Cloverfield Director To Remake Let The Right One In

[chaseter]

I enjoyed the original and don't see why a remake was necessary.

If I enjoyed the original, what differences are there in this Hollywood remake?

This is a film from a book, not a remake of a film. While this does take some visual cues from the Swedish version, it is only to pay homage to it and there are a lot of differences.

 

[Assassin32]

It is absolutely a remake. If it wasn't for the Swedish film two years ago, Hollywood would have never dug up the novel. Let The Right One In did some business here in the States in theatres and on DVD, so they made an English version.

 

[Kurosawa]

Well, it is in a sense a remake, but it is not shot-for-shot. They've been remaking foreign horror films for some time now with success but I think that trend might be waning considering the box office failure of this film. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is not a horror movie remake but it is much the same scenario as this movie. I expect that remake to do well, however.

 

[chaseter]

Yes they had financial reasons for making this movie due to the success of LTROI but they took inspiration from the novel. Matt Reeves even told the actors and his crew to not watch LTROI if they hadn't seen it. A remake to me is taking all of your inspiration from the movie you are remaking. This just seems like a hybrid to me. It isn't necessarily a remake and it isn't necessarily its own movie. It is like a bit of both, which is certainly not a bad thing as this film was fantastic. When there isn't literature or other history for the story then latter movies are remakes but that would be like saying the upcoming Hobbit movie is a remake of that old cartoon.

 

[dark_b]

yo uthink actors and directos never lie in interviews?

 

[Figs]

yo uthink actors and directos never lie in interviews?

Although i'm not disagreeing with Chaseter your post is incredibly true. Take most people doing a comic film that all of a sudden claim they've been huge fans their whole life...for that specific character/team.

 

[dark_b]

Although i'm not disagreeing with Chaseter your post is incredibly true. Take most people doing a comic film that all of a sudden claim they've been huge fans their whole life...for that specific character/team.

i am waiting for Snyder to spend 5 minutes at comic con how he was a big superman fan

 

[HighFivingMF]

Yes they had financial reasons for making this movie due to the success of LTROI but they took inspiration from the novel. Matt Reeves even told the actors and his crew to not watch LTROI if they hadn't seen it. A remake to me is taking all of your inspiration from the movie you are remaking. This just seems like a hybrid to me. It isn't necessarily a remake and it isn't necessarily its own movie. It is like a bit of both, which is certainly not a bad thing as this film was fantastic. When there isn't literature or other history for the story then latter movies are remakes but that would be like saying the upcoming Hobbit movie is a remake of that old cartoon.

... The Hobbit was a book!?

 

[chaseter]

It wasn't? I could have sworn it was! Although I hate to admit that I have never read any of the LOTR books but I wish I did in High School. I got into Harry Potter instead...maybe one day.

 

[chaseter]

Although i'm not disagreeing with Chaseter your post is incredibly true. Take most people doing a comic film that all of a sudden claim they've been huge fans their whole life...for that specific character/team.

Well considering the two main actors are children...it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't see it. As long as the movie turns out great, I could care less if they are lying. If the movie sucks and so do the characters, then I know that they were lying.

 

[CrimsonMist]

Although i'm not disagreeing with Chaseter your post is incredibly true. Take most people doing a comic film that all of a sudden claim they've been huge fans their whole life...for that specific character/team.

Yea, but I think that's a bit different. As a director, you want to make your vision as concise and clear as possible. You want to be able to execute your vision. I highly doubt Reeves was lying when he said he told his cast not to watch the original film. And it makes loads of sense that he would do that. He's making his film. He's taken elements from the original film for his story and took elements from the novel for his story. To shoot it, he did his own thing. Out of necessity. He didn't want the original film to effect the performances of his cast. He was never making the same movie.

but anyways, here's this really awesome write-up on the film. Really fascinating read.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2010/10/let_me_in_the_role_of_evil_in.html#more

 

[flickchick85]

That IS a great write-up, Crimson. Thanks for posting.

 

[Figs]

My previous comment was more in regards to comic films not Let Me In. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Yea, but I think that's a bit different. As a director, you want to make your vision as concise and clear as possible. You want to be able to execute your vision. I highly doubt Reeves was lying when he said he told his cast not to watch the original film. And it makes loads of sense that he would do that. He's making his film. He's taken elements from the original film for his story and took elements from the novel for his story. To shoot it, he did his own thing. Out of necessity. He didn't want the original film to effect the performances of his cast. He was never making the same movie.

but anyways, here's this really awesome write-up on the film. Really fascinating read.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2010/10/let_me_in_the_role_of_evil_in.html#more

This is a good write-up. I was thinking about the "mirror image" thing with the children myself....each having one "parent" present with the genders reversed.

Yes they had financial reasons for making this movie due to the success of LTROI but they took inspiration from the novel. Matt Reeves even told the actors and his crew to not watch LTROI if they hadn't seen it. A remake to me is taking all of your inspiration from the movie you are remaking. This just seems like a hybrid to me. It isn't necessarily a remake and it isn't necessarily its own movie. It is like a bit of both, which is certainly not a bad thing as this film was fantastic. When there isn't literature or other history for the story then latter movies are remakes but that would be like saying the upcoming Hobbit movie is a remake of that old cartoon.

In Chloe Moretz's case, she actually wasn't allowed to see the original by her parents anyway.

When watching the two movies, the performances are very different, so I see no reason to doubt their word about that.

And both movies are based on the book. Just like both The Shining movies are based on that book. It doesn't stop being based on the original story just because someone makes a movie.

 

[Infinity9999x]

It wasn't? I could have sworn it was! Although I hate to admit that I have never read any of the LOTR books but I wish I did in High School. I got into Harry Potter instead...maybe one day.

The Hobbit was a book. The middle earth books are quite good. Hobbit is definitely a different read then the LOTR books though, much more lighthearted and an easier read. LOTR is great, but Tolkien tends to get a bit long winded at times. Honestly, LOTR is probably the only time I preferred a movie series over the books. Don't get me wrong, I love LOTR, but they can drag.

 

[Thundarr]

The Hobbit was a book. The middle earth books are quite good. Hobbit is definitely a different read then the LOTR books though, much more lighthearted and an easier read. LOTR is great, but Tolkien tends to get a bit long winded at times. Honestly, LOTR is probably the only time I preferred a movie series over the books. Don't get me wrong, I love LOTR, but they can drag.

I'm pretty sure the comment questioning whether or not The Hobbit was a book before it was/will be a movie was meant as a joke.

 

[Thundarr]

This is a good write-up. I was thinking about the "mirror image" thing with the children myself....each having one "parent" present with the genders reversed.



In Chloe Moretz's case, she actually wasn't allowed to see the original by her parents anyway.

When watching the two movies, the performances are very different, so I see no reason to doubt their word about that.

And both movies are based on the book. Just like both The Shining movies are based on that book. It doesn't stop being based on the original story just because someone makes a movie.

I've made a very similar argument in the Manhunter vs Red Dragon debate. I've known many people who view Red Dragon as a ripoff of Manhunter. I say that it's not a ripoff or a remake, but a new interpretation of the source material (the novel Red Dragon). Their argument is that there are several scenes in Red Dragon that are virtually shot for shot identical to those in Manhunter. I've read the book and seen both movies, and all of the scenes that are identical in both films are in the freakin' book. I ask them to show me just ONE scene that's in both movies but is NOT in the book, and I might concede their point. To date, nobody has been able to point out a single scene that's in both movies but not in the book.

 

[Kurosawa]

This is a good write-up. I was thinking about the "mirror image" thing with the children myself....each having one "parent" present with the genders reversed.



In Chloe Moretz's case, she actually wasn't allowed to see the original by her parents anyway.

When watching the two movies, the performances are very different, so I see no reason to doubt their word about that.

And both movies are based on the book. Just like both The Shining movies are based on that book. It doesn't stop being based on the original story just because someone makes a movie.

And unlike the Shining, both movies are good.

 

[Thundarr]

I only saw Kubrick's version of The Shining, not the other one.

Both Manhunter & Red Dragon were great in their own ways. I kinda prefer Red Dragon as it's closer to the book, but Michael Mann's visual style was much better.

As for Let The Right One In/Let Me In? I've only seen the American version, and I really liked it, but I've heard nothing but good things about the original version. My only question is, "Why did they change the name?"

 

[kedrell]

Because they changed the name of the book to Let Me In when it was translated to English so Reeves took that title.

 

[Thundarr]

Because they changed the name of the book to Let Me In when it was translated to English so Reeves took that title.

Fair enough. But why did they change the title of the book though? Does the title just not translate very well into English, the way The Quick & The Dead doesn't translate well into Chinese (in China, that movie is known as "The Man With The Very Fast Gun")? Or is it that the publishers just thought that the North American public wouldn't get the title, like how Harry Potter & The Philosopher Stone is known as Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone in The States?

 

[JeetKuneDo]

And unlike the Shining, both movies are good.

Fair enough. But why did they change the title of the book though? Does the title just not translate very well into English, the way The Quick & The Dead doesn't translate well into Chinese (in China, that movie is known as "The Man With The Very Fast Gun")? Or is it that the publishers just thought that the North American public wouldn't get the title, like how Harry Potter & The Philosopher Stone is known as Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone in The States?

There have been some interesting name changes all over the world:

If You Leave Me, I Delete You (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)
The Gun Died Laughing (The Naked Gun)
Urban Neurotic (Annie Hall)
Warm Shots (Hot Shots)
Slightly Pregnant (Knocked Up)
His Great Device Makes Him Famous (Boogie Nights)
Vaseline (Grease)
Six Naked Pigs (The Full Monty)
American Virgin Man (American Pie)
Captain Supermarket (Army of Darkness)
The War of the Galaxies (Star Wars)
The Eighth Passenger of the Nostromo (Alien)

 

[JeetKuneDo]

I've made a very similar argument in the Manhunter vs Red Dragon debate. I've known many people who view Red Dragon as a ripoff of Manhunter. I say that it's not a ripoff or a remake, but a new interpretation of the source material (the novel Red Dragon). Their argument is that there are several scenes in Red Dragon that are virtually shot for shot identical to those in Manhunter. I've read the book and seen both movies, and all of the scenes that are identical in both films are in the freakin' book. I ask them to show me just ONE scene that's in both movies but is NOT in the book, and I might concede their point. To date, nobody has been able to point out a single scene that's in both movies but not in the book.

I guess people get over protective of a movie they love. But even Gone with the Wind "ripped off" a book. I'm always interested in new takes on a story. Every version will have its own interpretation and usually makes you think about the story in a different way. So far this year I've enjoyed Alice in Wonderland and Let Me In. I'm looking forward to True Grit and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. (Both also based on books)

In this case the fans of the original movie fail to realize that Let Me In has had a 100% positive impact on the original. I'm not exactly sure what those fans thought was going to happen to the original if Let Me In had never been made. Were they fantasizing that the US public would suddenly discover Let the Right One In and turn it into a well known movie?

 

[dark_b]

again all those examples are not the same.

the origina movie was realesed 2 years ago. almost less then 2 years ago. so all the examples are different on so many levels.

its also an insult what they are doing with the Dragon tattoo movie.

 

[chaseter]

They could have just bought the rights to LTROI and released it here in America and probably made more money but I will gladly own this and LTROI on dvd.