Cloverfield Director To Remake Let The Right One In

[MAN O STEEL]

I love how people always come up with the excuse that the reason remakes fail "In their eyes" is because they fail to live up to the writing or acting in the original.l Ummm no, facts are that the reason remakes fail & the reason people feel the way they do about them is because ppl have a mindset in their heads already that it can't touch the original. that the original is soooooooooooo awesome, that a new take couldn't possibly touch it. Remakes fail, not because there badly made, it's because you, the audience never give them a chance. You guys will sit there before a movie, trash it & then go, but I'll give it a chance. Ahhh, you just spent your post trashing a remake & then expect me to believe your going to "Give it a chance?". Laughable at best, Really is. End of the day remakes fail because of you guys, not the film makers. They give you something new & it's blasphemy, they try to keep it close to the original & it's blasphemy. That's just a fact, you'll never be happy.




Steve

 

[The Apatow Crew]

I love how people always come up with the excuse that the reason remakes fail "In their eyes" is because they fail to live up to the writing or acting in the original.l Ummm no, facts are that the reason remakes fail & the reason people feel the way they do about them is because ppl have a mindset in their heads already that it can't touch the original. that the original is soooooooooooo awesome, that a new take couldn't possibly touch it. Remakes fail, not because there badly made, it's because you, the audience never give them a chance. You guys will sit there before a movie, trash it & then go, but I'll give it a chance. Ahhh, you just spent your post trashing a remake & then expect me to believe your going to "Give it a chance?". Laughable at best, Really is. End of the day remakes fail because of you guys, not the film makers. They give you something new & it's blasphemy, they try to keep it close to the original & it's blasphemy. That's just a fact, you'll never be happy.




Steve

Well said actually. I said something like this in the NOES remake thread.

 

[kickass]

There are criticisms I have with a remake that don't exist because I love the original, but because it just wasn't the right choice for that film. These criticisms exist regardless if it was a remake or a sequel or an original film.

NOES for example, I just thought it was pointless and lazy. Freddy looked uninspired and tame. I look at that makeup and think "That man didn't suffer enough!" when he was killed. There was hardly any suspence and everything started and ended so abruptly. They relied on jump scares more than anything, and the cgi was horrid. Had it not been a remake, these problems would have still existed and been just as bad as they are now. I'm comparing the film to itself, not the original - because there are lots of things about the original that I still don't like.

This is just an example. I welcome a lot of remakes because I LOVE movies and I take something away from each and every single one of them. I am more than willing to give Let Me In a chance because I know Ms. Mortez and like Mat Reeves and what he did for Cloverfield. But with any film, wether remake, sequel or not, I`m going to point out what I like and what I don't like.

What I don't like based on the 2nd picture is all that lens flares. And the browish tint of the picture comes across as very bland.

 

[Figs]

I love how people always come up with the excuse that the reason remakes fail "In their eyes" is because they fail to live up to the writing or acting in the original.l Ummm no, facts are that the reason remakes fail & the reason people feel the way they do about them is because ppl have a mindset in their heads already that it can't touch the original. that the original is soooooooooooo awesome, that a new take couldn't possibly touch it. Remakes fail, not because there badly made, it's because you, the audience never give them a chance. You guys will sit there before a movie, trash it & then go, but I'll give it a chance. Ahhh, you just spent your post trashing a remake & then expect me to believe your going to "Give it a chance?". Laughable at best, Really is. End of the day remakes fail because of you guys, not the film makers. They give you something new & it's blasphemy, they try to keep it close to the original & it's blasphemy. That's just a fact, you'll never be happy.

If this is directed at me I guess you didn't read the part of my post that I retyped that's in bold below. Oh yeah, in my post, I wasn't trashing it at all. I wasn't going off like "OH NOEZ, this remake will suck because, well...it's a remake and the original is immortal and untouchable". I made sure to state that I won't condem it and will in fact give it a chance.

"Hopefully this turns out well and i'll probably give it a chance on home video but it's saddening that some great foreign films out there don't get enough exposure in the States."

I also happened to like the remake of The Hills Have Eyes, Friday the 13th and thought Nightmare on Elm Street and the first Halloween weren't that bad. I also really liked The Wolfman despite a lot of people thinking it was bad, that film was based on one of the iconic Universal Monsters, which is safe to say one of the films/characters that people would put on a pedestal and would complain about being remade.

I don't find remakes blasphemy since it doesn't erase the original from existence. If I really hated remakes I would have never enjoyed The Thing, The Fly and well...The Wolfman.

In my post I was merely saying with those two points why I(me personally)think it might fail.

Judging by the anger in your post sorry to have ruffled your feathers.

Speaking of those recent horror remakes...I saw them all in the theatre including Clash of the Titans. In short, I didn't wait to rent them and I don't download them, so don't think i'm one of those types that doesn't "support" remakes at all. I mainly said that i'll probably(key word probably, not definitely)wait to rent since money is tight and there are a number of other films I plan to see this year and when I have to be selective remakes don't always make the cut for trips to the theatre, at least later on in the year. I caught CotT, NoES and The Wolfman because I was curious to see how they would turn out since the originals weren't exactly deep films to begin with, which I think Let the Right One In is.

 

[Boom]

Remakes fail, not because there badly made, it's because you, the audience never give them a chance.

Or maybe it's because, half the time, they actually ARE badly made. Most recent example: Death at a Funeral. The original movie is fantastic: well-scripted, well-made, well-acted, and funny as hell. What did the remake offer? Nothing. They took the original, replaced it with a black cast, and dumbed the humor down to the level of a 13-year-old. So yes. Forgive me if I find it slightly irritating when Hollywood remakes a favorite movie of mine - one that more people should be aware of - and essentially ****s in its face.

You can go ahead and accuse people of being close-minded all you want. But don't even suggest that that is the single reason remakes are regarded with such hostility. There are plenty of instances where a remake is not only unnecessary, but just flat-out horrible.

I'll go ahead and say this right now. I've never said this film will be horrible. Nothing has been released to give me any indication of the movie's quality, so I'm not going to ignorantly write this movie off. It could very well be entertaining - great even. So no. I'm not writing this movie off just yet. But pardon me if my expectations are set fairly high, considering the original film (which I love) was an award-winning, critically acclaimed gem.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Hopefully this remake will surprise us. Supposedly someone said this was "promising."

I'm eager to see a trailer though.

 

[dark_b]

let me guess. 99% of american people will not watch the original movie because.............................................they would have to read..........................subtitles?

 

[echostation]

I hear she will dress up as Hit-Girl to be Let into the Houses and destroy the villains with her teeth...

 

[Keyser Soze]

Yeah, wow! One movie!

And I was talking mainly about the older US remakes of such "classics"

Gee, defensive much?

I was giving one example, but there's plenty other out there. Admittedly these are more recent examples rather than older remakes, as I'd have to do a bit more reading into what happened with the older films (though I do recall when I studied film history that, WAY back in the early days of the studio system, when a remake was made the studio would literally burn the reels of the original so that the remake was officially replacing it) but as a couple more examples, think about The Descent. In the UK, it came out just a little bit before similar US subterrenean horror The Cave, and was VASTLY superior, wiping the floor with its US competitor and totally trumping it. Over in America, studios sat on The Descent for years so as to avoid any "confusion" between the two films, then when they DID release The Descent they damn near spoiled the film with a hatchet-job on the ending, because they thought American audiences wouldn't understand a dream sequence. Then there's the excellent Red Riding trilogy, one of the best dramas to come out of the UK in years. It only got a blink-and-you'll-miss-it limited release in New York, because Ridley Scott already scooped up the rights to the American remake.

As you'll see as I write a little more below, I'm hardly saying this is a universal phenomenom, that all originals are buried by their remakes. Far from it. But it's equally wrong to just pretend it never happens, and lash out with sarcasm at anyone who even suggests that it does.

I love how people always come up with the excuse that the reason remakes fail "In their eyes" is because they fail to live up to the writing or acting in the original.l Ummm no, facts are that the reason remakes fail & the reason people feel the way they do about them is because ppl have a mindset in their heads already that it can't touch the original. that the original is soooooooooooo awesome, that a new take couldn't possibly touch it. Remakes fail, not because there badly made, it's because you, the audience never give them a chance. You guys will sit there before a movie, trash it & then go, but I'll give it a chance. Ahhh, you just spent your post trashing a remake & then expect me to believe your going to "Give it a chance?". Laughable at best, Really is. End of the day remakes fail because of you guys, not the film makers. They give you something new & it's blasphemy, they try to keep it close to the original & it's blasphemy. That's just a fact, you'll never be happy.




Steve

That's a pretty bogus, unfair assessment of why people are against remakes. Bad movies fail because people say they are bad? Yeah, it's the audience's fault. How dare they not just sit back and say "NOM NOM NOM! We love the s**t your spoonfeeding us, Hollywood! More please!"

I am not against ALL remakes on some matter of principle. There are plenty of remakes I have enjoyed and supported. John Carpenter's The Thing, one of the all-time great sci-fi horrors, is a remake. I have Martin Scorcese's The Departed displayed proudly alongside the Infernal Affairs trilogy in my DVD collection. Though the original is still the best, I have no objection to Peter Jackson's King Kong, and thought it was a great movie in its own right. The Escapist was an ingenius reworking of Bad Day at Black Rock, so much so that you don't even realise it's a remake until the ending. Christopher Nolan added a whole new dimension to the central moral dilemna of Insomnia when he remade it, in my opinion surpassing the original. And though I may be in the minority, I believe the recent remake of The Manchurian Candidate was even better than the classic original, with superior performances from its ensemble (though Angela Lansbury was better than Meryl Streep).

What these remakes have in common is that they have something new to say. Either they bring an exciting new twist to the story, or the source material has become relevant in a new way in the context of today's society, or it's even just a case of an auteur director putting his own authorial stamp on this new version of the film in fascinating fashion. Whatever the reason, it brings something new to the table, it has some reason to justify its existence, other than "this movie made money for us 20 years ago, we'll make money from it again rather than thinking up something new" or "I DON'T WANT TO READ STUPID SUBTITLES OR LISTEN TO FUNNY BRITISH ACCENTS! AMEEEEEEEERICA, F**K YEAH!"

But still, though these pointless remakes do often annoy me, I don't get overly up in arms about them. I don't scream to the heavens at the outrage. I just speak with my wallet, and don't see them. In my mind, the remakes of Halloween and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre don't even exist. I'll just rewatch the classic originals on DVD, thank you very much. And if a movie is truly meant to stand the test of time, if it's such a classic that remaking it IS blasphemy, then as the years pass the remake will fade in the memory to a mere historical footnote, while the original will remain fresh in people's minds. I mean, how many people remember the 1990s Night of the Living Dead remake or the 1970s King Kong remake?

Let Me In will be released, and it might suck, it might just be a transparant cash grab that offers nothing new. But it might also be a worthy remake that has something new to say, that can stand as an enjoyable film experience in its own right rather than owing a leech-like, parasitic existence to Let the Right One In. We won't know until it comes out, I guess. But at the end of the day, I still own Let the Right One In on DVD. No one's coming to burn that.

 

[Nightmare]

Looking forward to the trailer

 

[Doctor Jones]

It's a strange thing about remakes. I think if you are going to remake something, don't feel the need to make an homage to the original. That's the original, so what's the point of remaking that directly? Do something that is a solid idea but fits more into a contemporary setting. But above all, make it good, and have it stand alone from the original. Preference can come later, but the filmmaker should utilize the best things possible. I think we should be remaking things that originally sucked or could be improved upon, or something where it would be interesting to see brought to today. But something like Halloween? Does it need to be remade? No, but it doesn't hurt to see someone else's take on it. It gets bahsed because it sucked and Zombie didn't execute it quite well. He had some of the right ideas, but it wasn't what it could have been.

Creature From The Black Lagoon for example. I'd love to see a remake. There's other directions. I'd only keep the Beauty and the Beast core love story but use things like Alien and The Thing for inspiration. Part horror, part tragic romance. That sounds like it would be difficult.

 

[Figs]

let me guess. 99% of american people will not watch the original movie because.............................................they would have to read..........................subtitles?

That's literally the huuuge reason most Americans don't like or watch foreign films. I'm American myself and have to admit that yes...too many people in this country are fat, lazy and above all not necessarily flat out stupid but ignorant. I know of one person that didn't like Inglourious Basterds at all because he didn't know it was going to have so much in subtitles. Lawl!

Creature From The Black Lagoon for example. I'd love to see a remake. There's other directions. I'd only keep the Beauty and the Beast core love story but use things like Alien and The Thing for inspiration. Part horror, part tragic romance. That sounds like it would be difficult.

That would be pretty damn interesting and as you said difficult to pull off in a damn good way. Write an outline.

 

[Crook]

While it's limiting to abstain from foreign flicks, I do share the sentiments in hating subtitles. I stick it out of necessity in watching a product in it's purest form. If I had the chance though, I'd rather just learn the language itself.

To me it's just annoying to constantly force your eye on the bottom of the screen. It takes attention away from the shot, and from a cinematic point of view that is bothersome.

 

[dark_b]

That's literally the huuuge reason most Americans don't like or watch foreign films. I'm American myself and have to admit that yes...too many people in this country are fat, lazy and above all not necessarily flat out stupid but ignorant. I know of one person that didn't like Inglourious Basterds at all because he didn't know it was going to have so much in subtitles. Lawl!

that would explain why a lot of american complain that there are nto enough serious movies with complex stories.

watch a foreign movie. 6 out of 10 movies will have a complex storie. of course they have a different aproach to acting,cinematography and lighting. but thats whats great about it. it looks different.

i doesnt look like a Brucheimer movie or a Bay movie. it looks unique. and their stories are unique.

hollywood is about money. and if something works.............they will use it forever.

 

[SuperBatman]

let me guess. 99% of american people will not watch the original movie because.............................................they would have to read..........................subtitles?

Well the Movie was dubbed in English on the DVD they could do that if they wanted to.

 

[dark_b]

Well the Movie was dubbed in English on the DVD they could do that if they wanted to.

but the movie doesnt have 235 000 lens flares...................in one shot


p.s.: i like lens flares

 

[flickchick85]

While it's limiting to abstain from foreign flicks, I do share the sentiments in hating subtitles. I stick it out of necessity in watching a product in it's purest form. If I had the chance though, I'd rather just learn the language itself.

To me it's just annoying to constantly force your eye on the bottom of the screen. It takes attention away from the shot, and from a cinematic point of view that is bothersome.

Haha, I know what you mean. I love French movies so much I'm currently saving up for Rosetta Stone to learn the language, JUST so I can watch some French films without subtitles, lol.

The thing with subtitles is that I think you lose a lot in translation with them. Not just the cinematic aspects as you were saying, but also, while you're reading, you'll miss the nuances and verbal inflections of what the actors are saying - basically half of the actor's performance. Not knowing what word is the verb, what is the noun, etc., you don't know what words they're putting emphasis on. And that does bug me. So yeah, when I hear they are doing an English-language remake of a foreign movie I like, I'll admit my first inclination is to look forward to it, simply because I'm interested in seeing a version of the same story that I can fully appreciate/interpret on my own. That doesn't mean I'll like it as much as the original - quite the opposite, usually - but I still often find it to be worth my time.

 

[Crook]

Haha, I know what you mean. I love French movies so much I'm currently saving up for Rosetta Stone to learn the language, JUST so I can watch some French films without subtitles, lol.

Heh, I'm gunning for French as well. It's admirable that you're saving up your own money to buy such a ridiculously expensive (albeit excellent) program. But uhm, you know who to contact should you require services that circumvent financial woes.

The thing with subtitles is that I think you lose a lot in translation with them. Not just the cinematic aspects as you were saying, but also, while you're reading, you'll miss the nuances and verbal inflections of what the actors are saying - basically half of the actor's performance. Not knowing what word is the verb, what is the noun, etc., you don't know what words they're putting emphasis on. And that does bug me. So yeah, when I hear they are doing an English-language remake of a foreign movie I like, I'll admit my first inclination is to look forward to it, simply because I'm interested in seeing a version of the same story that I can fully appreciate/interpret on my own. That doesn't mean I'll like it as much as the original - quite the opposite, usually - but I still often find it to be worth my time.

I'm glad you brought this up, because this is a rampant issue with foreign flicks distributed in the US. Not only for theatrical releases, but for home video as well. Worse, many times the translations for the theatrical and home video differ themselves.

I had missed the theatrical run for 'Let the Right One In' and was eager to watch it on Blu-Ray. But unfortunately it was found out that for the home video release they completely butchered the translations that it altered many of the director's original intentions for certain dialog moments. I sure as hell didn't want to watch it dubbed (it could be argued it's even worse), but thankfully after thorough research I found my own set of subtitles that was close to the original material.

It's a shame though, because not many people have the will or resources to seek that out like I do. So even if they do catch it in subtitled format, they are undoubtedly watching a watered-down interpretation of great movies.

 

[CrimsonMist]

It's a strange thing about remakes. I think if you are going to remake something, don't feel the need to make an homage to the original. That's the original, so what's the point of remaking that directly? Do something that is a solid idea but fits more into a contemporary setting. But above all, make it good, and have it stand alone from the original. Preference can come later, but the filmmaker should utilize the best things possible. I think we should be remaking things that originally sucked or could be improved upon, or something where it would be interesting to see brought to today. But something like Halloween? Does it need to be remade? No, but it doesn't hurt to see someone else's take on it. It gets bahsed because it sucked and Zombie didn't execute it quite well. He had some of the right ideas, but it wasn't what it could have been.

Creature From The Black Lagoon for example. I'd love to see a remake. There's other directions. I'd only keep the Beauty and the Beast core love story but use things like Alien and The Thing for inspiration. Part horror, part tragic romance. That sounds like it would be difficult.

The problem is that saying a movie sucks is subjective. Personally, i think Halloween is Carpenter's weakest film(outside of Vampires and Ghosts of Mars, but that's another story) in his catalogue. For the most part, it's basically Jaime Lee Curtis running around screaming "HELP! HELP!" and Donald Pleasance running around screaming "EEEEEEEVIL!! EEEEVIL!!". I may not be fond of it, but people love the hell out of it anyway. It's still no need to remake it.

Reasons for remaking films are always silly and far-fetched, atleast with American movies. There's no matching action continuity in a small scene of a movie, so someone has to remake it. A character's shoe lace is untied, so someone has to remake it. With King Kong, for example, it was old, people don't watch old movies, and Peter Jackson loved the hell out of it, so he re-made it. The original still kicks it's ass. However, I have faith in "Let Me In".

Now, the problem with Let The Right One In is that it's based on a book, and I think ALOT of people forget that. The book, to me, was damn terrible(something either got lost in translation or Lindqvist is just a terrible writer-the book had all the nuance of a Goosebumps book.) but there alot of ideas that I was disappointed to see left out in the film. What are Eli's helper's motives? Why exactly is he there doing what he's doing? The locker room scene with him and the boy he tries killing is far more disturbing in the book than in the film.

But there are always gonna be similar scenes, regardless of what the newer version does. You're gonna get that sense of isolation, and this slowly paced, even awkward two-shots of Abby & Owen in a jungle gym. There will be differences, but it's going to be similar, because that's just the nature of it. I think what separates this from a flat out remake is that there's a JUSTIFIABLE means for improvement: the novel.

However, I WILL say that if Twilight wasn't the big thing right now, Let The Right One In wouldn't be getting as much praise as it's getting. I really believe that. It's a good movie, and it's a step away from the crappy vampire romances, but if Twilight wasn't around, people wouldn't be worshiping this film. Everyone is so fed up with Twilight that I think anything vampire related/non-Twilight related will achieve some form of high-praise.

Reeves knows what he's doing, I think. I'll remain cautious to an extent.

But it should be pointed out: This is a Hammer movie. And how did Hammer make itself famous? By remaking all those classic Universal horror films.

 

[kickass]

The problem is that saying a movie sucks is subjective. Personally, i think Halloween is Carpenter's weakest film(outside of Vampires and Ghosts of Mars, but that's another story) in his catalogue. For the most part, it's basically Jaime Lee Curtis running around screaming "HELP! HELP!" and Donald Pleasance running around screaming "EEEEEEEVIL!! EEEEVIL!!". I may not be fond of it, but people love the hell out of it anyway. It's still no need to remake it.

Reasons for remaking films are always silly and far-fetched, atleast with American movies. There's no matching action continuity in a small scene of a movie, so someone has to remake it. A character's shoe lace is untied, so someone has to remake it. With King Kong, for example, it was old, people don't watch old movies, and Peter Jackson loved the hell out of it, so he re-made it. The original still kicks it's ass. However, I have faith in "Let Me In".

Now, the problem with Let The Right One In is that it's based on a book, and I think ALOT of people forget that. The book, to me, was damn terrible(something either got lost in translation or Lindqvist is just a terrible writer-the book had all the nuance of a Goosebumps book.) but there alot of ideas that I was disappointed to see left out in the film. What are Eli's helper's motives? Why exactly is he there doing what he's doing? The locker room scene with him and the boy he tries killing is far more disturbing in the book than in the film.

But there are always gonna be similar scenes, regardless of what the newer version does. You're gonna get that sense of isolation, and this slowly paced, even awkward two-shots of Abby & Owen in a jungle gym. There will be differences, but it's going to be similar, because that's just the nature of it. I think what separates this from a flat out remake is that there's a JUSTIFIABLE means for improvement: the novel.

However, I WILL say that if Twilight wasn't the big thing right now, Let The Right One In wouldn't be getting as much praise as it's getting. I really believe that. It's a good movie, and it's a step away from the crappy vampire romances, but if Twilight wasn't around, people wouldn't be worshiping this film. Everyone is so fed up with Twilight that I think anything vampire related/non-Twilight related will achieve some form of high-praise.

Reeves knows what he's doing, I think. I'll remain cautious to an extent.

But it should be pointed out: This is a Hammer movie. And how did Hammer make itself famous? By remaking all those classic Universal horror films.

 

[flickchick85]

Heh, I'm gunning for French as well. It's admirable that you're saving up your own money to buy such a ridiculously expensive (albeit excellent) program. But uhm, you know who to contact should you require services that circumvent financial woes.

Ha, what I'm really saving up for is a new system to put it on because mine's a bit overloaded these days. But I certainly appreciate the, uh...info.

I'm glad you brought this up, because this is a rampant issue with foreign flicks distributed in the US. Not only for theatrical releases, but for home video as well. Worse, many times the translations for the theatrical and home video differ themselves.

I had missed the theatrical run for 'Let the Right One In' and was eager to watch it on Blu-Ray. But unfortunately it was found out that for the home video release they completely butchered the translations that it altered many of the director's original intentions for certain dialog moments. I sure as hell didn't want to watch it dubbed (it could be argued it's even worse), but thankfully after thorough research I found my own set of subtitles that was close to the original material.

It's a shame though, because not many people have the will or resources to seek that out like I do. So even if they do catch it in subtitled format, they are undoubtedly watching a watered-down interpretation of great movies.

Yeah, I heard about that, and I'm guessing the subtitles on the version I saw (on Netflix Streaming) were the crappy ones.

 

[Aesop Rocks]

I don't know, but something about Let Me In just seems right.

 

[Figs]

I want to see a trailer so bad.

 

[The Apatow Crew]

I know me too, the movie comes out October first and thats less then 5 months away and no trailer yet, they just released the pics a while ago.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I like how they kept the jungle jim and rubix cube.