I guess they are remaking Pet Sematary now [Archive]

JDP

02-Jun-2018, 05:53 PM

Another remake? Why can't things just rest in peace?

https://media0.giphy.com/media/26uflYzLHaN0zww8w/giphy.gif

Specially when considering that the original movie is just fine "as is". Remakes should mostly be relegated to movies that could benefit from one because the original was not done very well or could in fact be improved. A remake of John Carpenter's The Thing would be pointless, for example, since it is perfectly fine "as is". No remake will ever surpass it, no matter how well-made. On the other hand, a movie like Hell of the Living Dead, as entertaining as it is, could be easily improved and benefit from a remake (just taking out a lot of the superfluous stock-footage that Mattei kept sloppily inserting all over the place would be enough to improve it.)

bassman

02-Jun-2018, 09:23 PM

beat_truck

02-Jun-2018, 11:06 PM

I watched it not that long ago, and thought it held up just fine. Even if it hadn't, I'd still rather see a so-so original than an imitation.

Sorry if I can't be optimistic about a remake, but historically at least 90% of them turn out to be complete shit.

shootemindehead

03-Jun-2018, 09:40 AM

Mushetti’s new adaptation of “IT” turned out quite well, so I’m open to other attempts.

As Ned pointed out, I don’t see it so much as a remake if they’re adapting a book.

Um...it did and it didn't, for me.

As an adaptation of 'It', it's terrible. As a film about a scary clown that haunts some 80's kids, it's pretty good, even if the scares are the worst type of loud "BOO" stuff. They overplay their hand too much in that film I think, when the subtler approach would have been better. A case in point being the garage scene where the kids are watching photos projected onto the wall. The scare ending was rubbish. Ruined the scene entirely.

MinionZombie

03-Jun-2018, 10:28 AM

Specially when considering that the original movie is just fine "as is". Remakes should mostly be relegated to movies that could benefit from one because the original was not done very well or could in fact be improved. A remake of John Carpenter's The Thing would be pointless, for example, since it is perfectly fine "as is". No remake will ever surpass it, no matter how well-made. On the other hand, a movie like Hell of the Living Dead, as entertaining as it is, could be easily improved and benefit from a remake (just taking out a lot of the superfluous stock-footage that Mattei kept sloppily inserting all over the place would be enough to improve it.)

Yeah, I've always thought that there are various 'not so good' (or downright shite) movies out there that need to be remade. Why remake something that was nailed perfectly the first time around, it's a fool's errand?

While we've had some pretty decent remakes, we've always had a load of garbage that craps all over the original and ends up being decided inferior/painful to watch.

I've always looked at films like Drive-In Massacre and thought that a really good remake would be in order. You could set it in the 70s drive-in scene, get some solid gore set pieces slotted in there, and generally do a damn sight better job at it.

As you say, Hell of the Living Dead is a sloppy-ass shit show of a movie. I kinda like it generally, but boy, is it a mess! :lol:

As for Pet Sematary? If you're going back to the original book then it's a new adaptation more than a movie remake. JC had a few nods to the 1950s "The Thing From Another World" in his 1982 "The Thing", but primarily it was all about going back to the source material because a 6ft+ tall vegetable-looking man isn't what Campbell was going for. :p

beat_truck

03-Jun-2018, 10:48 AM

Yeah, I've always thought that there are various 'not so good' (or downright shite) movies out there that need to be remade. Why remake something that was nailed perfectly the first time around, it's a fool's errand?

It's likely all about the money. I'm sure it's easier and more profitable to cash in on a popular, well liked movie than an unpopular or just plain bad one.

bassman

03-Jun-2018, 02:42 PM

It’s funny how quickly everyone has pretty much forgotten the horrible The Thing remake/prequel from several years back and go back to talking about Carpenter’s film as if that new one never happened...

- - - Updated - - -

Um...it did and it didn't, for me.

As an adaptation of 'It', it's terrible. As a film about a scary clown that haunts some 80's kids, it's pretty good, even if the scares are the worst type of loud "BOO" stuff. They overplay their hand too much in that film I think, when the subtler approach would have been better. A case in point being the garage scene where the kids are watching photos projected onto the wall. The scare ending was rubbish. Ruined the scene entirely.

Hrmm, I’ll have to read the book again. It’s been a long time since I gave it a read but I seemed to feel like the movie did a pretty good job with the first half.

MinionZombie

03-Jun-2018, 04:19 PM

It's likely all about the money. I'm sure it's easier and more profitable to cash in on a popular, well liked movie than an unpopular or just plain bad one.

Well aye, that's what's going on - but it so rarely succeeds on a creative level and is kinda haphazard on a financial level as well.

Ideally they'd remake movies that didn't work. That's what they used to do way back when - e.g. The Maltese Falcon starring Humphrey Bogart - that wasn't the first version of that flick that they made. They tried once or twice before succeeding.

It’s funny how quickly everyone has pretty much forgotten the horrible The Thing remake/prequel from several years back and go back to talking about Carpenter’s film as if that new one never happened...

Yep, the 2011 pre-make was a turd. The only time I heard it brought up (just the other day in fact) is to say how naff it is.

One of the biggest problems was the filmmakers didn't understand the organism at all. The entire point of it is to be sneaky and hidden - but almost immediately it's smashing the joint up with loads of noise. :rolleyes: It only gets aggro when there is no other option.

There was really no need to make the movie as we knew what ultimately happened to that camp in JC's movie. The only interesting thing about it is seeing how accurate or inaccurate they were with placing what we saw in JC's movie into this one (e.g. the axe in the door).

But yeah, the 2011 film ... yeesh. Remember that featurette they put online boasting about the practical effects? Yeah, where did those go on-screen? Oh yeah, they were coated in layers of CGI thus rendering them entirely pointless. It wasn't horror for the most part - it became an action movie. :rolleyes:

JDP

03-Jun-2018, 11:07 PM

You might be remembering Pet Sematary fondly with the passage of time, but if you strip away your history with the film, it’s exactly one of those movies you referenced that could be improved upon. I gave it a watch recently and it has not held up very well at all.

What's wrong about it? Seems fine to me. It even had Fred Gwynne ("Herman Munster") in it! Now, how are you gonna top that one???

- - - Updated - - -

It’s funny how quickly everyone has pretty much forgotten the horrible The Thing remake/prequel from several years back and go back to talking about Carpenter’s film as if that new one never happened...

Yes, it wasn't anywhere even near in the same league as John Carpenter's movie, but that was a prequel, though, it never billed itself as a "remake". It's supposed to be telling us what happened at the Norwegian base before the events we see at the American base in John Carpenter's movie.

Trying to remake a movie like John Carpenter's The Thing is simply a no-no if for no other reason than you simply will never be able to get a cast that beats or equals the original. Even for just that alone, any attempt at a remake will suck. The actors and their performances are so deeply ingrained in the fans' psyche that seeing any other face playing MacReady, Garry, Windows, Palmer, Childs, Blair, etc. will result in an automatic subconscious rejection.

bassman

04-Jun-2018, 12:36 AM

JDP

04-Jun-2018, 12:40 AM

It was basically a remake without remaking the same story. They used the Norwegian camp as the basis of the story, but it was clear that they were trying to coast on the good reputation of Carpenter’s film. Even using the exact same title.

If it doesn't have the same story or at least its basics, then it cannot be a "remake". The movie is clearly intended as a prequel, so the filmmakers never denied the intentional connection to Carpenter's movie.

bassman

04-Jun-2018, 12:44 AM

It’s not remake in the direct sense of the word, but the intentions behind it were exactly the same as those behind remakes.

Regardless, they missed the target...

JDP

04-Jun-2018, 12:52 AM

It’s not remake in the direct sense of the word, but the intentions behind it were exactly the same as those behind remakes.

That would be the case if it happened at the American base, and it involved those characters, but I fail to see how does this apply to that movie. The cast of (human) characters is different (only the two Norwegians killed at the American base are also part of the first movie), the location where the action takes place is not the same (Norwegian base, not American base.) The only thing in common between both movies is... The Thing! (pun fully intended)

bassman

04-Jun-2018, 01:04 AM

Yeah. I’m well aware of the character and location differences. As I said, it’s more of the intentions behind the film. I like MZ’s term, “premake”. That’s fitting.

ProfessorChaos

04-Jun-2018, 05:44 AM

pet semetary is probably one of my all-time favorite books. i started re-reading it a while back, but since i've last read it, i've became a father to an adorable little lad, had to put it down. it's a great story, but downright horrifying to read as a parent. perhaps i'll give it another go sometime soon.

as for the remake, i'm gonna keep my expectations low as hell, but given the state of the film industry in 2018, i'm sure it'll be a let-down full of jump-scares and loud noises. and for the record, my wife and i both thought the 2017 version of IT was completely over-rated and pretty forgettable.

EvilNed

04-Jun-2018, 08:36 AM

as for the remake, i'm gonna keep my expectations low as hell, but given the state of the film industry in 2018, i'm sure it'll be a let-down full of jump-scares and loud noises. and for the record, my wife and i both thought the 2017 version of IT was completely over-rated and pretty forgettable.

I thought the film really nailed the kids and their world. However the way the monster was presented was just loud and in your face. There was no creeping feeling of dread at all, just loud noises and him coming at you with thunderous music blasting at high volume.

MinionZombie

04-Jun-2018, 09:28 AM

Yeah. I’m well aware of the character and location differences. As I said, it’s more of the intentions behind the film. I like MZ’s term, “premake”. That’s fitting.

Yeah, we're not being literal, JDP, we're talking to all intents and purposes. They were at least aware of the 'shame' of horror remakes as well as the fans' awareness of how cynical it all is, but they couldn't resist themselves (hence the same exact title ... which in itself makes zero sense ... shoulda been something like The Thing: Outpost somethingorother) ... as I said before: pre-make. It's technically a different story, but they're playing in almost the same sandbox as JC's movie (for some scenes, certainly).

Basically, it was a way for the studio to remake The Thing without actually remaking it and upsetting the fans in the process. The prequel idea with the Norwegian camp gave them enough of a loophole, but they still fucked it up. Indeed, many prequels are kinda pointless as you know where people end up - I've no idea why we need a prequel to The Purge, for instance, as we've already had three of them and know how it all climaxed in the third movie. It seems as if much of what they're aiming to say in the Purge prequel has already been said in previous movies in the franchise. A fourth movie detailing the dismantling (and certain resistance) of the Purge itself might have been more interesting ... maybe.

shootemindehead

05-Jun-2018, 06:37 AM

I must be the only person on the planet that didn't mind the 2011 Thing.

EvilNed

05-Jun-2018, 08:02 AM

I must be the only person on the planet that didn't mind the 2011 Thing.

Did you know they shot all the gore with practical effects and then replaced them with CGI in post because the studio executives thought it looked too "80's"?

By the way, I haven't seen it.

shootemindehead

05-Jun-2018, 09:26 AM

beat_truck

05-Jun-2018, 09:29 AM

I haven't seen the '11 version, and it sounds like I don't need to bother.

The JC remake was decent from what I remember, but I only saw it once many years ago. It might be time to rewatch it, and I think I actually own a copy. I thought the original '50s The Thing From Another World was pretty decent for it's time, too.

MinionZombie

05-Jun-2018, 09:48 AM

I must be the only person on the planet that didn't mind the 2011 Thing.

:stunned:

And coming from the forum's harshest movie critic! :D

Yeh, I know all about the making of it. BTW, I don't think it had anything to do with looking too 80's. The studio stepped in and basically said the animatronics looked shite.

It's far from being a great film, though. Servicable, nothing more.

I recall seeing some footage of the scene where the two bodies are fused together and the animatronics did look a bit shit - they were also only partial effects (the limbs weren't complete, for example, so some of it was always intended to be done in post production).

What they should have done with that scene was figure out some way to have two stunt performers inside a physical 'suit' of some sort with them fused together and trying to pull apart or join together (depending on who is playing which part), and that would have looked better that the weird robot thing they attempted.

The JC remake was decent from what I remember, but I only saw it once many years ago. It might be time to rewatch it, and I think I actually own a copy. I thought the original '50s The Thing From Another World was pretty decent for it's time, too.

Decent? *faints* It's a hell of a lot more than that, beat, it's a cinematic landmark. :)

EvilNed

05-Jun-2018, 10:11 AM

Yeh, I know all about the making of it. BTW, I don't think it had anything to do with looking too 80's. The studio stepped in and basically said the animatronics looked shite.

It's far from being a great film, though. Servicable, nothing more.

They did release some behind the footage of the film which received high acclaim for it's high quality practical effects. It's probably still around on Youtube somewhere.
I can't 100% vouch for the 80's comment tho, but I don't think the practical effects were shit.

MinionZombie

05-Jun-2018, 04:30 PM

They did release some behind the footage of the film which received high acclaim for it's high quality practical effects. It's probably still around on Youtube somewhere.
I can't 100% vouch for the 80's comment tho, but I don't think the practical effects were shit.

JyOu3j7CtoE

Comparison and analysis - the director himself made the "80s" comment, despite being a fan of practical effects and the original intentions to go practical for the movie. Seems that, perhaps, the studio was more responsible for pushing for CGI.

There's also more BTS footage here:

fBzpT7VmSaU

Looking at some of this, particularly at the blending of two bodies gag, that Tom Savini's school of 'pulling off a magic trick' - the whole 'what does the audience need to see and therefore what does the effects team have to create' philosophy seems to have been utterly forgotten about. The choice of shots and the selection of effects techniques seems a bit ill-considered, might you say?

shootemindehead

05-Jun-2018, 05:03 PM

What they should have done...

What they should have done was give Rob Bottin any amount of money he wanted to come out of "retirement" and helm the effects crew.

They did release some behind the footage of the film which received high acclaim for it's high quality practical effects. It's probably still around on Youtube somewhere.
I can't 100% vouch for the 80's comment tho, but I don't think the practical effects were shit.

Well, while they might not have been shit, they weren't working, which is what matters at the end of the day.

There was a making of on the DVD I remember watching and the filmakers said they had the best intentions of doing the effects from a practical standpoint and it was one of their main goals. But, time, money and studio patience were running out and the decision to basically rotoscope CGI overlays onto the practical stuff that was completed had to be taken, if they were going to meet their deadlines.

Personally, I would have kept the animatronics and shot them in shadow, like a thousand other directors did before them. Show just enough and let the audience fill in the rest. Of course, this would have probably coincided even less with fans of the original, which boasted very in your face effects both at then time and now. Bottin's work still stands up today really well and it doesn't hide from the audience.

I spose it's just one of those decisions that have to be made during the making of a movie.

beat_truck

05-Jun-2018, 07:02 PM

Decent? *faints* It's a hell of a lot more than that, beat, it's a cinematic landmark. :)
So I keep hearing.
It just didn't do much for me at the time, but that was years ago. I might love it this time around. There have been a lot of movies that I wasn't crazy about until I watched them more than once.

bassman

05-Jun-2018, 07:06 PM

When I was younger I just found it to be a scary movie. It wasn’t until I gave it a watch as an adult that I truly fell in love with it. It’s now one of my top horror films of all time.

MinionZombie

06-Jun-2018, 10:01 AM

Personally, I would have kept the animatronics and shot them in shadow, like a thousand other directors did before them. Show just enough and let the audience fill in the rest. Of course, this would have probably coincided even less with fans of the original, which boasted very in your face effects both at then time and now. Bottin's work still stands up today really well and it doesn't hide from the audience.

I feel the lighting in JC's was much better. Some of those scenes in the pre-make are in such brash and clear lighting, while in JC's movie even when things are 'in your face' there's still much more interesting lighting going on that helps hide a few things, or give a better 'texture' to the practical materials on-screen. Some scenes are shot much murkier, or with roaming light (e.g. the dogs scene, or the 'two heads are better than one' scene during the blood test sequence).

Animatronics are a tricky thing. You've got to only ask so much of them and keep things much simpler as, it seems, you can't get too complicated with the movements otherwise you end up with a 'herky jerky' look. Sometimes animatronics can be excellent though and the preferred choice, but you've got to be very careful about how and when you deploy them.

So I keep hearing.
It just didn't do much for me at the time, but that was years ago. I might love it this time around. There have been a lot of movies that I wasn't crazy about until I watched them more than once.

When I was younger I just found it to be a scary movie. It wasn’t until I gave it a watch as an adult that I truly fell in love with it. It’s now one of my top horror films of all time.

I've always loved the movie, but as bassman says, with each viewing over the years I've found more and more to love about it, more and more things that creep me out. It wasn't until I was in my 20s that I recognised just how oppressive the sense of isolation was, and it wasn't until more recently that I picked up one something that was really getting my skin to crawl - there are a handful of scenes in which you see people sitting with their backs turned to an open door. Considering the context of what's going on in the movie, that's really disquieting.

bassman

06-Jun-2018, 03:06 PM

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Andy-Dwyer-Shock.gif

And I’m still learning new things about the movie. Thanks MZ! :lol:

MinionZombie

06-Jun-2018, 05:15 PM

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Andy-Dwyer-Shock.gif

And I’m still learning new things about the movie. Thanks MZ! :lol:

:lol::lol::lol:

Next time you watch it, look out for those moments. It's like a mafia boss sitting with his back not against a wall where he can see who's coming and going. Shivers up my spine, dude. You see, for instance, MacReady with his back turned to an open door, and you see an inversion of that with the infected dog staring at the shadow of one of the men in his room - the dog walks off and the shadow turns, having sensed something was there ... silence ... fade to black. *chills*

Friggin' love that film!

JDP

06-Jun-2018, 05:31 PM

:lol::lol::lol:

Next time you watch it, look out for those moments. It's like a mafia boss sitting with his back not against a wall where he can see who's coming and going. Shivers up my spine, dude. You see, for instance, MacReady with his back turned to an open door, and you see an inversion of that with the infected dog staring at the shadow of one of the men in his room - the dog walks off and the shadow turns, having sensed something was there ... silence ... fade to black. *chills*

Friggin' love that film!

Fuchs also has his back turned on an open door while he is deeply into trying to solve the problem. MacReady then walks in and talks to him. Notice how Fuchs instinctively reaches for the nearby flask with acid or some other dangerous chemical in it. Notice his initial expression of doubt and concern (is MacReady really human? can I really trust him?), and then he starts to talk to him. The movie injects this great sense of paranoia and incertitude as it becomes increasingly unclear who is still human and who is not. This movie does not rest on its laurels regarding gory make-up and special effects, it is also a great psychological horror piece.

MinionZombie

06-Jun-2018, 06:07 PM

Fuchs also has his back turned on an open door while he is deeply into trying to solve the problem. MacReady then walks in and talks to him. Notice how Fuchs instinctively reaches for the nearby flask with acid or some other dangerous chemical in it. Notice his initial expression of doubt and concern (is MacReady really human? can I really trust him?), and then he starts to talk to him. The movie injects this great sense of paranoia and incertitude as it becomes increasingly unclear who is still human and who is not. This movie does not rest on its laurels regarding gory make-up and special effects, it is also a great psychological horror piece.

Damn straight. Couldn't agree more. So many subtle layers of paranoia and isolation strewn throughout the movie ... I think that's what unnerves me the most about the movie.

bassman

06-Jun-2018, 06:10 PM

MZ, did you ever catch Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight? It takes some pretty heavy inspiration from Carpenter’s The Thing...

MinionZombie

06-Jun-2018, 06:39 PM

MZ, did you ever catch Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight? It takes some pretty heavy inspiration from Carpenter’s The Thing...

Aye, I've seen it twice now. Really enjoyed it. There's various 'unused' tracks from Morricone's score to The Thing on there, which are deployed very effectively. Snowbound location, paranoid misfits wondering who is responsible for deaths and where certain people are - delicious!

ProfessorChaos

14-Oct-2018, 06:10 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VllcgXSIJkE

not a big fan of all the "little kids in creepy masks" bit, john lithgow is no fred gwynne, and it looks like it might be saturated in dumb-ass jump scares (like the ninja truck that roars by the house when they first arrive).

....but i guess it looks decent enough and director is claiming it's closer to the book than the original film, hinting things that didn't make the original film might be incuded (fingers crossed for a proper wendigo appearance), and will probably be rated R.

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/pet-sematary-director-expects-r-rating-for-bleeping-dark-adaptation

i'll probably see it without setting my expectations too high and hopefully be surprised.

ProfessorChaos

07-Feb-2019, 09:31 PM

so....not a lot of discussion on this one since i posted the last trailer. here's trailer 2, full of spoilers, including the big unnecessary twist that has pretty much killed my interest in seeing this. oh and more of the stupid "kids in creepy masks" thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAUhcNa4nqE

as for the huge plot change, uh, so much for sticking closer to the source material...not a fan of the update, at all. the woods looked creepy and they even showed a picture of the wendigo in a book at one point, but other than that i'm barely interested in this now.

shootemindehead

07-Feb-2019, 09:45 PM

Yeh Prof. Not feeling that at all.

While the original film has huge flaws and is ripe for an update, I don't think that this is it at all.

I can hear Fred Gwynne in my head..."Sometimes the original is betta..."

bassman

10-Feb-2019, 12:35 PM

I was more on board with the first trailer. Sadly, this appears to be one of those cases where the trailers closer to release start to put me off. I’ve been thinking for years that I need to stop watching trailers after the first one is released....

ProfessorChaos

09-Apr-2019, 03:39 AM

well, i managed to view this over the weekend (for free, no way i was shelling out hard-earned cash for this), and it was about what i expected. while some of the atmosphere and cinematography was better, along with some of the acting, overall, the whole thing fell flat.

the pacing was way too fast, they skimmed over some of the best moments from the source material and original film, there was never any sort of connection or bond between any of the characters, and it just never really felt like it was even worth the time it took to sit down and watch it.

immediately after watching this travesty, i ordered the anniversary edition blu ray of the 89 film (maybe it's a bit of nostalgia on my part, but leaps and bounds superior in my book), and started re-reading the novel. forget the 2019 version, only view it if you don't have to pay for it and have some time to kill on a rainy day or something.

perhaps i went in with the wrong expectations, but i'd probably give it a 3/10....maybe a 4 at best....and seriously, who the fuck thought it was a good idea to reveal the big twist in the trailer? if i'd gone in blind, it may have really got me to sit up in my seat and drawn me in, but talk about letting the cat out of the goddamn bag.

shootemindehead

09-Apr-2019, 06:42 AM

^
I haven't heard anything positive about it from anyone I know.

blind2d

09-Apr-2019, 02:40 PM

Well I'm looking forward to it. :)

blind2d

20-Apr-2019, 02:49 PM

Just went to see it last night, and I can say I don't regret it. :) Was it as good as 'Us'? No. Was it better than the original? Hmm... Maybe? Honestly it's been a long time since I've seen it. Regardless, despite a couple jump scares that I felt were unnecessary, the film had great atmosphere, good pacing, really good acting I thought, (yay John Lithgow!), and pretty much everything you might want from a remake of this classic. I'd give it a 6.5/10, I think.