Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 02:00:41 AM
712922 Posts in 53040 Topics by 7722 Members
Latest Member: GenevaBarr
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  What's with "The Fog" remake? « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: What's with "The Fog" remake?  (Read 4485 times)
Gerry
B-Movie Site Webmaster
Bad Movie Lover
****

Karma: 49
Posts: 971


It's not what you say, it's how you say it.


WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2005, 09:55:37 AM »

Shadowphile wrote:

> In some of those cases you are comparing silent film to
> talkies.  Not a fair comparison.

I see your point (though I disagree that addition of sound would have automatically made the 1925 BEN-HUR better than the 59 version, for example).

My point was that remaking movies has been done forever and will continue to be done forever.  Just as there will continue to be new adaptations of popular stories (WAR OF THE WORLDS for example).  A good movie is a good movie regardless of its source or inspiration.  A bad movie is likewise a bad movie no matter what the original material was like.  The new FOG is a bad movie, because nobody cared to put enough effort into it to make a good movie.  They were more interested in making money.  As long as money is the driving force behind a remake, the likelihood of it being any good is chancy at best.  When someone sincerely desires to make a good film and puts their heart and soul into making the very best one they can, we have a much better chance of getting a solid end product.
Logged
BoyScoutKevin
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 277
Posts: 5030


« Reply #16 on: October 21, 2005, 11:10:57 AM »

After everything has been said, is there anything more to be said? Well . . . actually . . . alot. Thus (Koff! Koff!) my laundry list of remakes and originals.

Anna and the King of Siam (1946)
The King and I (1956) Better?

Non-musical version. Musical version. Having seen them both, I like them both equally well. Call it a tie, for me.

Dracula (1931)
Dracula (1931) (Spanish version) Better?

While Lugosi's best known role is Dracula, I actually prefer the Spanish version to  the English language version.

The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964)
Gladiator (2000) Better?

"Gladiator" is basically a remake of "The Fall of the Roman Empire." While some prefer the remake, I like the original better. Better acting, action, cinematography, lighting, spectacle, etc.

The Jazz Singer (1927)
The Jazz Singer (1953) Better?

Silent version. Sound version. I can't comment on this one. Never seen the sound version.

Maltese Falcon (1931) Better?
Satan Met a Lady (1936) Good?
Maltese Falcon (1941)  Best?

I haven't seen the first two, but it would seem to be hard to beat what is a classic.

Mighty Joe Young (1949)
Mighty Joe Young ((1998) Better?

I know some people prefer the remake to the original. Having seen them both and liked them both, call it another tie.

Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933)
House of Wax (1953) Better?

I agree with this one.

Mutiny on the Bounty (1935) Best
Mutiny on the Bounty (1962) Better
The Bounty (1984) Good

I disagree with this one. I actually prefer the two remakes to the original and like the second remake better then the first one.

Prisoner of Zenda (1937) Better?
Prisoner of Zenda (1952)

Another disagreement from me. Stewart Granger and James Mason have it over Ronald Colman and Douglas Fairbanks, jr. anytime, for me. Actually, both are a remake of the silent film version.

Romeo and Juliet (1936)
Romeo and Juliet (1968) Better?

Agreed. While Leslie Howard and Norman Shearer may be better actors then Lenard Whiting and Olivia Hussey, youths should be played by youths, and not supernumerated adults.

A Star Is Born (1937)
A Star Is Born (1954) Better?

Can't comment again. Haven't seen neither one.

Tarzan of the Apes (1918)
Tarzan of the Apes (1932) Better?

Silent version. Sound version. Again agreed.

Ten Commandments (1923)
Ten Commandments (1956) Better?

Silent version. Sound version. Can't comment again. Never seen the silent version.

The Thief of Bagdad (1924)
The Thief of Bagdad (1940) Better?

Silent version. Sound version. Another agreement.

Titanic (1953) Good?
A Night to Remember (1958) Better?
Titanic (1997) Best?

Disagreement. I think the original and the first remake are far superior to the second remake.

War and Peace (1956)
War and Peace (1967) Better?

American version. Russian version. Seen both. Liked both. Call it another tie, for me.

As for comparing sound films to silent films, a film to me is a film, whether silent or sound. And if all sound film remakes are better then the silent originals, then see the silent "Seven Chances" w/ Buster Keaton, which is far superior to the sound remake "The Bachelor" w/ Chris O'Donnell.

Logged
LH-C
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 0
Posts: 497


« Reply #17 on: October 21, 2005, 01:43:14 PM »

One thing I did notice is that all of the cast is under 35 (and probably no more than 30-32). That really, really bothers me, even though I'm in my late 20s. Not because of the ages, but because of the characters they are portraying. You know?

Logged






Shadowphile
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 0
Posts: 662


« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2005, 10:08:22 PM »

I have to agree that if money is the motivating factor ina remake (or a sequel for that matter) then it is very likely to be bad.  Look at the Blair Witch sequel.  The original movie was brilliantly done psychological horror.  The sequel was a run of the mill slasher film, because Hollywood panders to the lowest common denominator.  If they bothered increasing the intelligence of the movies they made, they might begin to get a higher opinion of the intelligence of the general public.  Not everyone requires spoon feeding.



Too much money gets spent on special effects for there to be enough left for a decent script.
Logged
Mr. Hockstatter
Dedicated Viewer
**

Karma: 0
Posts: 81


« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2005, 08:30:47 AM »

Quote
When someone sincerely desires to make a good film and puts their heart and soul into making the very best one they can, we have a much better chance of getting a solid end product.


You know what the really sad part is?  These people ARE doing the very best they can.  I can almost guarantee you that when this comes out on DVD, the commentary track will be full of people absolutely fawning over their marvelous creation.  They'll be incredibly proud of ever single aspect of it.  Nobody will say "Yeah, it sucked big time, but I'm driving a Ferrari Testarossa now".



Post Edited (10-22-05 08:31)
Logged
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 368
Posts: 4168


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2005, 11:16:07 AM »

Mr. Hockstatter wrote:

> These people ARE doing
> the very best they can.  I can almost guarantee you that when
> this comes out on DVD, the commentary track will be full of
> people absolutely fawning over their marvelous creation.
> They'll be incredibly proud of ever single aspect of it.
>

Yes, because it is the movie they wished to make.  It will have hit all the points that they think make a good "film."

How much of this is due to the box office success defining the 'goodness' of a release?  If you look at many of the "successful" movies of the past ten or so years, they are junk and highly forgettable junk at that.  But, they ROI'd like they were supposed to, and moviemaking is a business.

So, to many of these film makers, good art is not even a considered goal.  Within the framework of that mindset, yes, they will be proud of it.

Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Pages: 1 [2]
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  What's with "The Fog" remake? « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.