4 WAYS TO GIVE A FILM REMAKE A CHANCE BY JENNIFER BRINKMEYER

7/7/2014

MY BLOODY VALENTINE

After enjoying the 1981 version of My Bloody Valentine, I had to get together with my friends and watch the 2009 remake starring JENSEN ACKLES. With the original fresh in my mind, every time something new happened, I gasped then muttered, "That's not what happened in the original." About 30 minutes in, I knew that if I didn't stop this muttering, I was going to ruin movie night, so I resolved to do the following:

1. Accept the passage of time.

In this case, it's been 28 years. A successful plot in 1981 would be unacceptable by today's standards. For example, the original's storyline is fairly convoluted: Oh by the way, this happened 20 years ago. Oh by the way, now we decided to have the dance again. Oh by the way, if you want to be a teacher you have to vanish without telling your girlfriend where you went. Oh by the way, this guy did it because of reasons we never told you until the end of the movie. I accept this level of ridiculousness because the filmmakers were novice slasher makers. There is no room for novices anymore. The updated version straightens out the timeline, gives the characters authentic motivations, and gives hints and false hints about who the killer is.

2. Accept that it's made by different people.

It annoys me when people don't like movies because they weren't "just like the book." It bothers me equally so when people say remakes aren't "just like the original." As humans, we tend to crave the familiar, but what's the point of making the same movie twice? Nowadays you could just re-release an old classic. If you're doing a re-make, you're recasting the vision. Because the creators were familiar with the first, which was a straightforward cautionary tale, they were able to go deeper with big questions:

How can we cope with trauma?
Is there such a thing as perfect love?

3. Enjoy the homages.

The writers and director involved were fans of the original, so they set up some homages:

The scene where the suits drop from the ceiling.
The killer breaking out the lights in the mine.
Someone getting killed through the mouth.
Someone getting stuffed in a dryer.

4. Allow yourself to mourn what's missing

It's best not to compare the two, but to treat them as individual movies. There are some things about the original that are hard to forget, but I can just re-watch the original. That's right. It still exists. Remakes don't replace originals. Just think of it as high-budget fanfic. Here's what I missed:

Hollis. He was my favorite character. It was a good choice not to try to get someone to be him.
Canada. I know, right? The remake is set in Pennsylvania, so there are no daily Moosehead Beer binges.
Mine time. We got to see people working in the mines (and we got to ride the roller coaster!) in the first one.
Quality kills. Although I do respect actress Betsy Rue who did an entire scene fighting off the killer while stark naked, the kills were more varied and creative in the first. The new killer stuck mostly to the pickaxe.

Between remakes and originals, we'll always have our preferences (usually whichever we saw first). What are some of your favorite remakes and how do they acceptably build on the originals?

ABOUT JENNIFER BRINKMEYER

JENNIFER BRINKMEYER

Because horror interests me for both its entertainment and dark muse value, I am a lifelong writer and votary. My first film ever was Ghostbusters (if that counts), but I loved Gremlinsas a kindergartner and watched Night of the Living Dead as a 4th grader home sick from school. My first books down the haunted path were Alvin Schwartz’s Scary Stories.The first scary story I wrote was in 7th grade, and it won the school prize. The cool kids had no idea they were voting for such a nerd–a landmark victory.

Flash forward to now: I watch 31 horror films in October and at least one a week throughout the year. I read widely, believing that everything has a little horror in it (check out my Goodreads).

I write full-length paranormal novels (news forthcoming) and am a member of the Horror Writers Association. In the daytime, I teach English to the world’s foremost paranormal fans—teenagers.

For more updates, follow this site below and follow me on Twitter. Comment any time to start the conversation.

GINGER NUTS OF HORROR THE HEART AND SOUL OF HORROR WEBSITES

Kit Power link

7/7/2014 04:32:50

Oh man, GREAT post! This debate has been raging on the book of face lately, with the Robocop remake being a particular source of heartburn for me, for obvious reasons (and The Thing prequel possibly on my horizon). You make some good points about ways to engage, but I do wonder about the underlying question here, which is why remakes at all? It seems to me that they are 100% financially motivated rather than undertaken for creative reasons, in the vast majority of cases. It's like Suit X from company Y says 'here, we own this IP which has a built in fan base. If we spend Z million dollars on a reboot, we know we'll make at least Z + one million based on that existing fanbase'.

And I get that. Films are expensive and risky, so you do what you can to minimize risk. My problem with it is twofold - 1) it means less original features get produced (because the Hollywood budget in any given year for features is finite) and b) generally, the films suck - they're not being made out of love but out of the desire to pursue a buck, and man does it show. So while all of the above is good advice, I'd offer an alternative - generally, avoid remakes. If they stop being financially viable, studios will have to go back to producing new IP instead...

So, having been a complete asshole, I will now say in answer to your question that I loved the Dawn of the Dead remake. I felt the innovations they made with the zombies and the new characters made the premise fresh enough that it really worked. It felt different enough to be almost a new film, with essentially only the setting being rolled over. Great film and I'm glad it got made.

The other big one was King Kong. With the caveat that you skip the first 40 minutes and start the movie at Skull Island. If you do that, it's a superb remake, and done for the right reasons - because the tech has evolved to a point where a deeper version of the original vision can be realised than 30's film making allowed.

I'd argue self-servingly that what they both had in common was they were made with love, and it shows. I'm also excited about a Hellraiser reboot, as long as Clive Barker stays attached. Because, Clive Barker.

Please take all the above as the rambling of an old man, waving his walking stick and rumbling about the damn kids. And again, really good article - I admire your positive approach.

Ginger Nuts of Horror link

7/7/2014 05:13:12

It's a tough one, I was sooooo looking forward to the remake of Clash of The Titans, but that turned out to be a harrowing experience. A new take with up to date FX it should have been brilliant. These are the sort of remakes I don't mind so long as they stay true to the heart of the original film. Something which the recent Robocop failed to do so spectacularly.

On the other hand crap like Rob Zombies Halloween remakes should never have gotten the green light. There is no need whatsoever for them. They are purely there to make money and stroke the ego of an musician playing at being a horror film director.

Jennifer Brinkmeyer link

7/7/2014 10:55:45

Kit, I think you've got it. If the motivation is right, the remake works. I like remakes that seem to be conversing with the original rather than canning it. Also, I get that there have been technological advances, but I think that's a bad reason to remake too. Sure, "it would be so much better if blah blah blah had been invented." But I never think of technology as a short-coming. The films of the past did the best they could with what they had. Unfortunately today some filmmakers don't do the best they can--they let the technology and the celebrity power do all the work.

Comments are closed.