And yet, for every horror movie remake/reboot that's of lesser quality, there seems to be one that turns out to be quite good, in some cases even excellent, actually surpassing the quality of the original. To stay limited to the modern age (not touching such vintage remakes that have become classics in their own right during the years, such as The Thing, The Fly and Night of the Living Dead remakes), Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dawn of the Dead, Willard, The Hills Have Eyes, House of Wax, Last House on the Left, Evil Dead, for example, are all remakes that are very well done and shouldn't be looked down on when comparisons with the originals are made.Mordeen wrote:However that paint color, more often than not, is puke green. Using the horror genre as an example, Halloween, A Nightmare On Elm Street, The Amityville Horror. . .Poltergeist for crap's sake! All pointless, mediocre cash grabs that relied on and took advantage of an existing fan base and fell far short.
For my part, I never understood all the hatred and outrage that's directed at remakes in the horror community. Some stories are so larger than life and all-around poignant they deserve to be told/shown more than one time, and it's always fun to compare the different versions or takes on them, if you will. Besides, remakes can turn out to be quite useful in alerting the younger generations to the older versions they wouldn't even know that exist if it hadn't been for the new versions; they also broaden the genre specter and enrich the viewer's choice, what is never a bad thing. At the very least, a remake, even it turns out to be a cash-grabbing piece of toxic excrement (like the remake of John Carpenter's The Fog is), never takes anything away from an original - it's still there on its shelf, where it's always been, its popularity even reinforced by the (inferior) remake.
