or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Fright Night (remake)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fright Night (remake) - Page 2

post #31 of 62
Good movies are good regardless of when they were made.

This "hasn't held up" argument is just faulty on its premise alone.

The reason could be, that Fright Night isn't really a good movie to begin with. I never cared for it, but then again, I'm not the biggest vampire fan.
post #32 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.G View Post

Nice remake, saw it last night. I've always been a fan of the original and although this version takes it more into CG-land...

Well, that effectively kills any desire I might've had to see it right there.

Thanks for the warning.
post #33 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammitinski View Post

Well, that effectively kills any desire I might've had to see it right there.

Thanks for the warning.

Too bad, your gonna miss a good movie..
post #34 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FendersRule View Post

Good movies are good regardless of when they were made.

This "hasn't held up" argument is just faulty on its premise alone.

Those are two different concepts. A good movie can still be good regardless of when it was made, but it can also be dated or not "hold up" over time. To think that "time" doesn't have an effect on the perception of a film is a delusion.
post #35 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by FendersRule View Post

Good movies are good regardless of when they were made.

This "hasn't held up" argument is just faulty on its premise alone.

The reason could be, that Fright Night isn't really a good movie to begin with. I never cared for it, but then again, I'm not the biggest vampire fan.

The original Fright Night was never a "good" movie to begin with, but it had a clever idea and good intentions, both of which go a long way in allowing an audience to forgive its flaws.

David Tennant put it pretty well in an interview he did recently.

Quote:


“I was a kid when it first came out, and I remember it being there, but I didn’t see it then,” he says. “It was only after I was on board for this one that I checked out the original. It was a very small-scale, slightly tatty B movie that became a sensation. You look at it and you can’t figure out why that should be, other than it’s got a certain charm to it. And of course that’s quite a hard thing to re-create with a remake, because you’re chasing something that is by definition elusive.”
post #36 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

Those are two different concepts. A good movie can still be good regardless of when it was made, but it can also be dated or not "hold up" over time. To think that "time" doesn't have an effect on the perception of a film is a delusion.

Name an example of a great movie that now sucks because it's dated?

Never said that time doesn't effect "perception." Logically, things should be experienced in the context in which they were released. Is "Dune" now dated, and it's not near as good as it was just because of the clothing colors on some costumes? I just find such thinking illogical and malignant.

I'll be waiting.
post #37 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FendersRule View Post

Name an example of a great movie that now sucks because it's dated?

That is three separate levels of subjectivity. No doubt whatever I choose as an example you will disagree with and underhandedly dismiss the very notion of in some manner.

There is a great difference in appreciating a great classic for "what it was", and evaluating for what it currently is. Both in "illogicality" and "malignancy". It really boils down to how much nostalgic value one assigns to the past and how much repugnant disdain they have for the present (or future).
post #38 of 62
Why do you have to "evaluate" a movie that was released in the past with "how it stands" today. That's my previous point about that being illogical.

I'll help you. One example you could use is Hawk's "The Thing From Another Word"," or whatever it's called. The monster looks a little cheesy, let's admit it. Back then, the monster was shocking and surprising I'm sure.

You can approach this one of two ways:

(1) "Evaluate" it and compare it to the "present", which I find malignant, unfair, and illogical. Do people do this? Absolutely. It's their right.

(2) "Evaluate" it as-is, taking the context into consideration. This is called having an open mind.

And I have no "nostalgia" value with that movie. I only saw it recently. I still watched it in the context when it came out, and I found it very enjoyable.

Great movies are great movies. Regardless of when they came out. That is why many people tag the word "timeless." The Exorcist is "Timeless." Carpenter's "The Thing" is timeless. I believe that good movies, like other forms of art, don't "deteriorate" either over time and become "less." Sometimes, the conceptual nature becomes very irrelevant (my belief about Solvent Green), and therefor the movie looses it's relevancy. But that's just my belief about the piss-poor concept of overpopulation being in a sci-fi film.
post #39 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewbacco View Post

Too bad, your gonna miss a good movie..

Well, if they use it sparingly and wisely, I might be OK with that.

But too much, and it'll take me right out of it.
post #40 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FendersRule View Post
Why do you have to "evaluate" a movie that was released in the past with "how it stands" today.
Because film, like music, is a constantly evolving and dynamic medium. What works in the context of one era, doesn't necessarily work in the context of the next. Film is the only medium I can think of as well where the tools, delivery method, presentation, and various other facets are constantly being changed and reinvented.

Quote:
(2) "Evaluate" it as-is, taking the context into consideration. This is called having an open mind.
Right, and that's where I can appreciate something for "what it was" precisely because of that context. But the fact remains that if you put two films of a similar concept that were made more than 10 years apart, the majority of the time the newer film is more enthralling, exciting, and enjoyable. Obviously not all the time, and probably less so when comparing mainstream and it's endless bouts of sequels and remakes, but still. Anyone who claims otherwise typically holds some sort of nostalgic value for the older film, or a jaded disdain for current films in general.

Quote:
Great movies are great movies. Regardless of when they came out. That is why many people tag the word "timeless." The Exorcist is "Timeless." Carpenter's "The Thing" is timeless. I believe that good movies, like other forms of art, don't "deteriorate" either over time and become "less."
Well, I agree to a point. Personally, I saw The Exorcist for the first time about 7 or 8 years ago and it was laughable, hardly timeless. Why? Because it's age was showing. For one example, it used techniques that have now been parodied or reused to the point of cliche. Did the film itself deteriorate? No, of course not. But the effect of the film has deteriorated due to the evolution of the medium. I still appreciate it's significance in cinema, but that doesn't make it any "better" to watch for the first time in this day and age.
post #41 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by FendersRule View Post

Name an example of a great movie that now sucks because it's dated?

You're wasting your time. You're talking to someone (lwright) who thinks that any movie more than 10 years old is unwatchably dated.
post #42 of 62
75% at RT. Must admit I'm rather surprised.
post #43 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

You're wasting your time. You're talking to someone (lwright) who thinks that any movie more than 10 years old is unwatchably dated.

Except I don't think that. nor have I ever said that.

And despite the many disclaimers that come with having a discussion with FendersRule, that's exactly what we're doing. Why don't you try contributing instead.
post #44 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

That is three separate levels of subjectivity. No doubt whatever I choose as an example you will disagree with and underhandedly dismiss the very notion of in some manner.

There is a great difference in appreciating a great classic for "what it was", and evaluating for what it currently is. Both in "illogicality" and "malignancy". It really boils down to how much nostalgic value one assigns to the past and how much repugnant disdain they have for the present (or future).

Bull.

In 1979, at age 17, I watched, appreciated and loved a myriad of films that were released 30, 40 and 50 years before then, and was never concerned with their being "dated". In fact they were representative of their respective eras, and I was able see them as such.

Today's young generation is only concerned with what is out this week. They have zero appreciation of history. If is not related to them, it is disposed of.

If you can't watch The Maltese Falcon, a 67 year old film, because the dialog is archaic (with people "cracking foxy" and all), and the acting is melodramatic, and you feel that the film should be remade so a contemporary audience can appreciate it, well I say contemporary audiences need to step out of their myopic little boxes and learn to appreciate the past.

The day that Lawrence of Arabia becomes boring, and old-fashioned, is the day cinema as an artform is dead.
post #45 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

Well, I agree to a point. Personally, I saw The Exorcist for the first time about 7 or 8 years ago and it was laughable, hardly timeless. Why? Because it's age was showing. For one example, it used techniques that have now been parodied or reused to the point of cliche. Did the film itself deteriorate? No, of course not. But the effect of the film has deteriorated due to the evolution of the medium. I still appreciate it's significance in cinema, but that doesn't make it any "better" to watch for the first time in this day and age.

The effect of the film deteriorated because of your inability to step out of your "contemporary" mindset and truly appreciate history.

MTV has killed movie appreciation. If there isn't a cut every 3 seconds, modern audiences get bored. They call older films boring. I call their attention spans nonexistent.
post #46 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
You're wasting your time. You're talking to someone (lwright) who thinks that any movie more than 10 years old is unwatchably dated.
Especially movies like "Blade Runner," "The Shining," or "A Clockwork Orange." That's just skimming the pile of "all time classics" that I've heard him rank on. I'm sure there's more that are poor in his "current evaluation" mindset, too.

I disagree with you lwright in every single point that you quoted. The fact alone that you said that newer movies, of the same concept, made "10 years later", are usually "better" is just mind blowingly wrong. I didn't find one damn bit of "The Exorcist" "laughable." You're spewing **** out that's going to make people simply not respond to you, which is what I've done. I've only chose to respond because Josh Z made a comment that I agree with. And the "Excorist" is still easily, one of the scariest films of all time. Why? Because of the TECHNIQUES used, and not the TECHNOLOGY.

I agree with Kilgore. A good movie has absolutely nothing to do with the "medium" or "technology" that was used. Movies for the most part have became commodity items, which makes them LESS of a work of art, and more of a "cheap" product to get people into a theater. It takes less money to compose a software track, rather then to hire a professional composer and record with an orchestra. It takes less money to plan and build practical effects; therefor CGI is used. It takes less time and money to think of something new; therefore, remakes are done. Just watch A Nightmare on Elm Street, and then watch the remake. Note the differences with every damn thing you can think of. The old movie being a work of art. The new movie being a soulless commodity item.
post #47 of 62
If Lawrence of Arabia was made today, the scene where Sharif comes out of the horizon and crosses the desert to meet O'Toole at the water hole would have been a jump cut.
post #48 of 62
The Binary Sunset scene in Star Wars? Wouldn't have been in there either.

Think of John Carpenter. John Carpenter isn't about the execution as much as he is about the moments before the execution. Halloween would have been a mess. I do know of several people who would watch that movie and laugh at it nowadays. Or find themselves bored. Those people are not film buffs.
post #49 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post
Today's young generation is only concerned with what is out this week. They have zero appreciation of history. If is not related to them, it is disposed of.
Agreed.

Quote:
If you can't watch The Maltese Falcon, a 67 year old film, because the dialog is archaic (with people "cracking foxy" and all), and the acting is melodramatic, and you feel that the film should be remade so a contemporary audience can appreciate it, well I say contemporary audiences need to step out of their myopic little boxes and learn to appreciate the past.
Those are two different concepts though, which is the point I'm trying to get across. I can (and consistently do) step out of my own "myopic little box" and absolutely do appreciate the past, but that doesn't make The Maltese Falcon (your example) feel any less dated or archaic. It doesn't make the acting any less wooden or melodramatic, or the dialogue any less cheesy.

I'm not arguing whether these older films should be remade for contemporary audiences though, so I won't address that aspect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post
The effect of the film deteriorated because of your inability to step out of your "contemporary" mindset and truly appreciate history.
One can "truly appreciate history" without pretending that something isn't dated.

Quote:
MTV has killed movie appreciation. If there isn't a cut every 3 seconds, modern audiences get bored. They call older films boring. I call their attention spans nonexistent.
I agree with this, but I am not one of those people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FendersRule View Post
Especially movies like "Blade Runner," "The Shining," or "A Clockwork Orange." That's just skimming the pile of "all time classics" that I've heard him rank on. I'm sure there's more that are poor in his "current evaluation" mindset, too.
There are, sure. And there are others that are quite excellent in my same mindset as well.

And again, with those two examples, I gave clear, thoughtful reasons why I felt the way I felt about those films. Hardly just "ranking" on them. But you don't seem to pay opposing opinions the respect you demand of your own.

Quote:
I disagree with you lwright in every single point that you quoted. The fact alone that you said that newer movies, of the same concept, made "10 years later", are usually "better" is just mind blowingly wrong.
Well, it is a subjective statement for a reason.

Quote:
I didn't find one damn bit of "The Exorcist" "laughable."
Neat.

Quote:
You're spewing **** out that's going to make people simply not respond to you, which is what I've done. I've only chose to respond because Josh Z made a comment that I agree with.
The irony of this statement coming from you is wonderful. However, I am not "spewing ****" about anything, or to anyone. I am simply stating my opinions in forum designed specifically for that purpose.

Quote:
I agree with Kilgore. A good movie has absolutely nothing to do with the "medium" or "technology" that was used.
My point was a bit broader than that, but a good movie from a prior time can certainly feel like less of a good movie based those (and other) aspects. Perhaps though I am not wording it in a way that full realizes the point I'm trying to make, so at this point I'd like to just agree to disagree on that particular topic, however...

Quote:
I think there's some correlation with this, because movies for the most part have became "commodity" items, which makes them LESS of a work of art, and more of a "cheap" product to get people into a theater. It takes less money to compose a software track, rather then to hire a professional composer with an orchestra. It takes less money to plan and build practical effects; therefor CGI is used. It takes less time and money to think of something new; therefore, remakes are done. Just watch A Nightmare on Elm Street, and then watch the remake. Note the differences with every damn thing you can think of. The old movie being a work of art. The new movie being a soulless commodity item.
I agree with everything you said initially, until that last part. You don't think the original Nightmare on Elm Street was a commodity item of the 80s? Furthermore, you think it was a work of art? It was a cheesy, campy teen slasher flick, and in fact serves to prove my point. The remake certainly sucked, but it was at least a more enjoyable experience than the original (when compared side-by-side today). While I can appreciate it's history and what it meant for it's era, there is no way anyone should prefer it over a modern rendition unless it was for nostalgic reasons (or because they themselves are jaded towards "modernized" remakes and such). Again, this is my (simplified) point.
post #50 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post
I agree with everything you said initially, until that last part. You don't think the original Nightmare on Elm Street was a commodity item of the 80s? Furthermore, you think it was a work of art? It was a cheesy, campy teen slasher flick, and in fact serves to prove my point. The remake certainly sucked, but it was at least a more enjoyable experience than the original (when compared side-by-side today). While I can appreciate it's history and what it meant for it's era, there is no way anyone should prefer it over a modern rendition unless it was for nostalgic reasons (or because they themselves are jaded towards "modernized" remakes and such). Again, this is my (simplified) point.
You think the newer film is more enjoyable? Good damn luck trying to find any horror buff agreeing with you there.

The fact alone that you say (paraphrased) "the remake gives a more enjoyable experience" just goes to show what you are basing your "opinions" on. Nothing personal, but I know people like you. And, they are not film buffs and have no clue about film history. They don't even "know" what they are "not" seeing.

And before you even claim that I'm a graybeard who is "stuck in the past", that wouldn't be so since I actually find that "The Hills Have Eyes" Remake is just as good, if not better, than the original. There's a reason that I think that though. You probably wouldn't understand why. It isn't because it's "newer" or "updated" either.
post #51 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FendersRule View Post
You think the newer film is more enjoyable? Good damn luck trying to find any horror buff agreeing with you there.

The fact alone that you say (paraphrased) "the remake gives a more enjoyable experience" just goes to show what you are basing your "opinions" on. Nothing personal, but I know people like you. And, they are not film buffs and have no clue about film history. They don't even "know" what they are "not" seeing.
But I'm not talking about 'horror buffs' and their preferences, I am talking about movies in general. And if I say that about the bad remake (I did say it was bad), then that should tell you something about the original. Again, my point is comparing the two as a regular movie-going experience today.

And for the record, you clearly don't know people like me. I am a HUGE lover of cinema and watch as many films as you claim you do earlier in this thread. Most people around here could vouch for that I'm sure, but that's because they facilitate and encourage discussion while being able to have a healthy respect for opinions they may not agree with; and aren't arrogant enough to think that theirs is the only right one.

Quote:
There's a reason that I think that though. You probably wouldn't understand why. It isn't because it's "newer" or "updated" either.
Lol, you just can't help being condescending, can you? You have my pity.
post #52 of 62
You gotta love this guy boys. Along with "The Shining," "Blade Runner," and "A Clockwork Orange," you can now add the original "A Nightmare on Elm Street" to the list of sucky movies.

He wouldn't watch "Dr. Strangelove" because he thought that it looked "boring" from the trailer, and already started ripping on it before having watched it.

We've got you figured out already lwright. No, seriously. We really do. No need to dig the hole any deeper, bro. I know that having piss-poor opinions (how about we just call them "universally wrong" at this point?) isn't specific to people from Texas, because I was born and partially raised there.
post #53 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FendersRule View Post
You gotta love this guy boys. Along with "The Shining," "Blade Runner," and "A Clockwork Orange," you can now add the original "A Nightmare on Elm Street" to the list of sucky movies.

He wouldn't watch "Dr. Strangelove" because he thought that it looked "boring" from the trailer, and already started ripping on it before having watched it.

We've got you figured out already lwright. No, seriously. We really do. No need to dig the hole any deeper, bro. I know that having piss-poor opinions (how about we just call them "universally wrong" at this point?) isn't specific to people from Texas, because I was born and partially raised there.
Literally every single thing you just said -- save for the two parts in bold -- isn't true. With reading comprehension and basic reasoning skills this bad, it's no wonder every conversation you get involved with digresses to the point of inanity. I think you have less of my pity, and more of my curious fascination at this point. At any rate, you have successfully derailed yet another thread topic and I will stop contributing to that as of now.
post #54 of 62
Finally....FINALLY my NF copy showed up.

This is great, great fun....and very reminiscent of Zombieland.
It walks a fine line between downright SCARES and tongue-in-cheek goofiness (like Zombieland).
It isn't often we see this pulled off with such aplomb.

Good writing and CF is perfect as "The Big Bad."

RECOMMENDED for those who enjoyed Zombieland and other such stuff.
post #55 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammitinski View Post

Well, if they use it sparingly and wisely, I might be OK with that.

But too much, and it'll take me right out of it.

Considering no CGI in Trick R Treat this remake could've done without it too. Surely our rubber suit technology is advanced enough to handle a bat vampire monster.
post #56 of 62
The problem in the remake is the over abundance of cgi in everything. Even the vampire make up is CG, and everything is in your face. I know this was expected, 'cause everything know made by Hollywood must be like that ("The Thing" prequel was the same). And "Trick R Treat" ,in my opinion, was awesome and I don't think that movie was even released to Theaters. Warner Brothers sat on that movie for around two years before releasing it straight to dvd on 2009. I think, the last good vampire movie I saw on theaters was "30 Days of Night".
post #57 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by elezzar View Post

The problem in the remake is the over abundance of cgi in everything. Even the vampire make up is CG, and everything is in your face. I know this was expected, 'cause everything know made by Hollywood must be like that ("The Thing" prequel was the same). And "Trick R Treat" ,in my opinion, was awesome and I don't think that movie was even released to Theaters. Warner Brothers sat on that movie for around two years before releasing it straight to dvd on 2009. I think, the last good vampire movie I saw on theaters was "30 Days of Night".

Yep.
post #58 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Finally....FINALLY my NF copy showed up.

This is great, great fun....and very reminiscent of Zombieland.
It walks a fine line between downright SCARES and tongue-in-cheek goofiness (like Zombieland).
It isn't often we see this pulled off with such aplomb.

Good writing and CF is perfect as "The Big Bad."

RECOMMENDED for those who enjoyed Zombieland and other such stuff.

I agree, this was better, and edgier, than I thought it would be. No classic, or push the envelope kind of horror, but was fun like you say.

I also liked the blonde across the street and would have like to have seen more of her, but sadly, this was not an 80's homage remake.
post #59 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by elezzar View Post

Even the vampire make up is CG, and everything is in your face.

IIRC, there was an outtake where it showed CF in a mask choking on "blood."
post #60 of 62
I'm a fan of the original and was unsure about the remake. But I was thoroughly entertained by it. And I'm not even a CF fan. Plus, it was refreshing to see vampires explode in the daylight and not shimmer.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Fright Night (remake)