I've noticed a very strange phenomena when it comes to remakes. Eight out of ten are in the horror genre.
Why?
On the whole, I will agree with a lot of horror fans that remakes suck. But sometimes a remake will utterly shock and surprise, and become bigger and better than the original.
I remember when word originally got out that John Carpenter of
Halloween fame announced he was going to remake Howard Hawks' classic
The Thing. People screamed. Me, I remembered the original black and white version (in which James
Arness of
TV's Gunsmoke played the titular character). But I also knew that movies had come a long, long way since the 1950s. Plus it was going to be in color - way cool!
I followed any news I could get my hands on regarding the production aspect of it, right down to the fact that one of my all-time favorite actors was starring: Kurt Russell.
There were no
CGI effects back in those days. Everything was done by
animatronics and hands-on special effects. As a result, the film scared the crap out of me when I went to see it in the theaters.
Now it's rumored there will be a third Thing, another remake, and all I can think of is that that
CGI will be an integral part of the movie. Frankly, I don't mind
CGI as long as it doesn't overwhelm the story, but recently I think Hollywood has been relying too much on the
computerized horror and not enough on the emotional gut punches to make a movie memorable.
Does this mean I won't like the new remake? To be honest, I'm willing to give #3 a try. But the moment I see the seams and zippers showing on the creature, and the wires to my suspension of belief are cut, I will do what a lot of other horror lovers might do... pull out my Carpenter DVD to help get the bad taste out of my mouth.
John Carpenter created a classic. What's more, he also started a whole new wave of horror films, the slasher.
