Why is it that remakes almost always suck?
By kraven2
@kraven2 (21)
Netherlands
February 16, 2009 5:20pm CST
The last years doing remakes of classic movies is the thing in Hollywood. We seen the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Several Invasions of the body snatchers and more.
Why is it that whenever a remake is due it always can't compare to the original?
I mean it does not make sense.
Take Halloween for example, it had Rob Zombie as a director, who did a bang up job with house of a 1000 corpses, yet he failed miserable doing Halloween.
I don't get it. The talent is there, the budget to and technically we can do so much more and so much better.
Why doesn't it seem possible to do a remake that is at least as good as it's original?
1 response
@delrealmonica (189)
• United States
16 Feb 09
oh i agree.
We were actually just talking about this in class today. Someone brought up going to see Friday the 13th and we were trying to decide how many of them they are gonna make!
I think that SOMETIMES one sequel can be ok but they are usually still not even close to as good as the original.
I also think that anything over three should just STOP ALREADY! Usually after that the movie are not worth seeing at all.
@kraven2 (21)
• Netherlands
22 Feb 09
In almost all cases I agree with you on that one.
The difference I think is that from a sequel I kind of expect more of the same, but from a remake I expect to see fireworks because the movie is allready a proven succes, so with more budget(Better actors, better effects, etc..) I would expect a better version.
The oposite is almost always true and I don't understand why they can't get it right over at Hollywood.
