Agent Earle wrote:
Mordeen wrote:The Thing. Only one I'll give credit for. Fantastic. All the others you mentioned still rot in my shit pile. I also don't see how throwing out a half assed remake with no heart serves the original in any way. It's like when you have a favorite pet that dies and you get a new pet and name it the same. It's never the same. But whatever. Season 3, The Return, isn't a damned reboot, and that was my overly debated point. Dear Cthulhu where's that spoiler thread when we need it?
Come on, man, The Fly and House of Wax originals are downright laughable when it comes to their remakes, and I also maintain that The Evil Dead and The Hills Have Eyes are actually way better then the overrated first versions; and while I'd grant you that Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Dawn of the Dead are better in their first versions, the second ones are far from bad movies - plus they actually wound up having a huge historical importance for the genre, as the first popularized backwoods brutality (and, to some extent, torture porn) flicks and the second did marvels for the Millennial zombie cinema resurgence. So you see, those are actually honest-to-God good things to come out of the lambasted reboot camp. Plus I'll bet you they - like any other majorly promoted remakes - turned on people's awareness of the existence of the originals (like, "Hey, dude, did you know there's another version of this flick from 20 years ago?" "No, seriously? Let's go check it out!"). The comparison with the dead pet situation really doesn't hold water 'cause in the latter case, your former pet is dead and gone and nothing, not even a new pet, can bring it back; whereas in the case of the movie originals and their remakes, the opposite is true - the new version makes people remember the old one, seeing it again and in so doing granting the latter a new lease of "life".
I agree with your main point about TP not being a reboot though; and my rude going off on a tangent was simply me trying to make conversation in the absence of any solid new TP news, so no need to get worked up about it.
i agree about most of the remakes mentioned being pointless, but, cronenberg's 1986 "the fly" is so vastly different from the original that it almost doesn't qualify as a remake, and it really only barely references the original. i don't think it really belongs grouped with the others and i like it quite a lot. it has only one line of dialogue from the original, very few of the same plot points, is much more of a dark comedy, and it is consistent with cronenberg's usual themes . full of beautiful and clever dialogue, brundlefly's discourse on insect politics alone is worth the price of admission. it's a sad but absolutely true metaphor for the decay of all close human relationships and contact. it's rawer, but if you compare it to his less genre specific and more recent works, it still tells the same story. it even has that same perfect final shot as probably at least half of all cronenberg's films. to my eye, it's really the film that elevated him, critically at least, from being a sort of secret auteur for the gag reflex challenged, the intellectual auteur of "videodrome" (1983) and "rabid" (1977), to the higher profile filmmaker he is today...more commercially viable but still able to make challenging films no one else would touch. i don't think we'd have his beautiful reading of j.g. ballard's "crash" (1997), or his outstanding more recent film "maps to the stars" (2014) without the success of "the fly". his more recent works are more subtle and less visceral, which i think allows more coventional reading and a more sophistcated tendency toward appraisal, but the pallette is the very much the same. his work may seem more self controlled now but he remains one of our best living english language filmmakers as far as i can tell, and i believe "the fly" is an important part of that filmography.
i am however, a little miffed at the prospect of having to face a "suspiria" remake.