Moviefone's 10 rules to do a good horror remake

[DenOfEarth]

With the success of Evil Dead's remake especially with their use of practical effects and having Raimi produce the film as well as Campbell, sometimes a good horror movie remake is hard to find. Sometimes there is a gem and other times there are a dozen misfires only to tarnish the legacy of the original.

So moviefone has made this unique article which is good advice to the filmmakers out there on how to do a successful genre remake:
http://blog.moviefone.com/2011/08/18...horror-remake/

Who agrees with each of the rules, best examples, worst culprits and the article?

2 misconceptions though, The Thing 1982 and Mary Shelly's Frankenstein aren't remakes since they are re-adaptations of novels and not the earlier films.

Who agrees with them that Rosemary's Baby, Poltergeist, Jaws and American Werewolf in London are perfect horror films that should never be remade?

[DenOfEarth]

I forgot to mention, i agree with Sarah on the bottom comments of that article that last 2 examples on number 5 "Stay away from torture porn" makes no sense as I Spit on Your Grave and Last House on The Left were originally torture porn films and were marketed as shocking violent exploitation films. I also agree with her that if you look through that gore, the remakes are quite decent.

[AmrlKJaneway]

I've heard that American Werewolf in Paris is remarkably similar to London, and more so a remake than a sequel. Is this true.

Cause, yeah, I don't watch horror, but that movie is perfect.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by DenOfEarth

Who agrees with them that Rosemary's Baby, Poltergeist, Jaws and American Werewolf in London are perfect horror films that should never be remade?

Think we can spin off a separate rule: You Don't Tug on Super-Director's Cape
If a movie was best known for the director's own signature style, you're not going to recapture the movie by coldly replicating the ingredients.
(The Psycho remake would be the obvious example, but the above listed would also apply to anything with Steven Spielberg, Roman Polanski, John Carpenter or John Landis's fingerprints all over it.)

The "When a Stranger Calls" remake being used as "bad" example also promotes another rule (as Wes Craven satirized in Scream 4): Richer Isn't Scarier.
Being a babysitter terrorized in an average suburban house on a Bell telephone is scary; being terrorized on your expensive cellphone while housesitting in a mountain vacation cabin isn't. "Prom Night" in an 80's high school is scary, "Prom Night" in a glitzy five-star hotel bash isn't.

[DenOfEarth]

Say Eric do you agree with the following rules and it's also good advice to the filmmakers out there?

Make it Relevant? i mean it does make sense to do a remake to say about the way we live now, zombies and vampires are popular these days and i agree you gotta say something about how we live and i agree Dawn of the Dead and Fright Night did just that.

No carbon copies: it means that some classic horror movies don't need improving like Psycho and The Omen for instance and if a filmmaker's plan of attack is to do a shot-to-shot word-by-word frame-by-frame clone of a classic original then don't be surprised when they failed miserably, i mean it's just plain boring as hell to do such a thing with no new surprises or new dialog or new stuff with just being a duplicate clone with no artistic merit to it and just lazy filmmaking as for a remake you have to make it your own. I agree with the article if we wanted to see the original, we'd rather watch it.

Honor the original: This is an important one don't you think? i mean the rule is right by whether it's recycling memorable quotes, having cameos from original cast members or sticking to the story for i agree that a filmmaker can do alot of good will by refusing to fix what isn't broken. If not then the original filmmakers or original stars would not like the filmmakers. Besides Let Me In, do you also agree Night of the Living Dead 1990, Cat People (1982), Nosferatu (1979) and Cape Fear are missing good remakes on this article and fall into this rule?


Choose a horror film that could ACTUALLY use a remake: Obviously a good rule.

Upt the ante but don't overdo it: This says what it says eh on the article rule?

Stay away from torture porn: i mean would you consider Rob Zombie's Halloween to be torture porn? do you think the gag reflex can only be tested for long and do you agree with the article that there are already too many gore-fests out there to please the bloodthirsty masses? do you also agree with me that the 1972 and 1977 Last House on The Left and I Spit on Your Grave were torture porn films already and that the remakes are quite decent?

A good cast doesn't make up for a bad screenplay: This one can you agree with? i mean just because it has talented actors in it doesn't mean the crappy screenplay can save them. Do you agree elm Street and Haunting both have crappy screenplays?

Play to the original's strengths: do you agree with this one? The Crazies, Toolbox Murders, Hills have Eyes, Evil dead, The Ring and The Fly fall in this category?

Just because it was good in Japanese don't mean it'll be good in English: Do you think The Ring was the only one that ever worked and hasn't worked with others as it's time for filmmakers to move on?

And finally, if the original was rated R the remake should not be PG-13: agree with this one? there's no sense in doing a remake of a genre picture that was R-rated to began with just to do a PG-13 one for teens, i mean i agree teens grow up you know and there's no need to sugarcoat the script for the sake of ticket sales, i mean when a teen is old enough to watch the R-rated remake of an R-rated movie they'll be glad the studios didn't dumb down the movie. One word, KEEP THE ORIGINAL RATING.

[s2mikey]

The only rules I see for this is that the film you are remaking has some serious flaws or is simply outdated to the point of unintended cheesiness/comedy. The best two horror remakes are The Thing and The Fly. Zack Snyders 2004 Dawn of the Dead is right there too. The originals had great concepts but were incredibly lame productions that just dont hold up at all. They have bad effects, suspicious 50's-quality acting, & quite laughable production values.

As for gore and violence - do what ya gotta do. If the original was bloody then go for it.

But, please tell us a good story. Give us characters to root for. Make some sense of it. Stephen King once said that horror films fail when you are rooting for the "monster" or whatever. Much like you would in most teeny slasher flicks or torture porn where the characters are worth killing and torturing. Just doesnt work.

[legendarymatt92]

It's all very well and good making a comprehensive list of these things, but no amount of adhering to it will definitely produce a good remake. Remakes need to happen for a reason, with enough time passed to do the material justice in a more modern environment, and not because Hollywood needs to kick-start a franchise fast.

But it's a great find, OP. Very interesting to see other people's takes on what constitutes as a great remake.

[DenOfEarth]

I loath it when The Thing is called a remake S2mikey, it WAS NOT a remake of the 1951 film! they are nothing alike. Both films are separate from each other and very different from each other! both are adaptations of the 1938 novella "Who Goes There" by John Campbell, the 1951 movie by Hawks is a very good movie but it's a rather terrible terrible adaptation that was nothing like the original story. The John Carpenter film is a standalone film that is by far an excellent and very faithful adaptation of the story.

Sure Carpenter grew up with the 1951 film but is a bigger fan of the 1938 John Campbell story as he stated in interviews that he didn't want to remake the 1951 film, he stated his film was to go back to the original story which was something the previous adaptation ignored.

Go read the original "Who Goes There" story online and you'll see what i mean and you'll say "MY GOD Carpenter got it right".

Remakes and re-adaptations are 2 very different things