PSYCHO (1998 Remake)

[The Shape]

Why??? A shot-for-shot remake of one of the best thrillers of all time. Who greenlit this film? More importantly, did any of you like it?

I think of it as a failed experiment, that never should have happened.

 

[matthooper]

A normal re-make would have been a mistake, but a shot by shot re-make was an abomination.

There is not a moment in that film that offers anything of value.

 

[Gotham]

I don't think I've found a soul on earth who liked this film.

 

[The Shape]

I know, it's pretty much forgotten now, anyway. Nobody even acknowledges that it exists.

My question is this...who ever though a shot-for-shot remake was a good idea? Why make a remake is you're not going to bring anything new to the table?

 

[Gotham]

I know, it's pretty much forgotten now, anyway. Nobody even acknowledges that it exists.

My question is this...who ever though a shot-for-shot remake was a good idea? Why make a remake is you're not going to bring anything new to the table?

Executives. That's who.

And I'm sure the reason would be to make the film more known to today's audiences. I could ask a fifteen year old (who watches films often, lets say) on the street today, and he would have absolutely no clue about Pyscho.

 

[Majik1387]

I don't think I've found a soul on earth who liked this film.

I didn't like it, but I didn't hate it. It was just there.

 

[The Shape]

Executives. That's who.

And I'm sure the reason would be to make the film more known to today's audiences. I could ask a fifteen year old (who watches films often, lets say) on the street today, and he would have absolutely no clue about Pyscho.

Yeah, I feel you. The funny thing is that even after the remake was released, I'm sure today's audiences are more aware of the original than the remake.

 

[Gotham]

Yeah, I feel you. The funny thing is that even after the remake was released, I'm sure today's audiences are more aware of the original than the remake.

Certainly. I am angered by today's mainstream audiences.

 

[The Shape]

I didn't like it, but I didn't hate it. It was just there.

That's a good point. I really didn't feel anything while watching it. You can't hate it, because it's pretty much exactly the same as the original with some very minor updates.

 

[matthooper]

I know, it's pretty much forgotten now, anyway. Nobody even acknowledges that it exists.

My question is this...who ever though a shot-for-shot remake was a good idea? Why make a remake is you're not going to bring anything new to the table?

The original holds up fairly well but I can understand someone thinking a standard remake could be a good idea, (not me but someone). But if you told someone who didn't know this film existed that they made a shot for shot remake, they would certainly think you were joking. I did when I first heard about it.

It's not only a bad idea, it's rediculous. I suppose the reasoning is that someone thought it was a perfectly shot film and would be easy to make since it didn't need a screenplay or original direction and also had a built in audience. The problem is it isn't a perfect film in todays age. It's wonderfully shot and is great for what it is, not for what someone else can make it. It's still a product of the 60's and the story doesn't hold up when it the same exact story from the 60's supposedly takes place in the present. It's bordering on insane.

 

[Ghostvirus]

This movie was horribly mis-cast. Anne Hech, really? Vince Vaughn was alright, but I though Jim Carrey would have been better.

 

[The Shape]

The original holds up fairly well but I can understand someone thinking a standard remake could be a good idea, (not me but someone). But if you told someone who didn't know this film existed that they made a shot for shot remake, they would certainly think you were joking. I did when I first heard about it.

It's not only a bad idea, it's rediculous. I suppose the reasoning is that someone thought it was a perfectly shot film and would be easy to make since it didn't need a screenplay or original direction and also had a built in audience. The problem is it isn't a perfect film in todays age. It's shot well but it's still a product of the 60's and doesn't hold up when it the same exact story supposedly takes place in the present. It's bordering on insane.

Yeah, maybe a standard remake could have been interesting if it was done in a different way, but as you said, shot-for-shot is insane.

They tried to add little things for modern audiences -- a little nudity here and there, more violence in the shower scene, Norman Bates *********ing when peeping -- but those things don't really change anything.

 

[Lazlo Panaflex]

It's not that bad a movie because it was a shot for shot of a good movie to begin with, why the complaining?

 

[Timstuff]

Because it took no creativity at all. I have no plans of ever seeing this movie because the original was exactly the same, except that it was better since it was made by Hitchcock.

 

[The Shape]

It's not that bad a movie because it was a shot for shot of a good movie to begin with, why the complaining?

Because it doesn't make any sesne to make the same movie again, shot for shot?

 

[odiin]

I know, it's pretty much forgotten now, anyway. Nobody even acknowledges that it exists.

My question is this...who ever though a shot-for-shot remake was a good idea? Why make a remake is you're not going to bring anything new to the table?

That is UNTRUE!

It brought.

A. An inferior cast
B. An inferior director
c. Colour

What's not to love there?

 

[The Shape]

That is UNTRUE!

It brought.

A. An inferior cast
B. An inferior director
c. Colour

What's not to love there?

Ah, good point there.

I'm surprised Vince Vaughn even wanted to try to live up to Anthony Perkins' performance.