Child's Play (2019)

[Pacman000]

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.

[RCMerchant]

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.

[JayJayM12]

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 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.

[Rev. Powell]

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.

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.

[zombie no.one]

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?

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

[Jim H]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[JayJayM12]

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?

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 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.

[Rev. Powell]

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?

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 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!

[Pacman000]

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?

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.

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.

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...!!!

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.

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

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.

[JayJayM12]

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...!!!

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.

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. 

[RCMerchant]

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.

[RCMerchant]

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

[JayJayM12]

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.

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."

[Alex]

[FatFreddysCat]

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

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