Poltergeist remake (film)

[Neil]

Sam Raimi will produce the remake to POLTERGEIST for MGM.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/sam-raimi-produce-mgm-poltergeist-317606

[acealive1]

please dont. there's been enough real death associated with the original franchise. it makes it pretty well known you shouldnt go disturbing this one.

[Mike70]

while it is good news that ol' sam will be producing this, it is getting to point where i'm almost shocked when an original idea becomes a movie. seems like if it isn't based on a book or a remake that hollywood wants nothing to do with it. i know that isn't true and is generalizing to a large extent but it certainly seems like it. then again, this is my major stop on the internet (other than the science websites i visit), so most of my movie news comes from posts here. since a lot of the threads are about remakes and their multitude of sins, that no doubt feeds into my perception of things.

[acealive1]

while it is good news that ol' sam will be producing this, it is getting to point where i'm almost shocked when an original idea becomes a movie. seems like if it isn't based on a book or a remake that hollywood wants nothing to do with it. i know that isn't true and is generalizing to a large extent but it certainly seems like it. then again, this is my major stop on the internet (other than the science websites i visit), so most of my movie news comes from posts here. since a lot of the threads are about remakes and their multitude of sins, that no doubt feeds into my perception of things.

the internet kinda spoiled us. before this was a giant thing, we didnt what was a remake or based off a book. and it seems the original ideas dont make any money (the eagle, ghosts of mars, prequel to the thing, source code)

its almost like u gotta make paranormal activity 3 times and have it be way dumber each time for u to make any money.

[LouCipherr]

and it seems the original ideas dont make any money (the eagle, ghosts of mars, prequel to the thing, source code)

Not to be disagreeable, but I cannot consider the prequel to The Thing as an "original idea" considering most of the content was ripped directly from Carpenter's version.

Just sayin'.

As far as the remake of Poltergeist - I think everyone already knows my feelings about remakes:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/FORUM%20PICS%202/thestupiditburns.jpg

[bassman]

please dont. there's been enough real death associated with the original franchise. it makes it pretty well known you shouldnt go disturbing this one.

:rockbrow:

Wait.....so because the girl that played the oldest daughter was strangled to death by her deranged boyfriend and the girl the played the youngest daughter died of medical reasons, THAT is why you think they shouldn't remake the film???

Instead of urban legend myths and curses, I'll stick with the thought that they shouldn't remake the film because the original still holds up as a great film today.....

[shootemindehead]

Oh no thanks...

Sam Raimi is rubbish. This will be a fat disaster.

Why does Holly weird keep doing this?

[krisvds]

Come on, Raimi aint rubbish! The guy did Evil Dead and Darkman. I even liked Drag me to Hell a lot.
That being said it does seem kinda pointless to remake a film that, as Bassman said, still holds up as a great film today. Then again, I said the exact same thing about the 30ies King Kong back when Jakson was doing his version. I still do.

[Neil]

Sam Raimi is rubbish.
Here we go again... More or less rubbish than James Cameron?

[bassman]

I'm curious as to what MZ will have to say about this. IIRC, he's only just recently seen the original, so I'm curious to hear if a "fresh" pair of eyes thinks it's worth a remake. Most of us probably think the original holds up phenomenally, but that opinion could be biased because we've been watching it for so many years....

[MinionZombie]

I'm curious as to what MZ will have to say about this. IIRC, he's only just recently seen the original, so I'm curious to hear if a "fresh" pair of eyes thinks it's worth a remake. Most of us probably think the original holds up phenomenally, but that opinion could be biased because we've been watching it for so many years....

My ears were burning, so I'm happy to oblige. :D

I saw Poltergeist for the first time last year - and I friggin loved it - I don't see much point in remaking it. The original is already spot on, it's highly likely therefore that a remake will be perfunctory at best. One thing is for sure - it won't be better than the original. No chance, no how.

I wish they'd remake movies that didn't work the first time around. Drive-In Massacre is awful, but the nostalgia factor of drive-in movie-viewing combined with a grotty slasher flick would work well in this day and age. It'd be relatively cheap to make and if you put some effort in, you could actually make a pretty good flick. Why do they insist on remaking classics? You simply cannot beat it - why bother at all? It's not even like it's a story that can be transposed from one era to the next for a new take - or make a follow-up that ties-in to the original, but in a new era (for the latter, see Wall Street 2 as an example).

Put simply - no need. Put out an extras-loaded blu-ray of the original (not the DVD cut'n'shut Blu that never got over here) - and re-release it in cinemas for the fans - instead. The 25th Anniversary "Special Edition" DVD is a piss-take.

[shootemindehead]

Nah, sorry lads. I understand some toes are being stepped on here. But, no, he's rubbish.

'The Evil Dead' is only note worthy because of its cult status, brought on largely because of its video nasty days. It's ok, but nothing special. I prefer 'The Evil Dead II', but only because it's a more accomplished attempt of the first go. But, again, nothing thatgreat. Even so, it's Raimi's best effort. After that, 'A Simple Plan' is worth a look, but nothing to rave about.

'Army of Darkness' was awful.

'Darkman' was terrible.

His 'Spiderman' trilogy sucked (to use an American term)

Everything is else is dross and no doubt, his proposed remake of 'Poltergeist' will be disapointing too.

As for Cameron, at least he has two films that I can actually consider classics.

[Neil]

he's rubbishSorry folks, logic has left the building...

We really need to sort these silly unnecessarily extreme binary views out folks!

Has he directed well? I'd suggest he has?

Has he directed something original? I'd suggest he has?

Has he written something original? I'd suggest he has?

So even if you didn't enjoy any of the resulting products, how can he be deemed "rubbish"? This is just like the nonsense we had with Cameron a couple of weeks ago where he was "$hit"? I'm sorry, but when someone uses terms like "$hit" and "rubbish" about individuals of this calibre - be it that you enjoy their films or not - I'd suggest it pretty much gives everyone the impression the individual's opinion is far from fair and/or considered, so is more of a rant than anything constructive.

-- -------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 PM ----------


My ears were burning, so I'm happy to oblige. :D

I saw Poltergeist for the first time last year - and I friggin loved it - I don't see much point in remaking it. The original is already spot on, it's highly likely therefore that a remake will be perfunctory at best. One thing is for sure - it won't be better than the original. No chance, no how.

I wish they'd remake movies that didn't work the first time around. Drive-In Massacre is awful, but the nostalgia factor of drive-in movie-viewing combined with a grotty slasher flick would work well in this day and age. It'd be relatively cheap to make and if you put some effort in, you could actually make a pretty good flick. Why do they insist on remaking classics? You simply cannot beat it - why bother at all? It's not even like it's a story that can be transposed from one era to the next for a new take - or make a follow-up that ties-in to the original, but in a new era (for the latter, see Wall Street 2 as an example).

Put simply - no need. Put out an extras-loaded blu-ray of the original (not the DVD cut'n'shut Blu that never got over here) - and re-release it in cinemas for the fans - instead. The 25th Anniversary "Special Edition" DVD is a piss-take.

The original is a classic, and I do fear no matter how good a remake turns out, it will simply not be comparible to the orginal as it simply got there first!

None-the-less, if it's good I'll be tempted to see it...

[AcesandEights]

Come on, Raimi aint rubbish!

^ I agree! Though I may lump some of my Raimi likes squarely in the "Guilty Pleasure" file, I can't say he is a horrible director.

[shootemindehead]

Sorry folks, logic has left the building...

We really need to sort these silly unnecessarily extreme binary views out folks!

Has he directed well? I'd suggest he has?

Has he directed something original? I'd suggest he has?

Has he written something original? I'd suggest he has?

So even if you didn't enjoy any of the resulting products, how can he be deemed "rubbish"? This is just like the nonsense we had with Cameron a couple of weeks ago where he was "$hit"? I'm sorry, but when someone uses terms like "$hit" and "rubbish" about individuals of this calibre - be it that you enjoy their films or not - I'd suggest it pretty much gives everyone the impression the individual's opinion is far from fair and/or considered, so is more of a rant than anything constructive

You need to unknot your knickers Neil.

First of all, logic has not "left the building", it's a matter of opinion...and opinion based on having watched every one of his pictures, bar his very early efforts before 'The Evil Dead'. Some of which have been multiple affairs. To me, his final products have left a lot to be desired. I don't find them particularly enjoyable, or THAT well made. 'The Evil Dead' can get a pass (somewhat), because he did pump anything and everything into it. However, the finished article is FAR from a great, or even good film and it only enjoys its elevated position amongst horror movies fans because of its troubled and dodgy history. I like 'The Evil Dead II' because of Bruce Campbell primarilly. But, it's essentially a retread of the first film, so after one has seen the first one, the second one is inevitably a letdown.

Also, just because somebody has "directed something original" doesn't make him or her a good director. I also don't agree that he has directed particularly well, either.

Again, it's a matter of opinion. Opinion based on actually viewing his material. I can't abandon those opinions, just because they might be unpopular with some people. I don't particularly rate Cameron for much of his output (I didn't call him shit though) and I see the vast majority of Raimi's output as rubbish. Highly disapointing, could have been much better and not of that high a calibre.

...and I have no doubt WHATSOEVER, based on his previous material, that his proposed remake of 'Poltergeist' will be rubbish. ;)

Of course, if it turns out to be good, then I'll glady eat my hat.

I think my headgear is quite safe though. :p

[Neil]

You need to unknot your knickers Neil.

First of all, logic has not "left the building", it's a matter of opinion...and opinion based on having watched every one of his pictures, bar his very early efforts before 'The Evil Dead'. Some of which have been multiple affairs. To me, his final products have left a lot to be desired. I don't find them particularly enjoyable, or THAT well made. 'The Evil Dead' can get a pass (somewhat), because he did pump anything and everything into it. However, the finished article is FAR from a great, or even good film and it only enjoys its elevated position amongst horror movies fans because of its troubled and dodgy history. I like 'The Evil Dead II' because of Bruce Campbell primarilly. But, it's essentially a retread of the first film, so after one has seen the first one, the second one is inevitably a letdown.

Also, just because somebody has "directed something original" doesn't make him or her a good director. I also don't agree that he has directed particularly well, either.

Again, it's a matter of opinion. Opinion based on actually viewing his material. I can't abandon those opinions, just because they might be unpopular with some people. I don't particularly rate Cameron for much of his output (I didn't call him shit though) and I see the vast majority of Raimi's output as rubbish. Highly disapointing, could have been much better and not of that high a calibre.

...and I have no doubt WHATSOEVER, based on his previous material, that his proposed remake of 'Poltergeist' will be rubbish. ;)

Of course, if it turns out to be good, then I'll glady eat my hat.

I think my headgear is quite safe though. :p


My knickers are on perfectly thank you - Anyone who proclaims the director of Spiderman 1 or 2 as rubbish has a very skewed reference point IMHO. By all means proclaim you don't like the films, that you don't like the interpretation of the superhero, or the lead actor, or what ever you like. But the films were solidly made and pretty lovingly crafted. If you can't see that or appreciate that, then I'd again suggest you're being incredibly unfair.

You might have settled for questionable descriptions for Raimi of "average" or "over rated", but nope, you went with "rubbish". And I'd suggest you chose that word not because you felt it was fair, but solely for effect.

[MoonSylver]

Sorry folks, logic has left the building...

We really need to sort these silly unnecessarily extreme binary views out folks!

Has he directed well? I'd suggest he has?

Has he directed something original? I'd suggest he has?

Has he written something original? I'd suggest he has?

So even if you didn't enjoy any of the resulting products, how can he be deemed "rubbish"? This is just like the nonsense we had with Cameron a couple of weeks ago where he was "$hit"? I'm sorry, but when someone uses terms like "$hit" and "rubbish" about individuals of this calibre - be it that you enjoy their films or not - I'd suggest it pretty much gives everyone the impression the individual's opinion is far from fair and/or considered, so is more of a rant than anything constructive.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8gp5e261XDI/R1CuTNjlKPI/AAAAAAAAACI/snyH9t1X_L8/s1600-R/chinatown22.jpg

"Forget about it Neil. It's Shootem."

:lol:

[shootemindehead]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bpdWsOrotV0/SwQtCFqlO_I/AAAAAAAABMc/vsTmaQEA5ck/s1600/roman+polanski+chinatown+1.jpg

"You're a very nosy fellow, kitty cat. Huh? You know what happens to nosy fellows..."

[Rumsfeld]

Everyone makes mistakes, even Cameron. I feel like judging someone on their worst project rather than looking at their career as a whole is unfair, unless that project was the most important project in their existence.

[shootemindehead]

I agree. There's always a dud in someones catalogue and it would be wholly unfair to judge based on the odd dud. To look at 'Eyes Wide Shut' and damn Kubrick would be silly, given the offset of '2001'. 'The Shining' and his masterpiece, 'Paths of Glory'. But, likewise, to look at an average, or decent effort and elevate, is equally silly. Looking over Raimi's output, I don't see anything to actually be THAT excited about. Perhaps, calling him "rubbish" is using a colloquialism that may be a little unfair and I didn't mean to upset Neil or anyone here. But, it's my opinion that Raimi isn't that good a director and it's certainly not an opinion that I will withdraw from, because it's based on his past output.

[Sammich]

The thing with Cameron is that he should stick to making movies and playing with submarines instead of self-appointing himself spokesman for hyped causes dujour like global warming. First he went around calling people insulting names who didn't buy into the whole anthropogenic global warming fad. Then he made a complete ass out of himself after challenging anyone to a AGW debate only to back out at the last minute using pathetic excuses when actual scientists took him up on his offer.

[acealive1]

:rockbrow:

Wait.....so because the girl that played the oldest daughter was strangled to death by her deranged boyfriend and the girl the played the youngest daughter died of medical reasons, THAT is why you think they shouldn't remake the film???

Instead of urban legend myths and curses, I'll stick with the thought that they shouldn't remake the film because the original still holds up as a great film today.....




yes because thats all that happened........cmon dude.....people were nearly killed in all three films trying to make them. it was just something they shouldnt have been doing. PERIOD.

[rongravy]

There's no way they could ever top the part of the movie where the guy tears his face off, or the chicken leg with maggots.
Grody to the max!!!

[bassman]

yes because thats all that happened........cmon dude.....people were nearly killed in all three films trying to make them. it was just something they shouldnt have been doing. PERIOD.

People nearly die or DO die during every film. It's part of life. People die everyday. Don't buy into the marketing hoopla that surrounds supernatural films like this. They've done it for them all. Exorcist, Omen, Poltergeist, the list goes on and on. It's just to build publicity and pull in any suckers that may believe it...

[Rancid Carcass]

People nearly die or DO die during every film.

Yeah, if you're making a film and people aren't dying then you're not doing it right! :elol:

[MikePizzoff]

Yeah, if you're making a film and people aren't dying then you're not doing it right! :elol:

Maybe I should drop out of film school...

[krisvds]

yes because thats all that happened........cmon dude.....people were nearly killed in all three films trying to make them. it was just something they shouldnt have been doing. PERIOD.

C'mon. That's hardly any evidence of any paranormal shenanigans going on? That shit's not real man.
BTW why did the angry ghosts pick poltergeist and not the paranormal (yawn) activity series?

Speaking of haunted house movies; have any of you guys seen Amityville 2 by that Italian spaghetti western director (too lazy to look up his name now)? It's a lot of fun and way better than the stale first one.

[Mike70]

Maybe I should drop out of film school...

not unless you're planning on doing something on film with that quarter stick of dynamite that you usually save for halloween. :lol:

[Rumsfeld]

Bassman knows what he is talking about. He HAS to be in marketing.

[Mike70]

yes because thats all that happened........cmon dude.....people were nearly killed in all three films trying to make them. it was just something they shouldnt have been doing. PERIOD.

dude, there's no such thing as curses. bad stuff happens to people all the time. the little girl in the first movie was already suffering from an incredibly severe case of Krohn's disease. that's what she died from, complications due to her medical condition, not a curse.

this all reminds me of when i lived in the northeast and used to go hiking way off the beaten path in the Adirondacks and in Maine (which you should NEVER attempt unless you are highly experienced in using topographical maps and a compass) one of my friends nearly shat himself in Maine once because he was sure he was hearing a Wendigo- all because we had been told stories about the particular valley we were going into, that it was haunted and was a place not even the indians would dare venture into. it was a frakin' coyote and i never let him live it down. the power of suggestion and the psychological principal of closure are extremely powerful.

[LouCipherr]

Don't buy into the marketing hoopla that surrounds supernatural films like this. They've done it for them all. Exorcist, Omen, Poltergeist, the list goes on and on. It's just to build publicity and pull in any suckers that may believe it...

Kinda like this (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?19808-V-H-S-(film)-quot-it-made-audiences-SICK-quot), right? ;)


the little girl in the first movie was already suffering from an incredibly severe case of Krohn's disease. that's what she died from, complications due to her medical condition, not a curse.

Actually, I believe the Crohn's disease was a misdiagnosis by her doctors. She actually died from 'septic shock' a/k/a TSS (Toxic Shock Syndrome). ;)

[Mike70]

Kinda like this (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?19808-V-H-S-(film)-quot-it-made-audiences-SICK-quot), right? ;)



Actually, I believe the Crohn's disease was a misdiagnosis by her doctors. She actually died from 'septic shock' a/k/a TSS (Toxic Shock Syndrome). ;)

yep, you're right my bad. and it's Crohn's not Krohn's. that's what i get for knowing other languages that hate the letter C.

[LouCipherr]

yep, you're right my bad.

It's all good, man. I thought the same thing for years myself until someone said "ummm, no." :lol:


"This post was brought to you by the letter C and the ghosts in your television." :D

[Mike70]

It's all good, man. I thought the same thing for years myself until someone said "ummm, no." :lol:


"This post was brought to you by the letter C and the ghosts in your television." :D

you forgot to mention an asinine friend who thought he heard a wendigo. :lol: one of the funniest moments of my entire life, laughed until i quite literally cried.

[Rumsfeld]

Aren't we missing King Tut's curse. That was legitimate. And remember how all the French soldiers in 1798 opened up the tombs of other pharohs and they all die..... oh wait, never mind.

[Mike70]

Aren't we missing King Tut's curse. That was legitimate. And remember how all the French soldiers in 1798 opened up the tombs of other pharohs and they all die..... oh wait, never mind.

:lol: are you serious?? i hope not. in 1789 the "curse of the pharohs" wasn't even known about. Champollion didn't decipher the ancient heiratic language until 1822. before then NO ONE on planet earth was left who had any idea what the ancient egyptian writings even said.

even if this story about french soldiers is true, they were more likely killed by disease or if they happened to be standing right in front of a tomb sealed for thousands of years, they were probably killed by asphyxiation.

i think we all forget that people died quite easily before Alexander Fleming's discovery of anti-biotics.

as for king tut's curse that's utter bullshit. Carnarvon died from blood poisoning. infections were commonly fatal, even in the 20s. Howard Carter lived to be 64 and died in 1939. of the 58 people present when the tomb was opened, only 8 of them died with 12 years of the opening. the remaining 50 lived normal lives and died of natural causes. the curse is more likely due to the presence of bacteria and molds in ancient tombs and the fact that gases like ammonia and hydrogen sulfide build up in them over the centuries, both of which are toxic.

my ex-wife is a classical archaeologist who has worked at Troy and several other places in Greece and Turkey and i am a trained classical historian (late Roman Republic being my specialty). the one thing we know now that they didn't know in 1922 and certainly not in 1789, is that you do not stand in front of anything that that has been sealed for centuries when it is first opened. hydrogen sulfide can kill you immediately if the concentration is high enough.

[MoonSylver]

:lol: are you serious?? i hope not. in 1789 the "curse of the pharohs" wasn't even known about. Champollion didn't decipher the ancient heiratic language until 1822. before then NO ONE on planet earth was left who had any idea what the ancient egyptian writings even said.

even if this story about french soldiers is true, they were more likely killed by disease or if they happened to be standing right in front of a tomb sealed for thousands of years, they were probably killed by asphyxiation.

i think we all forget that people died quite easily before Alexander Fleming's discovery of anti-biotics.

as for king tut's curse that's utter bullshit. Carnarvon died from blood poisoning. infections were commonly fatal, even in the 20s. Howard Carter lived to be 64 and died in 1939. of the 58 people present when the tomb was opened, only 8 of them died with 12 years of the opening. the remaining 50 lived normal lives and died of natural causes. the curse is more likely due to the presence of bacteria and molds in ancient tombs and the fact that gases like ammonia and hydrogen sulfide build up in them over the centuries, both of which are toxic.

my ex-wife is a classical archaeologist who has worked at Troy and several other places in Greece and Turkey and i am a trained classical historian (late Roman Republic being my specialty). the one thing we know now that they didn't know in 1922 and certainly not in 1789, is that you do not stand in front of anything that that has been sealed for centuries when it is first opened. hydrogen sulfide can kill you immediately if the concentration is high enough.

*pffft* You and your REASON & LOGIC getting in the way of baseless superstition. You're gonna get someone kilt up in heah. Poltergeist, Curse of Superman, all true. Even Tut's curse. I have evidence that is too horrifying to show, but go ahead & look if you don't believe me:

http://theuniblog.evilspacerobot.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/cursed.gif

You were warned. :( ;)

[Rumsfeld]

Mike70,

I was kidding. I know none of what I said was true. Although I'm sure there are people who do believe it.

[Neil]

http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3233819/exclusive-poltergeist-to-film-this-september-first-details/

Filming to start in September...


We just received inside Intel that Gil Kenan has officially begun casting his vision of Poltergeist.

He will begin shooting the movie as soon as September in Toronto, Canada.

In exclusive first details, the new version follows Eric Bowen and his family who, after he loses his job, relocate to a new town to start anew. His daughter, Madison, is abducted, making him truly understand what’s important in life: family. In the new version, Eric’s wife, Amy, can communicate with the dead.

[Neil]

13 months to go - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/65749

[MinionZombie]

I just can't imagine this being much cop really. The original is so good and so iconic. What's the point? Sure, it'd be nice if it turns out to be a good flick - but the success rate of remakes (creatively speaking) is pretty low in general.

[wayzim]

http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3233819/exclusive-poltergeist-to-film-this-september-first-details/

Filming to start in September...

I can't begin to express how much I don't care; thus I'm posting to a thread about a remake I don't care about seeing to just say that - well - I don't care ... so there. Did you get all that? Because I think I got distracted about halfway through. :bored:

As for the original film, I'd always thought it was a scary movie designed for people who really don't like being scared. On the plus side, Jo Beth Williams? Nice. :thumbsup:

Wayne Z.

[Neil]

http://media.aintitcool.com/media/uploads/2015/harry/poltergeist_1sht_vera%5B1%5D_large.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

oop0gkA2H-Y

[bassman]

You seem to have accidentally posted the short teaser for the release of the trailer(ugh those are so ridiculous...). The full trailer is now available:

JdnsO_e5pDs

I love Sam Rockwell, but that trailer just screams "whats the point?!?". Most of it looks like a direct copy of the original only with new effects and a certain stench of recent tween horror cash-grabs. I'll no doubt see it eventually, mainly because of Rockwell, but this trailer doesn't fill me with any confidence.

I would have much preferred an anniversary re-release of Hooper's(or Speilberg's, depending on how you look at it) original.....

[Neil]

Just looks cheap scares and silly TBH :(

[MinionZombie]

Likewise a fan of Sam Rockwell, but yeah, this looks ... *sigh* ... what's the point?

I'll watch it when it limps on to Sky Movies probably.

[rongravy]

Horrible, lifeless version of a classic. I saw something on Yahoo about how people were saying this was better than the original.
They lied. I'd rather eat shards of glass.
They mention the original happening, so I guess it was more a reboot with nods.
I'm just glad I didn't pay for it, or spend an evening on it, like I'd planned a few weeks or so back.
There's no way Sam Rockwell can be proud of this turd.

[shootemindehead]

Rockwell must be able to command scripts at this stage as he's been lauded for a lot of his roles. So, it's a wonder why he would give this a go. I suppose it's easy money.

None of the recent remakes of 70's/80's "classics" have been any use, with the exception of 'The Crazies'. Thing is though, they have all made money at the B.O. even awful tripe like 'A Nightmare on Elm Street'.