODZILLA.....

I agree with everything you said (er, stammered...) except I thought the INVADERS FROM MARS remake was pretty good... but I haven't seen it in a long time. 

[JaseSF]

Yeah I thought the Invaders From Mars remake was half-decent too. Yeah half-decent that's what I think of it. The original remains far superior. Technically Godzilla has been remade several times - 1984, 2000 aside from the 1998 Americanized Zilla version. Carrie was technically remade already in its sequel which is pretty bad. I have my doubts about this remake but you never know. Still I'd be very surprised if it measures up to De Palma.

[ulthar]

I just don't get it! Don't people in Hollywood have any imagination anymore?

They have as much imagination as they ever did, it's just that you can't bank imagination. People will pay money to see remakes of stuff they're already familiar with instead of taking a chance on something new. If people stopped buying tickets to remakes Hollywood would stop making them.

The other side of this same coin is the reaction film makers get when someone DOES do something original.  It's rarely successful and often hated, derided and ridiculed.

So, I'd go so far as to say it's not enough for people to stop buying tickets to crappy, unimaginative movies, but we have the added criterion of people need to start buying tickets to riskier movies by unknown film makers and small/independent studios.

That is, of course, only if people really want imaginative, original movies.  I doubt this to be true.  Art is weird this way - look also at music.  What sells is what sounds or looks like everything else.  Once in a while something comes along that is truly different that catches on, but it's soon copied and the same-soup continues just with different ingredients.

I LIKE watching independent films that were artistic risks.  That means I watch a few that don't work for me.  Generally, I don't complain about those; I can still admire what the makers were trying to do as it's own merit.  But, I've observed over the years that "the masses" are not like this at all, not one single bit.

They want, and pay for, same-same.  Day in and day out.  Pop music, pop movies, tv, books, photographic art, etc.  "Same" sells, or at least "same to the current fad" sells.

Bringing it back to remakes in particular, if it's a new, creative, imaginative adaptation it's fine with me.  If it is the same movie as 20 others currently on the rental shop shelves but with a recognizable name, I've got no use for it at all.

I vote with my dollars, which also means 'rewarding' the little guys when I can, even if for technical reasons their movies are not as "good."