CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › It'd Take a Maniac to Remake This
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

It'd Take a Maniac to Remake This

post #1 of 20
9/24/08 at 1:50pm
Thread Starter 
http://chud.com/articles/articles/16416/

What do you guys think, could this even work without Tom Savini shooting off his own head?
Reply
post #2 of 20
9/24/08 at 2:02pm
This would be one of the most pointless remakes ever. I love Maniac, but there's almost zero name recogniton associated with it in the general public and there's no way they'll have the balls to recreate the sleaziest aspects in a mainstream film. Adding insult to injury, you can bet that the gore will be CGI.
Reply
post #3 of 20
9/24/08 at 2:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Brasky View Post
This would be one of the most pointless remakes ever. I love Maniac, but there's almost zero name recogniton associated with it in the general public and there's no way they'll have the balls to recreate the sleaziest aspects in a mainstream film. Adding insult to injury, you can bet that the gore will be CGI.
Agree 100%. The remake'll lose that '70s sleazy atmosphere, which I felt went a long way to establishing the creepiness and dare I say realism the film extolls. A remake would be too slick, too clean looking. Plus, no Caroline Munro cameo!

Besides a CGI 'splodin' Savini head is tantamount to sacrilage IMO.
Reply
post #4 of 20
9/24/08 at 2:31pm
I remember Lustig once called this Spinell's Raging Bull. Remake: totally not cool!
Reply
post #5 of 20
9/24/08 at 2:53pm
Another wonderfully traumatizing little film ruined by a remake.

Maniac makes a great double feature with Henry, which I'm sure will also get remade at some point.
Reply
post #6 of 20
9/24/08 at 2:59pm
So, since Maniac is on the remake path, how long will it be before we get a Last House on The Left , Zombie, or Mother's Day remake? How soon 'til the eventual Motel Hell redux?

Fucking Hollywood. Y'all wanna make a ballsy remake? Redo Star Wars, if only so I can watch the fanboys heads collectively explode.
Reply
post #7 of 20
9/24/08 at 3:15pm
I'm glad this is being remade. The original has great gore and that's it.
Reply
post #8 of 20
9/24/08 at 3:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy225 View Post
So, since Maniac is on the remake path, how long will it be before we get a Last House on The Left
Who's going to tell him?
Reply
post #9 of 20
9/24/08 at 3:21pm
Pointless.

I never noticed the boner on the poster before.
Reply
post #10 of 20
9/24/08 at 3:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misfit View Post
Who's going to tell him?
Well, I was going to but never mind now. I will , however, point out that a remake of Motel Hell was in the cards at one point.
Reply
post #11 of 20
9/24/08 at 3:32pm
Color me disappointed: I was hoping this was going to be about a Demolition Man redux.
Reply
post #12 of 20
9/24/08 at 5:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misfit View Post
Who's going to tell him?
Oh, hey, terrific. Maybe it'll be as successful as Midnight Meat Train.

Fuck it, I'm rewatching the originals this weekend.
Reply
post #13 of 20
9/24/08 at 10:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Pointless.

I never noticed the boner on the poster before.
Never noticed it either until I saw the documentary on the disc, which is excellent by the way. The story of Spinell is a great and tragic one.
Reply
post #14 of 20
9/25/08 at 12:11am
It's already been said, but I'll add some hot air to the collective pile & agree that this is a pointless remake. not only is it a genre classic beloved by many that doesn't NEED a remake, but as pointed out earlier, it is just that: a GENRE classic. It really means nothing to any but the hard core horror fan. I can't imagine them thinking this isomething that'd make a lot of money by attracting mainstream fans, the only reason hollywood seems to do remakes.
Reply
post #15 of 20
9/25/08 at 12:46am
The poster was remade once.

Reply
post #16 of 20
9/25/08 at 12:47am
I don't think any of these cult remakes are about name recognition so much as they're about formula. "It worked then, so it should work now", etc. It doesn't hurt to brand product with a title or an image that may or may not be familiar, it certainly doesn't cost anything extra, and despite all of the protests, there will still be enough fans of the original curious enough to take a peak. I won't be one of them. I might see Aronofsky's Robocop, but that's because it's Aronofsky, I've not taken a bite of this remake shit since TCM 2003.
Reply
post #17 of 20
9/25/08 at 9:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by IggytheBorg View Post
It's already been said, but I'll add some hot air to the collective pile & agree that this is a pointless remake. not only is it a genre classic beloved by many that doesn't NEED a remake, but as pointed out earlier, it is just that: a GENRE classic. It really means nothing to any but the hard core horror fan. I can't imagine them thinking this isomething that'd make a lot of money by attracting mainstream fans, the only reason hollywood seems to do remakes.
This is a logical conclusion, but the Hollywood remake extravaganza is actually used to include genre fans into the film's bottom line, specifically on DVD, not attract mainstream audiences. The general public will or will not see a film based on reviews, word of mouth, and/or general boredom. Since they have no prior association, the remake doesn't even have to be anything remotely close to the original (Take "When a Stranger Calls" or "April Fool's Day" as examples, but definitely don't see them), just something in palatable PG-13 form, or "R" for the shock factor. The "remake" aspect is what gets the majority of the genre die-hards to rent it on DVD, even if it's for no other reason than to knock it on message boards.

Not all remakes fit that category, as "2001 Maniacs" was a fairly entertaining revision on a genre-fan-only original, but it sure seems the majority do.
Reply
post #18 of 20
9/25/08 at 11:53pm
Don't misunderstand, mind; remakes can be good. Take for example the rule of "The's": "The Thing", "The Fly" and "The Blob" were all pretty damn good remakes. It's not a hopeless cause from the word go, but sometimes I just have to wonder why they choose certain films. Like Maniac.
Reply
post #19 of 20
9/26/08 at 12:48am
I've said this before, but that's what makes the new crop of remakes so unappealing. There were no code restrictions in the 70's and 80's, so there isn't that element of intrigue that comes with breaking down a content firewall or exploring/exploiting certain thematic elements that were previously thought to be beyond the pale in the 40's or 50's. TCM 2003 didn't have anything on its mind that wasn't explored to maxmimum effect in the original film. From what I've read, The Hills Have Eyes remake made allusions to the war in Iraq, but beyond that, the rest of these films appear to be exceedingly bland and repetitious exercises.
Reply
post #20 of 20
9/26/08 at 11:41am
Maybe the remakes should be rstricted to films from the 50's and early 60's. I think a lot of (but not all of) what made the examples I cited above great were the effects updates. Of course, great direction and less dated-seeming performances in "The Thing" and "The Fly" helped a great deal as well.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Creature Corner Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › It'd Take a Maniac to Remake This