| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ragingfluff 
"Currently lost in Canada"
|
 Posted - 09/02/2007 : 16:49:28
|
I have to say that I've come round to MrBadIdea's way of thinking about this. I used to hate the idea of remakes, but as he has pointed out several times, the original version (good, bad or downright awful) is still there and remains untarnished. I have thought about this a lot lately, as I have been watching a lot of films that are remakes or updates or reimaginings of previous films.
Isn't all art, in a sense, a version of some other work of art?
Last Man Standing is A Fistful of Dollars is Yojimbo is every samurai history/legend/folktale Kurosawa ever heard combined with bits from all his favourite westerns.
Which is the better Hamlet? Olivier's, Branagh's or the one with Ethan Hawke??? Maybe they're all bad remakes of Shakespeare's Hamlet
Some remakes genuinely improve on the original. Some stand alone as films that you can watch and not even think about an earlier incarnation. Some are just shit films. Barb Wire is junk but it doesn't destroy my memory or appreciation of Casablanca. The remake of Ocean's 11, though, is both an enjoyable film and has thankfully obliterated my memory of the rat pack version.
So, Mr Bad Idea...good idea, sir...bring on the remakes...
Starting with The Godfather. Someone needs to update that piece of crap right away.
|
 |
|
|
damalc 
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 19:11:44
|
bottom line: about what i expected -- gorier, nekkiter, and white trashier than the original. 4/5 fwiffs. a good take on a classic tale by Zombie, a fan of the genre.
i liked: Michael, the early years. Zombie seems to have a real touch for disfunctional family dynamics.
i liked: Danny Trejo, Sid Haig, Clint Howard, Ken Foree, Malcolm McDowell. especially Trejo.
i didn't like: Zombie spent too much time on the early years. the inevitable stalking and slaughter seemed squeezed. i also think it's scarier when you don't have Michael's background, with no reasons for why he does what he does.
i didn't like: Michael was more of a brute than a stalker, again, perhaps because of the time allocation.
i didn't like: of course with a movie like this, you know suspension of disbelief will be tested but some parts really strained that.
|
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 19:39:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Okay, man, that's another concept, along with "insists upon itself," that needs to be retired. If you find Michael Myers interesting, I'm sure you've got reasons, and by all means, I wanna hear them.
Pure evil.
No apologies.
The Man-Goat got into his DNA somehow.
Yet all you actually see [except for a confused :05 at the climax] is an innocent child's face, like Patty McCormack's years earlier.
Why?
Never answered.
Chilling character!
"Jason" is a wannabe. And from HALLOWEEN 2 on, so is Michael Myers.
The Duke's [or whoever it actually was] comment will never be retired, because a true naysayer simply cannot be convinced. Therefore, let's let the people who do enjoy whatever it is, alone with whatever it is that they like, as long as it doesn't hurt or threaten anybody else. If you don't dig it, you just don't, and God bless you, too bad you're missing a life pleasure, but be happy regardless. That's all the Duke is saying, all I am too. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 19:40:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by ragingfluff
So, Mr Bad Idea...good idea, sir...bring on the remakes...
Starting with The Godfather. Someone needs to update that piece of crap right away.
 |
|
|
|
ragingfluff
"Currently lost in Canada"
|
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 19:48:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by ragingfluff
So, Mr Bad Idea...good idea, sir...bring on the remakes...
Starting with The Godfather. Someone needs to update that piece of crap right away.
I'm thinking Frank Oz is the best director to do this.
|
|
|
|
Rovark 
"Luck-pushing, rule-bending, chance-taking reviewer"
|
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 22:39:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
See, here's the thing I never liked about Michael Myers. He's boring! Boooooooring! Even Jason has a primitive motivation of revenge. Myers's claim to fame is that he has no motivation for what he does. Interesting in its blank nihilism, perhaps, but I've never been able to muster up the ability to care. Plus, I've never been able to get how he's both an indestructible supernatural force and a drooling mental defective.
The whole point about Michael Myers is that he has no real motivation to do the thing he does. Whether he was born this way or became this way is not even of interest. The point about him is that he is the Boogeyman. He is the very thing we're all most afraid of. He has no motivation, therefore there's nothing we do that will provoke him and absolutely nothing we can do to placate him. Wrong place, wrong time and you're his. He's at no point "a drooling mental defective" he's just an empty, soulless vessel. One that can't be stopped. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 02:23:51
|
| I don't actually find that very interesting thinking about it. Psychologically it's about as uninvolving as you can get. He's implacable and unstoppable and has no perceived reasons for his actions, but you could say the same of a steam roller. Perceptible lunacy is much more scary I think, then you can see how far a man has lost his reason and is beyond safe boundaries - in this instance he's barely even a man. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 02:34:46
|
Awright, I got demonic to back me up, 'cause that's exactly how I feel about it. Myers is evil because he just is. There's some existential terror to be wrung out of that, I'm sure, but I don't think Halloween ever really tried to. Most of the emphasis on Myers's blank inhumanity is given to us in exposition, not by his actions, really.
This is a much bigger problem in Freddy Krueger movies, which also subscribes to the blank he's-just-evil philosophy despite having a VERY human boogeyman. Freddy needs to have a more compelling motivation besides just being a bad guy. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 03:33:32
|
I always thought that Mike Myers killed because he enjoyed it. He liked blood, fear and death. He was also massaging his ego by reaffirming his power over others (which he would have interpreted as verification of his superiority); he could kill when and where he wanted and saw each kill as a personal victory. That's a not-uncommon driving mechanism for real-life sadistic psychopathic serial killers. The reason for Myers' evil was not 'explained' as is commonly done in fiction, hence my assumption that he was simply a sadistic psychopath.
Fictional serial killers are often more elaborate than 'real' serial killers, ie, the 'reasons' for their evil are presented, whether they're on a mission (Spacey in Se7en), or have a deathwish (Hauer in The Hitcher), or are a thoroughly delusional psychotic (Bates in Psycho). I think Mike Myers was more like Ted Bundy than any other fictional serial killer (except that we don't see the rest of his life, only the effect he has on others). In fact a story about Ted Bundy would probably be rather uninteresting and would inevitably concentrate on the kills rather than on Bundy himself. There's nothing much to say about him other than that he enjoyed killing and the feeling of power that killing gave him, and that he regularly conducted 'experiments'. E.g., "I wonder what would happen if I kill someone with another victim watching?", and "OK, I've just tortured this woman to death, but I've got some time left, so I wonder how many other kills I can make in the next 10 minutes in this dormitory" etc. None of that is as interesting as Spacey's or Hauer's missions. In fact Bundy's kills were too much like science (much like clinical tests on lab rats) to make Bundy an interesting subject for fiction.
So if Mike Myers is uninteresting, it's because the standard fictional elements (or 'human' elements) haven't been added to his character, he's too much like a real-life sadistic psychopath - an emotionless predator. Absolute evil.
Edit: Oops, I missed my point.  What I'm getting at is that as much as I like the contrived killers in Seven, Silence of the Lambs, The Hitcher etc - who are all very interesting and make for great stories - they are fictional and are not grounded in reality. And yep, Mike Myers isn't very interesting at all, but he's far closer to a real killer, and I'm glad Carpenter created him that way (someone needs to stick to reality occasionally) rather than turning him into yet another 'popcorn' killer. |
Edited by - Sean on 09/03/2007 03:53:56 |
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 13:57:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
See, here's the thing I never liked about Michael Myers. He's boring! Boooooooring! Even Jason has a primitive motivation of revenge. Myers's claim to fame is that he has no motivation for what he does. Interesting in its blank nihilism, perhaps, but I've never been able to muster up the ability to care.
Sorry to hear that, since the fact that he kills just because and does nothing else is the whole point of the movie and the precise reason he's so scary. He's just evil.
quote:
Plus, I've never been able to get how he's both an indestructible supernatural force and a drooling mental defective.
He's not an indestructible supernatural force, unless you're including all those stupid sequels but that's an inherently flawed way to look at it.
quote:
Rob Zombie puts a face behind the mask. It's not entirely successful, but it's a billion times more interesting to me.
That's all well and good but it makes it a completely different movie. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 14:01:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Awright, I got demonic to back me up, 'cause that's exactly how I feel about it. Myers is evil because he just is. There's some existential terror to be wrung out of that, I'm sure, but I don't think Halloween ever really tried to. Most of the emphasis on Myers's blank inhumanity is given to us in exposition, not by his actions, really.
This is a much bigger problem in Freddy Krueger movies, which also subscribes to the blank he's-just-evil philosophy despite having a VERY human boogeyman. Freddy needs to have a more compelling motivation besides just being a bad guy.
Dude, you're taking it - and yourself - too seriously. Besides, you're also 100% wrong about Freddy Krueger. The reasons he does what he does are quite explicit, they're not even open to interpretation by the audience...they just flat out TELL you why he kills. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 14:51:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I always thought that Mike Myers killed because he enjoyed it. He liked blood, fear and death. He was also massaging his ego by reaffirming his power over others (which he would have interpreted as verification of his superiority); he could kill when and where he wanted and saw each kill as a personal victory. That's a not-uncommon driving mechanism for real-life sadistic psychopathic serial killers. The reason for Myers' evil was not 'explained' as is commonly done in fiction, hence my assumption that he was simply a sadistic psychopath.
Fictional serial killers are often more elaborate than 'real' serial killers, ie, the 'reasons' for their evil are presented, whether they're on a mission (Spacey in Se7en), or have a deathwish (Hauer in The Hitcher), or are a thoroughly delusional psychotic (Bates in Psycho). I think Mike Myers was more like Ted Bundy than any other fictional serial killer (except that we don't see the rest of his life, only the effect he has on others). In fact a story about Ted Bundy would probably be rather uninteresting and would inevitably concentrate on the kills rather than on Bundy himself. There's nothing much to say about him other than that he enjoyed killing and the feeling of power that killing gave him, and that he regularly conducted 'experiments'. E.g., "I wonder what would happen if I kill someone with another victim watching?", and "OK, I've just tortured this woman to death, but I've got some time left, so I wonder how many other kills I can make in the next 10 minutes in this dormitory" etc. None of that is as interesting as Spacey's or Hauer's missions. In fact Bundy's kills were too much like science (much like clinical tests on lab rats) to make Bundy an interesting subject for fiction.
So if Mike Myers is uninteresting, it's because the standard fictional elements (or 'human' elements) haven't been added to his character, he's too much like a real-life sadistic psychopath - an emotionless predator. Absolute evil.
Edit: Oops, I missed my point. What I'm getting at is that as much as I like the contrived killers in Seven, Silence of the Lambs, The Hitcher etc - who are all very interesting and make for great stories - they are fictional and are not grounded in reality. And yep, Mike Myers isn't very interesting at all, but he's far closer to a real killer, and I'm glad Carpenter created him that way (someone needs to stick to reality occasionally) rather than turning him into yet another 'popcorn' killer.
That's a good answer. Of course I would point out that realism, as far as Myers was concerned, is totally not what Carpenter was going for.
quote:
That's all well and good but it makes it a completely different movie.
Sure does. Actually, the biggest problem with Zombie's Halloween is that it's not ENOUGH a completely different movie; he's too tethered to his source material and it kind of drags down his ambitions. I think once you've taken the movie into this other area you're kind of obligated to keep it going.
quote:
He's not an indestructible supernatural force, unless you're including all those stupid sequels but that's an inherently flawed way to look at it.
I dunno... he sure didn't seem like a human being with human flaws and stuff in that first movie. They sure play him up like he's a supernatural force.
quote:
Dude, you're taking it - and yourself - too seriously
Nuh-uh.
quote:
The reasons he does what he does are quite explicit, they're not even open to interpretation by the audience...they just flat out TELL you why he kills.
Well, it's been a while -- what did I miss? |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 15:24:37
|
This post contains spoilers about the Nightmare on Elm St movies. Most of these details are from the films, but a few elements were revealed in the short-lived television series:
Freddy Krueger was a child molester that kidnapped kids to his lair in the boiler room of an abandoned factory, where he abused and then killed his victims. He was caught, arrested, and put on trial, but walked on a technicality. Disgusted, community members formed a vigilante group that cornered him in the boiler room, doused him with gasoline and burned him to death. Ever since, he's been taking out his revenge on those that killed him by preying on their children in the one place their parents can't protect them: in their dreams.
There's more, such as information about how someone so "unholy" came into existence in the first place. But I think I've covered enough.
|
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 15:35:25
|
| Well, yeah, that explains why he kills in the dreamworld, not why he killed when he was a human being. I mean, yeah, he's a pedophile, but believe it or not there are lots of pedophiles who don't kill people. And yeah, son of a thousand maniacs and all that, but also -- son of a nun! His mom's a nun! |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 09/04/2007 : 15:56:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I mean, yeah, he's a pedophile, but believe it or not there are lots of pedophiles who don't kill people.
True, but there are enough who do - or at least enough high-profile news stories of it happening - that it's perfectly reasonable to put that into a movie and not expect the audience to ask questions. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Halloween 9
