[url]http://movies.ign.com/articles/121/1211610p1.html[/url]
I will say what's in the link in a nut shell
$M = $1,000,000
Arthur / cost to make $40M / What they made World Wide $45M
Conan / $90M Budget Worldwide Gross $48M
I Spit on your Grave / cost to make $2M What they made $0.5M
The Thing / To make $67M What they Got $36M
there's more in the link
Hopefully it will encourage them to pursue more original projects.
Technically, The Thing is a prequel, not a remake.
Also, they remade I Spit on Your Grave? Shit, they're really scratching rock bottom in the shitty bin.
EDIT: Fixed
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;33172575]Technically, The Thing is a reboot, not a remake.
Also, they remade I Spit on Your Grave? Shit, they're really scratching rock bottom in the shitty bin.[/QUOTE]
It may as well have been a remake since they copied entire scenes from the original.
Surprise bloody surprise
"Let Me In" was still good though.
Never would've guess that in a million years
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;33172575]Technically, The Thing is a reboot, not a remake.
Also, they remade I Spit on Your Grave? Shit, they're really scratching rock bottom in the shitty bin.[/QUOTE]
It's not a reboot or a remake, it's a prequel that leads directly into the events of the 1982 film, which WAS a remake.
[QUOTE=GodKing;33174803]It's not a reboot or a remake, it's a prequel that leads directly into the events of the 1982 film, which WAS a remake.[/QUOTE]
why does everyone consider the 1982 film to be a remake
the original Thing From Another World is just about nothing like the Carpenter version
[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;33174943]why does everyone consider the 1982 film to be a remake
the original Thing From Another World is just about nothing like the Carpenter version[/QUOTE]
From the IMDB trivia page:
"The original movie, The Thing from Another World, took place at the North Pole. This version takes place at the South Pole."
And Wikipedia:
"Ostensibly a remake of the classic 1951 Howard Hawks-Christian Nyby film The Thing from Another World, Carpenter's film is in fact an adaptation more faithful in its premise and characters to the novella Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell, Jr. which inspired the 1951 film, and not a remake in the conventional sense."
So I suppose you are right in a way, but it is still considered a remake.
---
Either way, The Thing 2011 is a direct prequel to The Thing 1982.
What they don't realise is that... if they NEED a remake, then it's okay.
Point proven.
Remakes are only OK when they add something to an old formula. There have been alot of remakes lately that are just plain copies with no originality to be found, and lacking of atmosphere.
Although Italian Job didn't really [I]need[/I] a remake, they made it work.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;33172575]Technically, The Thing is a prequel, not a remake.
Also, they remade I Spit on Your Grave? Shit, they're really scratching rock bottom in the shitty bin.
EDIT: Fixed[/QUOTE]
Yeah TECHNICALLY but we all know it was basically just a remake
True Grit was pretty successful.
[QUOTE=Konigstiger96;33208767]True Grit was pretty successful.[/QUOTE]
Not a remake
It was just based off the same story as the original
Pre-boots are doing fine, right....? Like X-Men: First Class and Rise of the Planet of the Apes
I did not like the remake of The Mechanic
[sp]Having the Mechanic live takes something away from the ending and the fact that everything is less subtle now, with big-ass automatic gun-fights rather than subtle and subterfuge. And Charles Bronson [/sp]
One of my favourite remake is the Fly.
John Carpenter's The Thing is an amazing remake.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.