I'd probably watch but I'm not sure if I would have an easy time not comparing it to the original. I went to the movies to see the original and to this day it is a classic to me. I'm hoping this one will be dope.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhr8d1yxSP8



Since 1976

i think hollywood relies on people who know and have seen the original films to see these remakes. hate watch or whatever, they get their money. i'm hoping people realize if they don't support these remakes by seeing them, the big studios lose a lot of their incentive to make them.

Every studio in Hollywood - ESPECIALLY in the wake of Marvel-mania - is mining the archives and IP deals they already have in place to find things that are franchisable. They're not going to stop until Marvel dows, which, as of current, shouldn't happen until 2020.

Often, that means going back to the vaults and remaking old stuff with hopes of being able to make sequels to the new versions. MGM, cash-strapped and battle-weary as it is, is especially trying to pull this off, with the continuing Bond films, Robocop, and now Poltergeist. The latter two remakes were planned years ago

Hell, there's a Hot Tub Time Machine 2 for a reason. They're also supposed to be remaking Mr. Mom. ANd if they'd figured out the rights issues with Universal, they were allegedly gonna try and remake "Child's Play" as well (the head of MGM in the 80s hated "Child's Play" and sold the sequel rights to Universal).

continuing the bond franchise or making a sequel to a movie without rebooting a franchise is something else from the spirit of what i was talking about, but i take your point. i realize these studios are going to keep rebooting their properties and remaking movies from the not too distant past, but adults going to see them only encourages the studios to keep trying, if not in general then at least with more sequels. you see how often they try with a reboot only not to be able to continue due to poor box office and reviews. i'm hoping the practice cools off separate from marvelmania. movie remakes aren't a new happening, but the rate and how recent the source material are ridiculous.

of remakes, but they're also making less films and therefore pumping the ones they are making harder.

Poltergeist is a 33 year old film (same age as me, yeesh, lol). The Ten Commandments was 33 years old when it was remade in 1956. Granted, a LOT happened in those 33 years cinematically - sound, _stereo_ sound, full color, widescreen - versus between Poltergeist's 33 years - digital special effects, digital film and surround sound - to where it felt like a longer amount of time, but it really wasn't.

MGM remade The Wizard of Oz only 14 years after the previous major film version.

Universal remade their Imitation of Life 25 years after the original, and you'll never find a soul on this planet that thinks they shouldn't've have.

Among smaller, less-known films, remakes of older material were far more frequent, and of course shorts and cartoons recycled plots (and in the case of The Three Stooges, footage) constantly.

i realize when i talk about remakes sometimes i refer to the remade movie as recent or not that old when sometimes these movies are my age or older. what i should be saying is that the studios try to justify these remakes in the name of modernizing of them, but i feel that is a often ruse and a deflection from the truth. a lot of the original stories aren't so long ago that now is very different. some stories already were set in the past or the future, and in still others the time didn't really matter. a lot of remakes are done because of special effects upgrades, and certainly those improve all the time, but it's kind of a flimsy reason to remake a movie instead of making a brand new one, which i'll address further in a moment. finally, a lot of movies are remade just because people don't want to read subtitles, hear foreign accents, or think about other cultures than their own, and that's just sad. i don't really object to the existence of remakes themselves because that would be stupid, there are remakes i like and love and, as you said, some of the most famous and even best movies of all time were themselves remakes, but recent years have felt like a frenzy to bring back still familiar properties in the pursuit of pure capitalism far more than art, and besides the repercussions that has on the kind of movies that are produced and what people see, i feel like the artists behind them (directors, writers, actors, etc.) would be better off using their talents to create and bring to the culture a new work. i know that's a personal judgment, but i think there is more going on than just my idealism and aging.

>but recent years have felt like a frenzy to bring
>back still familiar properties in the pursuit of pure
>capitalism far more than art, and besides the repercussions
>that has on the kind of movies that are produced and what
>people see, i feel like the artists behind them (directors,
>writers, actors, etc.) would be better off using their talents
>to create and bring to the culture a new work. i know that's a
>personal judgment, but i think there is more going on than
>just my idealism and aging.

Yeah, that is a lot of idealism, unfortunately. A lot of remakes are indeed made for commercial purposes - the term "film industry" is not used lightly - but to be clear, most studio films are made for commercial purposes. They aren't put into production unless someone can run numbers that show the studio has a chance of making a profit. However, the people working on these films sometimes have their choices of what to do - they may _want_ to work on the remake, or they may just be doing it for the money. Whatever the reason, studio films are very rarely pure expressions of art (there's too many people and circumstances involved in making a film for it to be a pure art unless we're talking either super-indie productions or "I'm rich enough to do what I want" productions), so it doesn't bother me.

that once the filmgoing public stops making these remakes such a lucrative cash cow for the studios, they will have less incentive to keep pumping them out and go back to the drawing board of new ideas. i think the demand for remakes is more artificial than real. people see them because they are what is getting made, like you said. those who don't know it's a remake or never saw the original would probably enjoy a new movie/story just as much, but it's easier and cheaper for the studios to go back to something that's already been developed and worked before, especially if they own the property. i know it's a vicious cycle, but if we keep seeing these remakes, we help keep the cycle going.


>so it doesn't bother me.

you know, people's motivations for making movies doesn't really bother me either, it's the end *product* that matters most, and there are enough movies to satisfy just about everyone, but it's what you said, http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=436934&mesg_id=436934&listing_type=search#604644 , the ideas that don't get a chance because of these remakes.

They'll avoid seeing the ones they don't want to see like "Lone Ranger" and the like, but it'd take some sort of a campaign to stop audiences from attending each and every film remake that gets released.

The issue is that I don't think people care enough. Hell, Transformers 4 made a billion dollars worldwide. Why _wouldn't_ people go see a remake of "Short Circuit" or something?

and i'm not even as dogmatic about it as may seem. if a studio wants to make a live action pg-13 movie based on a cartoon and toy line, fine. i'm more annoyed by movies that are remakes of other movies, especially ones that have remained popular (in the "collective conscious" and all that). i generally want people to realize their buying power. the people who don't care about remakes now are going to get older and the movies being remade are going to get more recent to them, so eventually they might see it my way and decide to stop going and stop feeding into the market for these things. think about how great (or at least good, cool, or otherwise notable) these movies are that are remade or up for remaking. most of those are originals or at least vastly different from any source material. let's get more great originals is all i'm really sayin'.

Stories have been told and retold since the beginning of time. Before Hollywood. Before movies. Before TV or books or scrolls.

There's like 40 million different versions of Cinderella or Baba Yaga or whatever. Egyptian myths got Greek remakes got Roman reboots. It's artistic tradition to say: Lemme tell you this story my way. People are still trying to find new ways to spin A Midsummers Night Dream or Don Giovanni. But movies gotta be 'left alone' because...

----------------------------------
I have a webcomic: www.watchthecomic.com

My webcomic has a page: www.facebook.com/watchyourheadcomic

retelling a story told in the same medium, especially recently, is supa lazy. these aren't fables passed on by ancestors, these are hollywood movie scripts already produced at least once. let's not conflate the two.

I haven't seen the original for a while, but this trailer was surprisingly good for being a remake of a classic and for being yet another haunted house/paranormal horror movie.

http://twitter.com/phenompyrus

Get Out the Room
http://getouttheroom.podomatic.com
http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/get-out-the-room/id525657893

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liZvgU3baCs

>I haven't seen the original for a while, but this trailer was
>surprisingly good for being a remake of a classic and for
>being yet another haunted house/paranormal horror movie.

Neither have I & these aren't usually my cup o tea but I'm kinda stoked to see what they do w/ this one

And that's despite me finding the paranormal subgenre to be tired and clichéd.



Since 1976

about '08-ish, before their money troubles and eventual bankruptcy.

I'm giving them a conditional pass on the whole paranormal/haunted house thing.

...years ago on one of those lists of movies that were planned to come out in the near future.


Since 1976

sealed it for me

>And that's despite me finding the paranormal subgenre to be
>tired and clichéd.
>
>
>
>Since 1976

Ditto

....which had that scene, I still jumped despite thinking it was going to be a jumpscare. That clown toy may give the original clown toy a run for its money, which is saying something since the original scene had me shook back in the day.



Since 1976

>.... That clown toy may give the
>original clown toy a run for its money, which is saying
>something since the original scene had me shook back in the
>day.

this new clan runs circles around the original

when he shined the light on it and it froze up like it was just movin

gtfoohwtbs lol...


thats scarier than any damn poltergeist

Not sure why since I said it looks like it's gonna give the original a run for its money.



Since 1976

>Not sure why since I said it looks like it's gonna give the
>original a run for its money.
>
>
>
>Since 1976

That new clown toy looks like it might have cats looking at their kids' toys suspiciously once they're home from the theater, lol.

this one looks like it could do the same to me as a grown person, lol.

and doesn't go too far left into "Paranormal Activity" territory.

The strength of the original film was that it felt like a real family and real - almost mundane - people in an extraordinary situation. It was at least twice as scary to me as the average horror movie because it was happening not in some weird gothic, Addamsesque abode, but in a house like ours and on a street like ours. And the characters' reactions to the haunting (and some absolutely excellent direction by Steven Spiel, I mean Tobe Hooper) are what sold it.

Anyone, during their childhood, who's seen a nearby tree right outside of their window at night while it's swaying due to wind or a rainstorm can relate to the creepiness factor of that image. Many of us have looked at that one toy (typically some type of doll or action figure) at night during bedtime that looked like it was going to come alive and attack at any moment. We can relate to how scary that particular piece of imagination felt.

Haunted houses, creepy campgrounds, etc., felt far, far away but a regular family in a regular neighborhood was what most of us were experiencing; thus making them getting haunted all the more creepy.



Since 1976

tonight.

This shit is not that good. I struggled to give a fuck. The OG did a great job of making you care, here it sucks.

Also, while the 3D is good, it's mostly used for jump scares.

------------------------------------------
America from 9:00 on: https://youtu.be/GUwLCQU10KQ

Thanks for the heads up

_______________________
We rationalize dumb shit

I really wanted this to be official tissue. SMH

This post was paid for by the following.

www.twitter.com/13Rose
www.debunkthemyth.org
http://dashaunworld.wordpress.com/
www.mothergreen.com

Remember MJ The Great!
PSN: ThirteenRose

It is bad.

Sam Rockwell actually does a really good job. Maybe better than Craig T. Nelson did. I can only guess that he owed someone a favor or needed the money because his performance is too good for the movie. And...you don't care about the rest of the family. The mom in particular is so poorly written...

Looking back, the original wasn't perfect, but all the mistakes of the original are even worse here. I thought the original was at least spooky until they go crazy with the fx a little over halfway through it. The scariest part of the movie for me? The scene with the chairs.

This however is never scary, and once they really bring in the fx it just keeps getting worse.

I would say skip this one and just wait for Insidious 3. Even if that is bad, it'll probably be better than this.

Never caught any of them.

This post was paid for by the following.

www.twitter.com/13Rose
www.debunkthemyth.org
http://dashaunworld.wordpress.com/
www.mothergreen.com

Remember MJ The Great!
PSN: ThirteenRose

Neither of them are bad.

------------------------------------------
America from 9:00 on: https://youtu.be/GUwLCQU10KQ

The first was really good.

I probably liked the second more than bwood did. I thought it did a great job furthering the story and developing the characters instead of just being more than the same.

They're both worth watching, for sure.

The last bit ruined the entire movie for me.

=================
Official Okay-Super Villain™

I only play the games that I win at -
Gamertag: Innovator
PSN: DurtyGambino
Steam: Durty Gambino
Twitch.tv/durtygambino

-----

god blessin all the trap niggas.

That's why I have no desire to explore the sequels.


Since 1976

All the problems with the second half of the original are even worse in the remake.

The only reason I didn't hate the original back in the day was that I saw it as a kid.

So yes, after the setup, the new one becomes a showcase for soon to be embarrassingly dated special effects.

I was bored to tears



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

@GetoutTheroom
http://getouttheroom.podomatic.com
******************************************
https://twitter.com/Jayric

I'm probably the only one here who liked it. I watched it and then watched Insidious Chapter 3 and I enjoyed Poltergeist a lot more. More to see.
It was not really a horror movie. It reminded me of a bland homage to the old Spielberg flicks from when I was a kid. The interaction between the kids and the magic elements, I guess.It didn't take itself too seriously.Some Sam Raimi infused Sam Rockwell being Sam Rockwell, walking that line between comedy and dramatic performance without skipping a beat. I can't put it in the same lane as the original but I was entertained.

time is money, money is time
so i keep 7 o'clock in the bank and gain interest in the hour of God
I'm saving to buy my freedom, God, grant me wings, I'm too fly not to fly _ Saul Williams