PDA

View Full Version : Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake trailer up...



Chris Phelps
07-16-2003, 10:19 PM
And it actually looks good. At least I think it does. Decide for yourselves: http://www.texaschainsawmovie.com/

Dan DeVries
07-16-2003, 10:44 PM
Maybe I'm retarted but I can't find the trailer on the site.

Scott Downey
07-17-2003, 12:39 AM
well one good thing is that this will expose the original to a whole new audience. Most of those people (teens and preteens) will probably not appreciate it and think it sucks, but at least it will be seen by a new wave of fans.

Chuk H
07-17-2003, 04:34 AM
Hmmm....it looks alot more like the original than I thought it would and I noticed one shot lifted straight from it. I don't know...seems about as pointless as remaking Psycho.

Where was this filmed? I get pissed off when they don't even film a TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE film in TEXAS.


Very mixed feelings about this. ... ...... ..

Joe L
07-17-2003, 05:22 AM
Originally posted by chuk hell
Hmmm....it looks alot more like the original than I thought it would and I noticed one shot lifted straight from it. I don't know...seems about as pointless as remaking Psycho.



"pointless" is the perfect word, all right.

Chris Phelps
07-17-2003, 10:15 AM
Since when does a movie's budget have anything to do with it being good or not? Sure the remake is pointless but they made it, it may turn out good...may turn out to in fact be a miserable piece of shit....who knows until we have a chance to see it?

mark t
07-17-2003, 11:06 AM
Waiting for the dvd as well....when the Psycho remake came out, i went to see it. I thought that it was kinda strange that somebody would do an exact remake, and figured their must be something more there than i knew of. Imagine my surprise as i was treated to a shot-for-shot piece of suckass cinema, complete with bad acting. The original TCM stands up well, and isn't old enough to warrant a remake.

ROBERT BLACK
07-17-2003, 03:29 PM
<Blahahahahah!!!!

BLAIR WITCH MASSACRE!!!

I'm sick to death of backlit smoky lighting/ sub Fincher atmospherics/ greased up supermodels and all this fucken gothic suburban fashion BULLSHIT!!

The fact that it was made with a budget over 10 million dollars means that its a piece of shit.

I wonder who they used for make-up FX?

If it's good I'm gonna bathe myself in a tub of Coca-Cola and broadcast it on the Internet.

I can't wait for Harry Knowles to shoot his load over it!!

MEDIA-OCRITY RULES!!!!>





So, fucking true. I can't believe the amount of fans that are standing up for it with comments like"Oh, it looks good.", Oh, It looks better than expected!", "It should be worth seeing." If Michael Bay would take a shit on celluloid acetate these people would say the same thing. I laughed when I saw that trailer.

Michael Jaros IV
07-17-2003, 04:44 PM
It looks good but do we really need a remake? Who is the cast? Does anyone know who these people are?

djnock
07-17-2003, 04:49 PM
Like the majority, I believe one thing --

THIS IS A CRIME AGAINST HORROR!

It is also a direct slap in the face to horror fans in general. Who would take this job? Marcus Nispel must have been on something, when he believed he could make a movie with even one ounce of the intensity featured in Hooper's. This will be 'Chainsaw' for the 'Scream' generation - a self-referential piece of trash with off-camera deaths and "flashy" editing...

It shouldn't be! Why not just re-release the original? I'm sure they'd make enough money from it...Heck, the fucks make enough from the DVD!

I checked out the trailer, and I have to say, even though it is neatly edited, and offers a creepy vibe, it isn't going to trick me! We all know that this film will turn out like every other "slasher" flick of the late 90s.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh, since I haven't seen it and all, but unless Nispel can pull off a Savini (like Tom did with his take on 'Living Dead'), this new 'Massacre' will likely suck chainsaw fuel...

They should boil this abomination down into head-cheese.

Regards,
D.J. Nock

Chris Phelps
07-17-2003, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by ROBERT BLACK
I can't believe the amount of fans that are standing up for it with comments like"Oh, it looks good.", Oh, It looks better than expected!", "It should be worth seeing."

Well, I'm saying that because I think it looks like it could be good. And because it actually looks much better than I thought it would.

Chris Phelps
07-17-2003, 10:32 PM
The guy driving was on Six Feet Under, I think one of the other guys was on that show Grounded For Life and the other girl was in Blair Witch 2, not sure about the other guy.

Ian Z.
07-18-2003, 05:05 AM
Ok, now I've watched the trailer and I can say even more assuredly that I have no desire to pay one red cent to see this trash. It's obvious that the director/producer are more concerned with showing us how purty their cast members are than creating a true horror experience. Gee, I like the obvious butt-shot of the one girl as well as the "greased-up" shots that someone else pointed out here.

Hollywood Horror really bites it these days.

It doesn't seem for me at all that this is a shot-by-shot remake like PSYCHO, but that still doesn't make it worth watching. If a remake can't add something to a film, why remake it? I doubt even TCM's fans will find that this particular movie is improved over the original.

Betsy Young
07-18-2003, 11:13 AM
Eh, boy....don't know if I'm going to give this one a shot or not. But I have this feeling that I'll probably be pissed off.

Tom D
07-18-2003, 12:42 PM
Since the remake takes place in the early 1970s as well, will this "hip" young WB/MTV-ish cast be able to lose their affected speech patterns? You know: "OMG! He like, has a chainsaw!". ;)

Joe L
07-18-2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by LiquidSky
will this "hip" young WB/MTV-ish cast be able to lose their affected speech patterns? You know: "OMG! He like, has a chainsaw!". ;)

LOL!

And don't forget the question marks at the end of each sentence:
"Oh my God? He like, has a chainsaw? I mean, helll-oooo?" :D

Joe Z
07-18-2003, 04:31 PM
Here's a good example of why this seems unnecessary to me...

I work with someone that has typical mainstream tastes. Doesn't care what they spend their money on when it comes to films, as long as it's new...ie seeing all the latest turds on opening day and thinks black and white films are "stupid."

Anyway, they recently discovered the trailer for the TCM remake online. I overheard "Cool, now I don't have to see an 'old' movie, I can just see the new one. I always wanted to see that."

It's sad that the original may be overshadowed by the remake, regardless of how good it is. Horror film or not, the original TCM is a powerful and ground breaking film in any genre. It's a shame that someone might pass over the experience of seeing the original all together, no matter what their tastes.

Joe L
07-18-2003, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Joezie
It's sad that the original may be overshadowed by the remake

Fortunately, this is a rarity. But there are originals which have been, shall we say, "dimmed" by a superior remake. IMO, the 1978 version of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS is much more effective than the 1956 version. For me it just achieves its goal better than the original. At the risk of sounding like one of those "kids today," I think the 1956 version begged to have better effects and to have been in color. I'd also say that Carpenter's THE THING is better than the 1951 THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD, but in that case it's really a different take on a theme all together.

But even these two remakes (1978 and 1982, respectively) were made quite some time ago now. Before Hollywood really started screwing things up.

peterbliss
07-18-2003, 10:42 PM
Michael,
I could not disagree with you more.

I think to a lot of genre (make that pure cinema) fans out there place TCM in the same league as the films that you rate as untouchable.(The Musuem of American Modern Art inducting this film cannot be wrong!!)

TCM on a historical level was influential in both horror and thriller genres and to many budding directors,editors,music scorers was a template of who to make that first vital kick ass film in ones career.

You say that TCM has errors in it.Well a lot of classic films have errors in it but that does not validate the Hollywood glossy big budget treatment can improve a film that has worked so successfully as a low budget tight rope guerilla piece of film making.

Gloss to me equals dross and the history of Hollywood remakes does not bide well for this one.I can list one hundred remakes that Hollywood or the studio has screwed up.

TCM to these eyes is one of the most visceral in your face horror films on every film making level and considering it was released in 1974 and still kicks butt makes it an achievement.

As I said in a previous thread....people still talk about TCM (1974) I dont think they will be talking about the remake in the same hushed tones because the originality, the ideas, the shock value has already been established.

Scott Downey
07-18-2003, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by peterbliss
Michael,
I could not disagree with you more.

I think to a lot of genre (make that pure cinema) fans out there place TCM in the same league as the films that you rate as untouchable.(The Musuem of American Modern Art inducting this film cannot be wrong!!)

TCM on a historical level was influential in both horror and thriller genres and to many budding directors,editors,music scorers was a template of who to make that first vital kick ass film in ones career.

You say that TCM has errors in it.Well a lot of classic films have errors in it but that does not validate the Hollywood glossy big budget treatment can improve a film that has worked so successfully as a low budget tight rope guerilla piece of film making.

Gloss to me equals dross and the history of Hollywood remakes does not bide well for this one.I can list one hundred remakes that Hollywood or the studio has screwed up.

TCM to these eyes is one of the most visceral in your face horror films on every film making level and considering it was released in 1974 and still kicks butt makes it an achievement.

As I said in a previous thread....people still talk about TCM (1974) I dont think they will be talking about the remake in the same hushed tones because the originality, the ideas, the shock value has already been established.


my thoughts exactly...well said!

Joe L
07-19-2003, 06:32 AM
Make it THREE! Beautiful, Peter -- and right on the money! :)

MICHAEL - You may think TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE could stand improvement, but you're way in the minority (and we've talked before about a film's general "classic" reputation overriding the minority ;) ). The cheaply made yet effective TCM is the sister of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Both gritty, effective classics made on a shoestring budget. Just goes to prove my point that people who don't mind new remakes don't think much of the original to begin with, so it's no wonder. Well, you may not mind this remake, but wait till they try to reconstruct one of YOUR very favorite "perfect" films! As for me, whether or not an older film is great or even weak, the film has been made and that's that. It is what it is, warts and all.

As has been stated, every film has errors in it. Chris Workman used to go on about many editing weaknesses and other imperfections in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, for example.

As for "judging a film before seeing it," the new TCM may wind up being the greatest film ever made when it comes out -- but it doesn't change the opinion here by the majority that it doesn't NEED to be made. I'm not necessarily saying "it's gonna suck" (though I'll bet it will) as much as I'm saying "it's not necessary". Not the same thing. Even if it's great we don't need it.

Chuk H
07-19-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Joe L.
I'm saying "it's not necessary"

It sure as hell isn't. TCM is a fucking masterpiece and doesn't need to be remade.

This whole remake thing is just about MONEY. It's not that there aren't original screenplays out there waiting to be made; it's that the Hollywood bastards don't want to take chances in a bloated film market where they spend almost as much money marketing the film as they do on the production budget. They see remakes as more of a sure thing because they figure they have a built-in audience. Same thing with these comic book movies. As long as folks are willing to pay to see these we will see more remakes and less original ( perhaps even good?) films.

It all boils down to this: HOLLYWOOD SUCKS!

Paul Chenault
07-19-2003, 04:53 PM
This doesn't look appealing as much as Freddy vs. Jason... that looks like a good showdown for sure.

Chuk H
07-19-2003, 09:21 PM
True enough Michael, the studios don't think there's enough of a built in audience for GLEN OR GLENDA, but everyone's heard of the notorious TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. I don't really have that big a problem with remakes, I just think it's unfortunate that the studios choose to make crappy remakes instead of original movies. But ce le vive.

Hell I just saw PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN and it was great...and that's a movie based on a freakin amusement park ride...so who knows? It all comes down to whether the movie is any good or not.

Joe L
07-20-2003, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by Michael Elliott
Joe, I really don't think the "majority" hold TCM as high as many other classic horror films. I think everyone agrees it's very effective but several of the fans still see flaws with it. Critics weren't too fond of it nor are several people viewing the film today.

Well, we disagree. I think the overwhelming majority holds TCM in the same high esteem as a classic horror film as they do NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Flaws? What flaws? Flaws are all open to personal interpretation of course, but if you're talking about the crudeness and "home movie" type of feel to TCM, this is exactly WHY the film works as well as it does. And most critics I've ever read have said TCM is a fine horror film. I even recall having an old VHS tape where there was a Rex Reed quote on the cover saying: "The most horrifying film I have ever seen!" There can't be a more positive review for a horror flick than that.

The one thing I'll say is that TCM doesn't retain as much of its horrifying power on repeat viewings for me, but that very first time I ever saw it was absolutely one of the most potent and disturbing experiences I've ever had with a horror movie.

Regarding PSYCHO and THE BRIDE, which you mentioned --- the remake of PSYCHO is indeed just that - a straight remake. As for THE BRIDE, it is absolutely nothing like the original BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN and there is no relation whatsoever. So THE BRIDE never bugged me, and I love the half of the movie spotlighting the monster and his friend the dwarf in THE BRIDE.

I've often heard the argument: "if both films are good, we have two to enjoy, and if the remake stinks then it's forgotten, so what?" -- But the one scenario (which maybe happens 1% of the time, thank God) which everyone leaves out is: "what if the remake forever blunts the edge of the original and makes it obsolete?" Depending on how I feel about whatever film we're discussing at the time, I for one don't want this to happen. Supposedly, WESTWORLD is being remade, and it's probably my all-time favorite film as it is and it's the one I'd personally like to remain as THE version.

mark t
07-20-2003, 06:42 PM
Can anyone tell me why i read an article in the newspaper about the remake of Back To School? That's right, Rodney Dangerfield wants to do a remake...I don't think that remaking TCM has anything to do with improvement, i think it's got everything to do with lack of original ideas.

peterbliss
07-20-2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by Michael Elliott
Chuk, I personally blame the audience and not Hollywood. I think Hollywood is simply pushing what the crowds want and sadly, crowds don't want smart movies. They want stupid blow 'em up action films that make little to no sense. I seriously doubt people who see this remake will search out the original film. Everyone I know has seen THE RING yet none of them knew it was a remake. When I told everyone about the original they didn't want to see it because it was a foreign film. I'm guessing most people won't want to watch the original TCM because it's "old".


Michael once again I disagree with your opinions.

I think you are patronising movie audiences by blaming them and not Hollywood for what product is being produced lately.
Movie audience have shown in recent years that they do accept intelligent and challenging cinema.All the hits though that have come under this category have been through the independents.
eg $100 mil hits like "Traffic" "Pulp Fiction" "American Beauty".
Hollywood has become artistically bankrupted through the major studios and are the persons (being the financiers of this thing called entertainment) that should be held responsible.

The backlash is starting to show with audience numbers down on movies such as Charlies Angels 2, The Hulk and even T3.

Now to TCM
Sure in 1974 there was some critics that loathed TCM and still do to this day.But there were also vocal critics that responded with praise and adulation.
This argument is flawed regarding critical praise at the time anyway.
Look at bone fide classics such as 2001,Blade Runner,The Wild Bunch.All critically savaged at the time! but now reappraised.
I think TCM comes under this category.

You quote 7 of the fans who are underwhelmed (like yourself) with TCM.
Well, with the success of the dvd sales of the film world wide, the success of the film re-released in cinemas around the world there is still a big audience that reveres this film.

I think it is presumptious to say that The film is overvalued.Sure that it is your opinion but to brush it with generalisations that people in general think that does not wash.

I think TCM does not need to be remade.
It already had 3 sequels (that were varied in quality) and the whole thing to me is like reinventing the wheel.Why?

Jennifer S.
07-21-2003, 01:33 AM
Well i think your right about people not even knowing,let alone carrying about the originals.

At work when talking about upcoming films briefly. TCM was brought up. I asked if they had seen the original..& got a blank stare of "Huh? I never heard of the film before now. So whats up with this upcoming film?"..& i tryed telling them it's a remake..& again blank stare of "Soooooo you mean the other one is old then? Well i'll see the new one then!".


Even worse. If they choose to watch the original in this mindset after the remake. They will try judging it in todays filmmaking terms & call it 'boring crap' since it's 'grimmy looking','slow' 'unhip' & all that garbage.

Joe L
07-21-2003, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by Michael Elliott
I haven't heard too many putting TCM in the same league as THE WILD BUNCH or 2001.

LOL! No, maybe not -- but they've certainly put it in the same league as NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD or HALLOWEEN! And regardless of what you or I think of Rex Reed, that's besides the point. You said critics didn't give it good reviews... I'm giving you one example off the top of my head where one major critic DID.

Joe L
07-21-2003, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Aratak
Chainsaw Massacre is a rough-hewn classic in all ways; when people speak of "most frightening film moments" my mind always leaps to Marilyn Burns shrieking in terror at the dining room table.
The cheapness of TCM adds to the horror, increasing the "I shouldn't be watching this" factor. It is like some dreadful found artifact


That's it for me exactly. I first saw this on a poor generation VHS tape, and it was one of the most (successfully) disturbing films I'd ever seen. It looked like someone's private snuff film or something from their home movies. Very unsettling and unrelenting.

Now, I definitely agree that TCM does not hold up as well on repeated viewings and I just watched it again a year or so ago and it has lost a lot of its impact -- but I don't necessarily think that all great films necessarily have to retain their re-watchability freshness. I used to love AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN but don't ever wish to see it again after seeing it 4 or 5 times. Still, I'd consider it a "good" movie based on that first impact. As much as I love FRANKENSTEIN (1931) I've pretty much exhausted it, though I'd still consider it a "great classic".

scott favareille
07-21-2003, 10:58 AM
I do like the fact that most of this summer's so called "blockbuster" films are doing terribly at the box office! Examples: Charlie's Angels("disappointing opening weekend"), Legally Blonde 2, T3, The Hulk, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, etc. (And it seems like the hit the "all seats $3 theaters" in just mere weeks. The Hulk is now playing at one) Most of these films aren't even making back their budget, let alone the marketing costs.

Maybe low-budget mainstream films need to be revived. This is what brought Hollywood out of the doldrums in the late 1960's, when films such as Paint Your Wagon, Star, Happiest Millionaire, and Hello Dolly tanked big time. (And in the case of Fox, they had actually turned to making Myra Breckinridge and Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, both X-rated, as a result of the failure of Star and several other films.)

Personally, I will stick to watching independent films and documentaries instead of paying $9.25 (each) and wasting 2 hours of my time to watch any remake of TCM or Dawn of the Dead.

peterbliss
07-21-2003, 08:35 PM
Michael,

We continue to disagree.

Here are some points

1.
Earlier you said I only listed a few so called pieces of intelligent cinema that have done well at the box office recently.

Well, here is some more off the top of my head and guess what? they are all through indenpendents not the Hollywood homogenous pop-corn machine.

Chicago ( a musical with a brain) grossed $170 mil and still counting
Gangs of New York (an epic with a brain) grossed $80mil now into dvd revenue
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon : gross over $100 mil

Other notables that did well at the box office recently comparitive to budget : The Pianist,Bridget Jones Diary,Gosford Park etc

All these movies have one thing in common.An appeal to the ceberal as well as the visceral.

I think this illustrates, yes, people will come to intelligent cinema if it is offered.
What is the biggest growth market in cinema: art house film.
Because people want more.

2. Blade Runner is a cult classic not a classic
Well a cult film by definition is a movie only a certain demographic fanatically loves and enjoys.
I think Blade Runner with its re-release, it reappraisal is out of the realm of the cult into the wider community.
It was also included in a AFI poll of one of the 20th century greatest 100 films.
A recent poll of international critics in British Empire Magazine polled this as one of the top ten sci films of all time.

3. People dont talk about TCM in the same sentence as 2001 or Wild Bunch.
There are so many great films that were made in the last century it would be a lengthy sentence to include all.Also I guess there are all different genres thats why TCM is not included in the same breathe.
Texas Chainsaw has bone fide critical acclaim points on the board-:
Inducted into the American Museum of Modern Art
Voted one of the ten greatest horror films of all time (again international critics : British Empire Film Magazine)
Even E poll rated it one of the ten scary films ever made (look at that demographics of that station 18-25)

So to say that there is not that critical adulation that rates this movie as a bit of a classic is not correct.

peterbliss
07-21-2003, 08:44 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Christina Valentine
[B]Well i think your right about people not even knowing,let alone carrying about the originals.

Christina, on the whole I disagree with this.

I think the brand name itself Texas Chainsaw has a high awareness extending from the horror genre into the general viewing public.
In Australia this movie was banned until 1985 but I was aware of it right up to the date it could be released.

The E Poll held recently about the scariest films of all times held this film in the top ten.Now look at the demographic of this cable station 16-25 year old.
A 1974 film to be voted means that a lot of 16-25 year old know about this film and do care.

The dvd sales of this film, still tick over.People still discuss it.Tobe Hooper gets mobbed at Horror Film fairs all over America (not wanting to talk about The Funhouse but to discuss TCM and old leatherface)

Sure, the people who want to see Legally Blonde 2 will not give a rats about TCM but people who love quality cinema (all genres like myself) do care.

Hollywood needs to get original and stop remaking the wheel and do something different.
Stop the sequels stop the madness.Do something real and alive like TCM was all those years ago

Jennifer S.
07-21-2003, 09:12 PM
I don't know about todays generation.

Yet 'my' so called generation who were born in the 80's & came of age in the early 90's...revelling in the 80's & earlier cinema(especially horror). I was surprised when at school. Some kids were looking at some book on horror films. They kept talking out loud about seeing this & that,how cool they were ect ect..& could tell what movies the photos were from. They ranged from American Werewolf In London,The Evil Dead..& The Texas Chainsaw Massacre being the more popular ones to be pointed out with "oh that movie is so awsome/scary!".

Though i do know my little brother who's now 16 & saw all the films we did at such a young age. Even he remembers them well by noticing how shitty todays horror really is(for the most part)..& when he brought up how disappointed he was with 28 days Later & everything else. He said "I love the classic horror movies,you know Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Evil Dead,Friday the 13th..& well all that that stuff,the last good horror movie i saw was Scream & that wasn't really horror".

I was surprised & happy to hear him say this. Since he has'nt seen these films in years that i'm aware of & have'nt heard him bring them up before. Since he's been trying to be 'hip' & 'with it' by seeing all the new stuff & going with the crowd.

scott favareille
07-22-2003, 10:30 AM
Gangs of New York, unfortunately, cost over $100 million to make plus advertising costs, which means it lost money.

BTW, Miramax is owned by Disney, which is a part of Hollywood.

Cesare_Gielgud
07-22-2003, 12:10 PM
This new TCM should be really really really good, except that it won't be and it never could have been.

peterbliss
07-22-2003, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Michael Elliott
But how many stupid, no brain epics make $150+ million? I was VERY pissed that people didn't support GANGS a lot better. They bitched that they hate CGI yet they didn't see a REAL epic. Even THE PIANIST didn't do very well at the box office.


The Pianist did quite well internationally at the Box Office and did not too bad business in America (budget compared to gross)

I think also that Gangs did fairly well on an international basis (but not as good as was expected I grant you)

Sure, there are a pleathora of no brain epics that make $150+ mil but there is also a lot of quality cinema that achieves these results and beyond on an international basis showing that there is a market for this sort of intelligent film-making.

Mike P
07-22-2003, 10:10 PM
I personally think that all of the fuss is over the title. Im sure that if this movie was released with the title "stupid fuckin kids that visit an old house and snoop around and get killed", that anyone would have a problem with this. Granted, I thought TCM was one of the best horror movies of all time, but does not need a remake. And for those who say that it has room to improve, what movie doesnt? And what are the thoughts of the Dawn Of The Dead Remake and the Suspiria Remake?

Paul Chenault
07-22-2003, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by skankenstein
I personally think that all of the fuss is over the title. Im sure that if this movie was released with the title "stupid fuckin kids that visit an old house and snoop around and get killed", that anyone would have a problem with this. Granted, I thought TCM was one of the best horror movies of all time, but does not need a remake. And for those who say that it has room to improve, what movie doesnt? And what are the thoughts of the Dawn Of The Dead Remake and the Suspiria Remake?

Don't get me started on the Dawn and Suspiria remakes. That is rediculous, but I guess original ideas are regarded as shit in our society.

STOP REMAKING EVERYTHING...

I'd appreciate a Dawn of the Dead musical more than a sadistically commercialized and soulless remake... lol

Mike P
07-22-2003, 10:22 PM
That would be funny as shit. And I also agree that original ideas arent regarded. I mean, look how many people there are in the world with scripts, and how many actually send theirs to the movie companies (the right way, to where they will actually look at it.). If it doesnt appeal to the Teen audience these days, its mostly out the windows (with few exceptions).

Paul Chenault
07-22-2003, 10:25 PM
Soon, brethren....

There is no hope. It will happen.

Mike P
07-22-2003, 10:30 PM
Get ready to roll with the chunks my bro.
Ive seen the poster, and its a distorted pic of leatherface. Im waiting for the other prints of it.:(

Jennifer S.
07-22-2003, 10:31 PM
It would be nice if they tryed a similar poster like the original. Yet i know i know. It would be to 'scary' & 'gritty' for todays audiences to look at."MY god..thats a creepy poster,the malls will not stand for it & neither will the parents..so alter it or else!", "Hey lets copy Hannibal instead..& use the floating heads later!" "Great idea" says the brainless execs.



Though on original scripts. There are no original ideas left..but variations on the same themes.

So original as in never been done before/thought of pretty much does'nt exist,unless you take some really outlandish plot that no one would dare do. Meanwhile taking a theme & putting your own spin on it does exist & can make them seem interesting again. Yet the studios fail to see this & would rather do the same old same old.

mark t
07-22-2003, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by skankenstein
I personally think that all of the fuss is over the title. Im sure that if this movie was released with the title "stupid fuckin kids that visit an old house and snoop around and get killed


I would pay to see that....Haha.

Paul Chenault
07-23-2003, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Christina Valentine
It would be nice if they tryed a similar poster like the original. Yet i know i know. It would be to 'scary' & 'gritty' for todays audiences to look at."MY god..thats a creepy poster,the malls will not stand for it & neither will the parents..so alter it or else!", "Hey lets copy Hannibal instead..& use the floating heads later!" "Great idea" says the brainless execs.



Though on original scripts. There are no original ideas left..but variations on the same themes.

So original as in never been done before/thought of pretty much does'nt exist,unless you take some really outlandish plot that no one would dare do. Meanwhile taking a theme & putting your own spin on it does exist & can make them seem interesting again. Yet the studios fail to see this & would rather do the same old same old.

No original ideas left?
There's nothing new under the sun?

I think there's plenty of good ideas left for horror, it's just opening up themes that people are not used to.

I am working on a script for a movie that I want to call original, but I'll leave the audience up to that. I must admit, it has a bit of Hitchcock influence, but i didn't do it consciously.

Though, this post has everything to do with originality and especially with all the remakes in the works. I truly wonder if there's anything left to be truly called original...

Mike P
07-23-2003, 01:06 AM
I would pay to see that....Haha.

Lol...I would too

Jennifer S.
07-29-2003, 10:26 PM
Well i finally saw the trailer tonight at Bad Boys 2.

Surprisingly it looks alright. Trailer was creepy,dark,ominous...but of course trailers can sometimes make even the shittiest film look awsome!

Yet still i was surprised the trailer was not as bad as i thought it would be. So i'm willing to give the film a fair chance & may see it in theaters.

My dad asked me if i saw the original after it was over. I replied i had it on dvd. He seems to not recall ever seeing the original. I highly recomend he do so.

scott favareille
07-30-2003, 10:58 AM
I saw the trailer last night in a theater. I actually booed quite loudly. (The theater I went to was in what I call "yuppie ville", so I only had two others who booed with me.)

Quite frankly, this looks like a ripoff of a ripoff. I am getting so sick of "intensional slow motion" shots for modern horror films, not to mention actors(victims?) who look like they stepped out of the latest trendy catalog. At least the original had more realistic looking actors playing the victims.

The only saving grace is that this won't be getting a PG-13.

Marshall Crist
07-30-2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Chris Phelps
Since when does a movie's budget have anything to do with it being good or not? Sure the remake is pointless but they made it, it may turn out good...may turn out to in fact be a miserable piece of shit....who knows until we have a chance to see it?

I have to agree with DVDcatastrophe. Movies budgeted at over $10 million suck.

peterbliss
07-30-2003, 08:23 PM
I will say it before and say it again.This movie will flop and that will be the end of the matter.
People will forget about the remake and just refer to the original

Al Edwards
09-17-2003, 11:32 PM
Just saw two pics of Leatherface from gorezone website. He looks facially a cross between Beatlejuice and the Joker from Batman except a little heavier.

Troy Howarth
09-18-2003, 02:04 AM
It won't be a patch on the original but judged on its own merits (yes, people, it IS possible to judge a remake without continuously referring to the original!) it looks all right. I expect I'll see it when it hits the cheap theatres. Jessica Biel boldly went against her WB image last year in the brilliant Rules of Attraction, so who knows...

Joe L
09-18-2003, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by Troy Howarth
(yes, people, it IS possible to judge a remake without continuously referring to the original!)

It's inevitable that comparisons will creep up, though. This is especially true when you have a film with the same exact title as an original, and a needless remake of an already flawless and highly regarded film. One thing that always sucks when a new version comes out is that you have to constantly add the "year" to a film's title to tell which one you're referring to. .... "Oh, I really like PLANET OF THE APES 1968", or "What did you think of TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSCRE? No, I mean the old one from 1974..."

Bill Pissott
09-18-2003, 07:55 AM
10/17/03!!!!!!!!!! Can't wait!!

Troy Howarth
09-18-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Joe Lozo
It's inevitable that comparisons will creep up, though. This is especially true when you have a film with the same exact title as an original, and a needless remake of an already flawless and highly regarded film. One thing that always sucks when a new version comes out is that you have to constantly add the "year" to a film's title to tell which one you're referring to. .... "Oh, I really like PLANET OF THE APES 1968", or "What did you think of TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSCRE? No, I mean the old one from 1974..."

The original TCM is far from flawless...

Ian Jane
09-18-2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Troy Howarth
The original TCM is far from flawless...

From a technical stand point, you're right, but I can't think of a film that better displays raw fear. And in that respect, it's pretty close.

Joe L
09-18-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Troy Howarth
The original TCM is far from flawless...

To me, it is. Sure, if we're talking about great "technical" cinema, it's no CITIZEN KANE (sorry, but there's that comparison again!)
And it's not supposed to. I think it perfectly captures the raw and primitive feel of a brutal home movie, if you will, about the horrifying events at hand. It's supposed to feel guttural and even kind of amateurish and candid, and that's what it is, IMO.
Flawless or not, I guess what I meant was that its reputation is solid as a great horror film.

Troy Howarth
09-18-2003, 12:40 PM
Yes, it is a great horror film but no film, not even the critical darling that is Citizen Kane, is flawless. But we've had this debate before. :)

Andrew Monroe
09-18-2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Ian Jane
From a technical stand point, you're right, but I can't think of a film that better displays raw fear. And in that respect, it's pretty close.

I agree,and I`m not opposed to the idea of remakes,it`s just that if the original film has done the job so well,why bother?Now if it is an obvious case of actors,poor direction,etc. ruining a good story idea,then a remake may serve a purpose.After all,it took the charmed third time for Huston to do THE MALTESE FALCON right.

Joe L
09-18-2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Troy Howarth
Yes, it is a great horror film but no film, not even the critical darling that is Citizen Kane, is flawless. But we've had this debate before. :)

Yes we have -- and I repeat that I believe some films are perfect. Or at least "perfect" in a cinematic sense, ie **** . ;)

Joe L
09-18-2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Michael Elliott
I personally find many flaws in the original so perhaps that's why I don't mind this remake.

Opinion taken. But out of sincere curiosity and possible interesting debate.... such as...?

Joe L
09-18-2003, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Michael Elliott
1. I have problems with some of the acting.
2. I don't find the film "scary" but this is my problem.
3. Too many "screams".
4. It might have been disturbing back when released but not today.



Cool, but here are some of my views...

I think the acting is fine, or should I say it's very "real," as though these are actual people on a vacation with a camera pointed at them. I'm glad it doesn't actually feel like performances, though... and Marilyn Burns is fantastic, IMO - what a job! (Too many screams? Not for this!)

Along with THE EXORCIST I think the film is only one of the two scary films I ever saw (though I'd call it more "distrubing" or "unsettling") - but I admit that this wanes with repeated viewings. I can't speak for all people today, but I showed this to someone's 14 year old recently, and he was able to enjoy it, so that's a good sign :)

Joe L
09-18-2003, 02:15 PM
Well, that explains a lot.

Ian Jane
09-18-2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Joe Lozo
Well, that explains a lot.

Actually it does. Hype can go a long way to lead to disappointment. I'm sure it's happened to all of us at some point.

Gary Banks
09-18-2003, 02:27 PM
I think if most of the posters on this board had seen TCM in its original theatrical run or sometime in the 70's they would have been more impressed. There was nothing like it when it came out. Back in the 70's you were just stunned. There was no comparison as it was the door opener.

As far as the remake I don't care. I don't plan on seeing it but may rent the Dawn Of The Dead remake just for giggles when it hits dvd.

Tom D
09-18-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Ian Jane
Actually it does. Hype can go a long way to lead to disappointment. I'm sure it's happened to all of us at some point.

True. My latest: "Cabin Fever". :(

Troy Howarth
09-18-2003, 05:05 PM
I think I saw TCM for the first time when I was about 10 and it scared the hell out of me. We used to live in a fairly rural area, and after the film was over - I watched it in the afternoon one summer - I heard a chainsaw roaring in the distance. Not uncommon for that area, but boy did it resonate differently after that film!

I agree with Michael about the screams - it does wear on my nerves a little bit. Yes, it's understandable and appropriate, but still... Apart from "the family" and possibly Franklin, the acting strikes me as rather poor. I could say the same of Hills Have Eyes, too, not to mention The Crazies. In a weird way, though, it adds to their realism, so I'm not sure if better acting will be a good thing this time around. I love the original TCM, warts and all, but I'm intrigued by the looks of the remake.

Joe L
09-18-2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Ian Jane
Actually it does. Hype can go a long way to lead to disappointment. I'm sure it's happened to all of us at some point.

Ian, I hope you know I meant it sincerely when I said "that explains a lot". :)

John Hand
09-20-2003, 01:48 AM
This might have already been mentioned somewhere in the numerous TCM remake threads, but I just caught the new TV Spot for the film and it appears to be voiced by the original opening narrator John Larroquette. Just a stupid little note.

Troy Howarth
09-20-2003, 02:46 AM
The film is also shot by Daniel Pearl, who photographed Tobe Hooper's original. There's a very good article on the remake in the new Fangoria.

Bill Pissott
09-20-2003, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Troy Howarth
but I'm intrigued by the looks of the remake.


It's funny, because we have 11 people that will be going together on opening night to see this. It seems many people are really psyched up to see TCM. There are a ton of folks in the office talking about it and going to see it so at the very least, many folks who I associate with are at least curious enough to check it out and to me, that's a very positive thing. Most folks I know are about split 50-50 on the merits of the remake but almost 100% of them are open minded enough to give it a look see and these folks are about as hardcore horror as you can get. 10/17 can't get here soon enough!

Jim Peavy
09-20-2003, 05:24 PM
Just saw this trailer for the 2nd time (at Once Upon a time in Mexico) and it looks pretty good to me. It's neat that they have set it in '73 again. This doesn't look like your typical lame slasher flick.

I'm certainly no big Michael Bey fan, but the trailer for this is effective. I'm no giant fan of the orig. film either, though I admit it too is well done, and something of a classic.

Remakes have no impact on the orig. film. If the remake stinks, they make you appreciate the orig. all the more. If the remake is terrific... well, you have two movies to enjoy.