'NEAR DARK' Remake Discussion

No matter how good this winds up, there's absolutely no fucking way in hell they are gonna top the Shitkicker Heaven scene from the original.

Fuck. On the other hand, it's about time.

This seems to be a common disease these days. I don't understand the mentality of a filmmaker who sees a movie that he thinks is a great piece of work, and his reaction is that he wants to make it again. Why? If it's really that good, why make something that is probably not going to live up to it? What kind of tribute is that?

It seems like there was a time when filmmakers saw something they loved, and used it as a springboard for their own ideas. They'd make their own movie with plot points or stylistic references that saluted the film that inspired them. Now, anytime an up-and-coming filmmaker sees a film that inspires him, he just leaps on the chance to make an inferior version of it. I fail to understand.

it's a bad idea. end of discussion.

I agree. Not a single crappy remake of the past couple of years has distinguished itself as anything beyond a momentary cash-in.

Wasn't that one movie, The Forsaken

heavily influenced by/ripped off much of Near Dark? I didn't see it but I think i heard about that somewhere.

I love the original, why would I see a remake?

Even DePalma, for all his detractors, distilled Hitchcock into his own vision. The debt was pretty obvious, but he never went in going "y'know what, I'm just gonna fucking remake Rope"

I'd have no problem with a sequel/homage to Near Dark but a remake seems unnecessary; the original was truly lightning striking a film that could have been low-budget cheese and making it into something great.

I concur... totally unnecessary. Has the original aged so poorly that we need another?

Unless it's a totally different spin on things (and because elements of "Near Dark" borrow so heavily, you'd essentially be making a new movie and using only the title), maybe it would be worth seeing. But as a training ground for what's likely to be a first time director from music video land... I couldn't care less.

Forsaken is a ripoff of Near Dark. It wasn't awful, but it wasn't that good either. Worth a rental at best.

This movie has in no way aged, when I read the news of aremake I watched it again & was amused, horrified & thrilled again - this is to me one of the great vampire movies & a modern horror classic. There is no way in the world they are (in the current film making climate) going to improve on the original. Sadly we all know that doesn't fucking matter anymore.
But - bad idea, period - to use one of your expressions.

I'd disagree & say that Jackson's King Kong had way more good than bad in it. And it was a work of passion, not made for a quick buck.

On topic, I'd say that there are plenty of good ideas/scripts with vampires in development that deem this Near Dark remake: unneccesary (besides the obvious reasons).

1) Which makes it a great idea, at least to the people involved.

2) The majority of the remakes of the past couple of years have been decent films in and of themselves (excluding The Fog).

3) A remake CAN be a good thing and done with the utmost respect for the original. Savini's NotLD is a shining example. As is Jackson's Kong.

4) Some of our favorite movies are remakes. Carpenter's The Thing is probably the most used (and most appropriate) example.

5) The original isn't being erased, destroyed or tampered with in any way and is still available for your viewing pleasure.

Sooo...I still have yet to see why this is a bad thing?

It's not so much a "bad thing" as a disapointing one.
If the filmakers really loved and appreaciated Near Dark and it fired up their creative juices to make a Vampire movie, i think it would be more interesting to see their own spin on the Vampire mythos than just another Xerox of an old movie with better lighting and hunkier vampires.

No, no, no, no, no,no,no, no, no, no,no,no,no, no, no, no,no,no,no, no, no, no,no,no,no, no, no, no,no,no,no, no, no, no,no,no,no, no, no, no,no...








...no.

Had to happen sooner or later; sites like CHUD clearly play their part in what studios feel are viable, appealing properties, and "Near Dark" had to be put on the hit list at some point.
No bother, I don't have to see it, and I most likely won't.

I agree with 1-5 however, with all the decent unmade sripts floating around out there (and the small percentage of greenlights), a Near Dark remake's budget could be going to something else, something new, the next cool & original thing... wherever you are...

I don't really understand why Near Dark is considered such a classic. I'm sure at the time it came out the "vampires in leather jackets" concept was still new and cool, but today it's old and tired. Another problem I have with it is that the vampires are pretty uninteresting. Sure, call that lispy kid "old man" and make the odd reference to the Civil War, but then what? Maybe I just expect vampires to have more on their plate then occasionally killing a few bar rats. Besides Henriksen looking creepy, Paxton's overacting, and that super hot blonde girl, the movie felt pretty pointless.

I'm against remakes in general, whether the original was good or not, so I'm against this one. I think we need to give vampires (and zombies) a good long rest from the silver screen anyway.

But can you see that it's not a good thing?

I don't really agree that most remakes have been decent films (bear in mind I haven't seen HILLS HAVE EYES). We can all point to Carpenter's THING (heh) and Cronenberg's FLY, and people are right to, but they're shining diamonds in a sea of mediocrity. They're also, like KONG, movies that are redefinitions of films that were created in a different age. KONG I can understand, because it's a vanity project for PJ, and after LOTR, he deserves one (and yes, it turned out well). Also, with something like NEAR DARK that is only popular amongst the geeks, it's almost the replacement factor. I'd like to think that these remakes are making people seek out the older films, but I just don't think it's the case. In my class at college (film), the kids are remarkably ignorant about any movies made before 1990, and maybe one out of ten expresses any interest in older movies. Hell, some of them even said that they purposely disliked some movies because they were black and white. Obviously, this is just at my school, and it might just be an isolated case of film retardation, but it's not giving me a lot of hope.

Honestly? I don't see it as anything, bad or good. It's just another movie. And let's just take a look at some of the recent remakes: TCM? Not great, not comparable to the original, but judged on its own merits? A fun little flick. Dawn of the Dead? See above. Chocolate Factory? Same thing. Amityville? Once again. House of Wax? Okay, I probably enjoyed that film a little more than I should have, but I still thought it was worthy of being made. Hills Have Eyes? One of my favorite films this year. You already addressed Kong, and off the top of my head that just leaves The Fog. We won't even talk about that.

I feel for ya man, it must suck to have to go to a FILM class and sit alongside those retarded people, but the truth is, even if every single one of those afforementioned remakes had never happened, those people still would be as cinematically retarded as they are now. I think the problem here is that people see these remakes as an affornt to them personally. "I LOVE Halloween! They're remaking it and that pisses me off!" So what? They're not making it for you. They're making it for the people who will go and see it. And like it or not, people do go and see these things. Not every film has to be a masterpiece. Not every film has to appeal to the gekk in us. And if a studio decides to latch onto a relatively unkown geek property (let's face it, how many people in the real world will have ever even heard of Near Dark)and shiny it up for the mainstreamers? Who does that hurt? What does that hurt? No one and nothing. You may feel like something you love has been co-opted and watered down, but I think it's a little self-depricating to feel that way.

JG, you and I had this same discussion on another thread, but I think you're missing something here. Remakes haven't always been all the rage. Aside from the personal geek rage at seeing beloved films reworked for idiots, what does this current fascination with remakes say about modern filmmaking? To wit, how many great scripts and ideas are going unproduced while executives run for the safety of familiar titles? There's nothing wrong with A remake, or even THE OCCASIONAL remake. But the sheer preponderance of them is highly troubling, as it shows a complete lack of interest in making anything new or interesting or challenging. There's still room out there for a good vampire film. Remaking someone else's good vampire film isn't the way to get it done.

Well you make a valid point there Nigel, but who's to say that those good original scripts would have been produced without all of these remakes?

And I think you're forgetting something as well: These beloved geek films? The ones that make you guys angry when a remake is propsed? They all have one thing in common in that they were made OUTSIDE of the Hollywood system. Original TCM? Original Dawn? Original Near Dark? Independent, my friend. Those good, original scripts you guys (and myself) wanna see so badly? They're out there. They're probably in an independent pre-production somewhere. It sounds like you guys want Hollywood to stop thinking about money first and that's straight up an act of futility.

Those good, original scripts ARE out there - they're just being produced independently (as most of our favorite movies are anyway).

Sigh.

Sigh was directed at me I suppose. And that's okay. Myabe it's a flawed view but that's just how I see things.

What happened?

I don't know why there is a remake of Near Dark.And when did you find out?

Wasn't a remake.
The older film was based on the stage musical, the newer one on the book itself.

There was no CHARLIE stage musical. The songs were written for the screen.

I've heard reliable evidence to the contrary.

There was a stage musical about fifteen years ago, taken from the movie. The film's songs were written for the film, by a duo called Leslie Bricusse and Anthony Newley. They were nominated for Best Original Score for it. It wasn't a stage musical before it went to the screen.

I have talked to people who remeber an older stage musical upon which the film was apparantly based.
Besides, the newer film was not based upon the older film, but was simply another attempt to do justice to the original book.

There is no record, anywhere, of a stage musical ever existing before the original movie was released. If your sole evidence is "I've talked to people who remember it", perhaps you shouldn't make such bold statements about the subject before doing a little fact checking.

My point about it being a re-interpretation and not a remake stands.

But STAR WARS isn't a reinterpretation of HIDDEN FORTRESS?

No, because it's a film based upon a film, not a film based upon a book.

I loved "Near Dark," and it still maintains a prominent place in my DVD collection. I'm OK with remakes, I guess. It's not like a crappy remake destroys the original film. Wicker Man, anyone?

Signed Director: Samuel Bayer

http://joblo.com/index.php?id=13104

Source Variety: Oct 6

I don't hate all remakes, but it seems like there is a big surge lately in remaking movies... where that wasn't seen years ago. There was a remake here and there, but not anymore. My guess is that it's people who grew up on those flicks and are now in positions to remake flicks they loved to show to a new audience. Hell that new movie "Turistas" that's coming out looks like a remake of "Hostel"... they couldn't even wait 20 yrs to re-do that idea.

As long as people continue shelling out $$ to see these remakes .. yatta yatta.

To me it is like paying full price to see a cover band perform songs you like, and unless it's for ulterior motives (getting laid, getting drunk, raging against the soul-crushing loneliness of your bedroom etc.), I find that to be a pretty desperate act that runs counter to the appreciation of original pieces of creative work.

But the box office for these films shows a lot of interest in been-there done-that copycat projects, even though they never seem to capture or improve upon the flavor and innovation of the material they are cannibalizing. Not all of these originals were brilliant, or even good in some cases, but the practice of re-doing them stinks all the same.

I can see the argument for remaking films for a new audience.
At the same time I just roll my eyes and wonder why people can't come up with fresh ideas.

And color me unimpressed that Hollywood keeps dipping in the MTV well to get directors for action and horror films. Everyone needs a place to hone their skills, but all that happens is the films end up looking gorgeous.

Looking like...music videos. I can't recall anyone who has brought anything new or indicative of personal style from videos into film. Brett Ratner will be around forever if he keeps up, he gets the job done but the results are strictly workmanlike.

I'm quite tired of the MTV style horror look of the last decade, with the fast-twitch blur thing and assorted gimmicks.

Like Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, David Fincher, Michel Gondry?

A bit of a generalization I think.

Yes, it is absolutely a generalization. Those are good examples but maybe I should have been more specific and said video directors involved in the action(anything martial arts related) and horror genres.

Although I'm not awed by Gondry, I like what he's done so far. Wasn't there talk of one of these directors and Charlie Kaufman making a horror type film?
Now that is something I would be interested in. I'm not up to date on everything Kaufman has done but I like his perspective, it's refreshing.

I think the majority of people with the the bank accounts don't want to do anything too radical with the action and horror genres. And what are a visionary director and writer to do?

I am so fucking bored with genre films. Maybe that's why I've recently turned more to these things called books.