FRIGHT NIGHT REMAKE: THE TRAILER

They going for a PG-13 on this?

Also im all for a remake of this in theory BUT........why go to a magician for help in fighting a vampire? Although now that I really think about it why would a 16 or 17 year old almost man go to a tv horror host for help? Sounds more like something a child would do. Ragsdale wasn't retarded was he? 

Yeeeaahhhh....I'm a little worried how they barely showed any Evil Ed and zero Peter Vincent. Farrell looks like he's having a blast though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt 
Also im all for a remake of this in theory BUT........why go to a magician for help in fighting a vampire?

Because he's the Chris Angel mega-douche kind of magician who acts like he's in control of supernatural forces?

Peter's there.  For a very, very quick shot.  It is weird, though, how much of the original concept is missing from this.

Also- a fucking dirtbike?

Peter Vincent's in the trailer, but just barely.  He's shaved and got short hair, so the beard and long hair might be part of his stage show costume.

EDIT:  Ninhead beat me to it.  I owe him a Pepsi.

This looks like fucking Disturbia with fangs.   Ugh.  I had some hopes for this, too.

Hey, now. Disturbia looked like Fright Night (orig) without fangs. Fright Night looked like Rear Window without pajamas and a wheelchair.

This isn't Fright Night. I don't see any of the love of old horror movies that seeped through the original and made me appreciate it. Plus, it seems it's in the middle of a desert.?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Matchstick 

Hey, now. Disturbia looked like Fright Night (orig) without fangs. Fright Night looked like Rear Window without pajamas and a wheelchair.

It's like Arlington Road with fangs, and without the terrorism...

But really, I thought this looks pretty good so far. Collin is in full slimy badass mode, which I approve of greatly. Nothing in there that would have me write it off, and I have to wonder why some are getting a bit pissed over this looking different than the original. I like the original (it's pretty good, but nothing mind-blowing), but I am happy that they are at least trying to change-up the feel of this new version, instead of Let Me In-ing it up.

And, yeah, it is in the desert, as I think it's set in Las Vegas.

I'm going to go against the grain here and say I think it looks good. Farrell's performance alone seems like a reason to watch. And the line "That's a terrible vampire name! Jerry!?" is funny.

I like that they are going for a different vibe than the original. Why would I want it to be exactly the same as the original? I like the desolate Las Vegas suburbia. And clearly Jerry's house is spartan and not "spooky" like in the original.

Maybe I should join a monastery or something. Kinda thought this looked... sleazy?

The majority of the original's charm came from its kookiness and atmosphere. This one has the vampire blowing up the kid's house. And please, Farrel probably orders pizza the way he's acting here. There's nothing noteworthy about his performance.

If it's any good I'll eat my pants.

I was hoping for more Tennant in the trailer but Farrel looks like he will bring the goods. So far it doesn't look as horrible as the on set pictures lead me to believe it would be but is the Peter Vincent character even going to be in this version as much as the original? I ask because he is only in the trailer for a split second and I would have thought the relationship between Peter and Charlie would be an important component of the remake like in the original. Tennant is a talented actor and I would hate for him to be wasted. I've gone from "dismissive" to "I'll give it a shot". I'm not surprises they seem to almost be playing down the vampire aspect. Vampires are fucking done. Even if this movie is good I can't see it's BO success being that great. Fingers crossed.

They really should have gone the route of the original movie's trailer in not mentioning vampires as all. They might have built more interest that way

Guy at my local cineplex couldn't get people regular ol mouth breathers out here that watch Twilight and B.S. like that to take free passes to this. I refused as well. What an awful idea to remake this film and Disturbia is dead on.

What a waste of fucking money.

 The trailer made me want to see it. Farrell is menacing in it. Telling Charlie his girlfriend smells ripe is a good example of that.

No trace of what made the original so special.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaz 

 The trailer made me want to see it. Farrell is menacing in it. Telling Charlie his girlfriend smells ripe is a good example of that.

Let me say something to this. This movie has good talent on screen. That isn't the problem at all. Like almost 95% of Hollywood drivel out there the issue is the script.

Rebooting this film to begin with was highly suspect but as soon as Chris Angel was mentioned it was game set match.

In 2011 it wouldn't make sense that Peter Vincent would be a TV horror host. Those were a staple of the 80's and even into the mid 90's.

So? It could be a film critic who loved old horror movies.

There was something behind Fright Night. This thought, in the back of every horror geek's mind: "What if the monsters I enjoy watching were real? How well would I do?" More Monster Squad than Perfect Dark. This fantasy of finaly using all that "useless" stuff you accumulate from your often derided hobby to save the day. This film seems made by non horror geeks for non horror geeks. Fright Night isn't supposed to be "sexy" or "sleazy" or "cool". It should revell in its un-coolness. And I really don't care how many (if any) teeneage girls and sexless fourty year olds Colin Farell in a sleeve-less shirt puts in seats.

I love the original, but wasn't by any means a classic.  This one is well cast, so I remain intrigued.  It does worry me that Tennant was left out of the trailer.

I mean, I guess we could wait to see if it's good before deciding it's not.

I love the original. And I think the one of the many highpoints is the interaction between P. Vincent and Charley. It's weird that it's left out of the trailer. But people that have seen it says it's still intact in the remake. I'm excited for this. I think the cast is great. I like Moxon from Buffy. Hoping for some cameos....

And I have to disagree with Dirk. I think the original is certainly a classic.

The original's status of being a classic or not has no relevance. Films that were considered classics in their time have been successfully remade. THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD remains a classic of 50's sci fi, and got remade into a new classic in the 80's. I'm not saying this will happen here, but the point is, whatever status the original enjoys has no relevance on whether the remake will be good or not.

Taken on it's own, the trailer does a very good job in not wanting me to see the movie.  Then again this movie isn't aimed towards people my age who are fans of the original.

Can you name me one successful horror remake of the last ten years that didn't suck? DAWN OF THE DEAD and PIRANHA 3D being obvious exceptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

So? It could be a film critic who loved old horror movies.

 

There was something behind Fright Night. This thought, in the back of every horror geek's mind: "What if the monsters I enjoy watching were real? How well would I do?" More Monster Squad than Perfect Dark. This fantasy of finaly using all that "useless" stuff you accumulate from your often derided hobby to save the day. This film seems made by non horror geeks for non horror geeks. Fright Night isn't supposed to be "sexy" or "sleazy" or "cool".

Two out of three ain't bad. Fright Night is definitely not going for sleaze, that I will grant you, but Brad Fiedel's score, the soundtrack, Sarandon's performance as Jerry Dandridge, Bearse's sexual transformation, etc. That's all going for cool and sexy. Fright Night does have a very strong female following. That said, I am a detractor. The original film is all about being for the nerds, and I mean that in the best possible way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headless Fett 

 

Taken on it's own, the trailer does a very good job in not wanting me to see the movie.  Then again this movie isn't aimed towards people my age who are fans of the original.

 

Can you name me one successful horror remake of the last ten years that didn't suck? DAWN OF THE DEAD and PIRANHA 3D being obvious exceptions.

I haven't seen the former, but the latter isn't good enough to qualify as garbage, it's the detritus that collects at the bottom of the trash can.

     The Dawn of the Dead remake worked because it took the basic plot of the original and did its own thing with it. It looks like the new Fright Night is doing the same thing. I do hope that Farrell also plays up the charming aspects of the character. The movie's website is welcometofrightnight.com, so it looks like that line is still in the movie.

   From two of the split second shots of David Tennent, I think Peter Vincent will have the same arc. Going from doubting, to scared shitless, to bravely standing up to Dandridge. There is a shot of Danridge saying to Vincent that he can smell his fear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headless Fett 

 

Taken on it's own, the trailer does a very good job in not wanting me to see the movie.  Then again this movie isn't aimed towards people my age who are fans of the original.

 

Can you name me one successful horror remake of the last ten years that didn't suck? DAWN OF THE DEAD and PIRANHA 3D being obvious exceptions.

I really liked THE HILLS HAVE EYES remake, much more so that the original. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headless Fett 
Can you name me one successful horror remake of the last ten years that didn't suck? DAWN OF THE DEAD and PIRANHA 3D being obvious exceptions.

This is a hilariously retarded statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattioli 

This is a hilariously retarded statement.

 

What is he missing though? Besides Hills Have Eyes and maybe Chainsaw. Sincerely asking because there have been so many. Too many to remember immediately.

It's retarded because it asks a question to which the obviously desired response is "no", but first eliminates actual answers in order to get that response.

Okay, I get you.

Based on the stuff in Empire this month it seems pretty blatant that Peter Vincent's going to die in a blaze of glory at the end of this. Which is just so damn obvious.

Well, now it is.

Piranha 3D didn't live up to the hype, but it was still pretty entertaining.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Matchstick 

Well, now it is.

Oh, there's no concrete info. Just Tennant and Gillespie talking about Vincent facing his demons and redeeming himself and there being surprises in store for fans of the original.

Yeah, I read that too. But I just cannot give this movie the benefit of the doubt for some reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaz 

From two of the split second shots of David Tennent, I think Peter Vincent will have the same arc. Going from doubting, to scared shitless, to bravely standing up to Dandridge.

His almost non presence in that trailer worries me, but I hope they do justice to Peter Vincent. That character was the heart and soul of the original (which by the way, is absolutely a classic. Not a hardcore classic like golden age Carpenter, Romero, Cronenberg, etc but for a fun Halloweeny movie night pick, it's an easy top fiver). The Cowardly Lion who grows a pair. The movie must have some version of that scene where he's walking away from the house terrified, suddenly he sees the stake and remembers, and there's that badass look in Roddy "Camp" McDowall's eye not seen before or since... and it's on like Donkey Kong.

Saw Farrell on an interview the other day, apparently he's a huge fan of the original and has seen it many times. Fingers crossed some of that love will translate over to his performance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disciple_72 

Saw Farrell on an interview the other day, apparently he's a huge fan of the original and has seen it many times. Fingers crossed some of that love will translate over to his performance.

I think there was some event recently where Farrell was introducing clips from the new movie, and he said something like, "this won't be as good as the original" and "the original is in my DVD collection, this won't be."

Then again, they asked him to clarify why he'll never own this and he was like, "Because I'm in it!"

Trailer is sorely missing the "reluctant mentor" part of the FRIGHT NIGHT equation. Looks been there done that, and not because it's a remake.

Its clearly just me, but I think I get why Vincent's absent here.

They're selling the film to a wide audience, and that audience likes (a) Twilight, (b) scary stuff, (c) 'splosions.

Thinking as a marketer, showing an intentionally-cheesy Vegas magician in this trailer would turn a fair amount of folks off. I'd want to showcase the bare essentials of this storyline - scary vampire, romantic relationship, imperiled ladies, unlikely hero.

Keep the other stuff - Evil Ed, the mentor/mentee relationship, the comedy - under wraps for now while you stoke excitement in the people who've never seen the original. Rely on the internet and future trailers to spread word to the fans of the original that, yes, Evil Ed and Peter Vincent are still very much a part of this film.

This got me interested in seeing more, precisely because I already know that the other stuff's still in there, and what I have seen here looks effective for what it is - specifically that line about desperation having a certain scent.