Night of the Living Trev: October 2009

“Yeah, it’s great….it’s different from the original, but it’s scary and it’s fun….it’s kind of like a Rashomon thing. It’s a different point of view.”

- Tobe Hooper, on the 2003 Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake.

My name is Trevor Snyder. I’m a horror fan, and I support remakes.

AAAHHHH!!!

Now, I realize to those of you who are not die-hard horror fanatics, what I just said probably doesn’t sound like that big of a deal. But believe me; I might as well have just shouted a big “FUCK YOU” to a large contingent of genre fans. Because if there’s one thing that horror fans love, it’s getting worked up about remakes. Trust me. Or better yet, just see for yourself. Go up to someone you know is a huge horror buff, and tell them you just heard their favorite fright film is being “re-imagined” by Michael Bay, Ghost House, or Lionsgate. Then step back a few feet, for your own safety. Oh, man, does it make their blood boil.

Once again, you might be wondering – why? Well, it probably has something to do with the fact that the horror fan community is one of the most annoyingly proprietary around. I know that sounds harsh, and let me just assure you that any fan of horror – even those whose views differ from mine – is in my cool book. If you’re a supporter of the genre, than you and I are blood-brother or sister on some level, and I’ll gladly talk horror with you given the chance. But let’s face it, a lot of genre fans do get a little too defensive about the direction their favorite characters or franchises are taken in, and often feel as if they know better than anyone (including the filmmakers themselves) what should really be being done. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, and in many cases they might even be right (heck, I’m fairly positive I – or almost anyone – could have delivered a better Prom Night remake than what we got). But it still goes a long way towards explaining why they get so angry about the idea of remakes.

And I know what I’m talking about, because I used to be one of those fans. That’s right…I can still remember how I felt when I first heard about the big-budget remakes of Dawn of the Dead and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. To say I was “incensed” would be an understatement. How dare Hollywood put its grubby mitts all over two of the finest horror films ever made! Of course, I still had to go see the new versions – if for no other reason than to witness for myself how bad the butcher-job was – but I sure didn’t have to be happy about it. So twice I grudgingly hiked into the theater, and….well, dammit, they actually weren’t that bad. In fact, I quite liked both of them.

Now, let me just make it clear – I’m not stating that either the Dawn or Chainsaw remakes surpass the originals. Not even close. But they’re perfectly fine films in their own right. Zack Snyder eschewed the consumerist satire of George Romero’s Dawn, but amped up the action and created one of the most viscerally exciting zombie films ever (with inarguably one of the best opening sequences in horror film history, period). Meanwhile, many (including me) feared that the Bay-produced Chainsaw remake – with its way-too-good-looking young cast – would be a Scream-esque take on Tobe Hooper’s gritty original. As it turned out, however, it was actually one of the most intense, hard-edged mainstream horror films in years (at that time). In fact, although it doesn’t often get credit for this, I’d say the Chainsaw remake might just be the film that started swinging the horror pendulum back to hard-R ratings.

And yes, before anyone else points this out, I realize that Tobe Hooper’s remake was not about the gore, and in fact contained very little blood. But, hey, that was Hooper’s film…this was Marcus Nispel’s version. And besides, when you get right down to it, the Chainsaw remake really wasn’t all about the gore, either. Cynics like to complain that it was nothing but blood-soaked excess, but go back and watch it again. It’s really not that gory. Like the original, its power comes more from its hopeless feeling of dread – which might help explain why Roger Ebert blasted it as a "contemptible film: vile, ugly, and brutal," that only wanted to"cause disgust and hopelessness in the audience." This was a particularly odd complaint, I thought (especially coming from Ebert, who has praised the original film). I remember reading it and thinking, "well, yeah...is that really a bad thing when you're talking about a horror movie?"

And, trust me, it could be worse. If you want to watch a film that is little more than lazy brutality, check out the prequel, Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, which even I’ll admit was pretty bad, and was in many ways exactly the movie everyone feared the remake was going to be. But I stand by my claim that Nispel’s film is a highly effective one, maintaining the basic spirit of Hooper’s original while updating it with a modern-stylish approach. That doesn’t seem like a bad thing to me (and, in fact, Hooper himself has expressed his delight with the film, as shown above).

So, after having my initial negative feelings about remakes blasted away by these two films, I was forced to reassess my overall opinion on the whole issue. It wasn’t immediate, but over time, I came to a whole new conclusion, one that I still hold today. Not only do I no longer take issue with the idea of remaking classic horror films, but for the most part I support it. And yes, I am prepared to explain why.

But first, I thought it might be fun to examine some of the common arguments against horror remakes, and offer my takes on why I think they’re flawed. Here goes…

”They’re destroying the originals!" - This is probably the most frequent complaint. You can’t announce a remake of anything without some fanboy whining about how the new filmmakers are “pissing all over my childhood” or some such nonsense. I get it…kinda. That is how I originally felt about the Dawn and Chainsaw remakes. But then a funny thing happened. After seeing them, I came home, checked my DVD shelves, and…*GASP*…the originals were still there!! What a shocking turn of events! It turns out that when somebody decides to do a remake, they don’t track down and destroy every copy of the original film! You wouldn’t know this is the case from listening to angry fans, but I’ve done the research, and it’s true. The original films do still exist, and are just as great as ever, even after they are remade. What a relief, huh?

”Only respectable, high-profile directors should be allowed to do remakes.” - When arguing the merits of remakes with those who hate them, there will inevitably come that moment when you can temporarily trump them by pointing out films like John Carpenter’s The Thing, David Cronenberg’s The Fly, Paul Schrader’s Cat People, or Phillip Kaufman’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers. No self-respecting horror fan would dare have anything bad to say about any of those efforts. In fact, most would agree that they are better than the originals. So, instead, they’ll fall back on the argument that these remakes were OK, because they were done by true artists, not the former music-video/first-time feature directors who seem to helm most of the remakes today. Man, does this argument piss me off.

I mean, let’s put aside how ridiculously elitist it is, and instead just focus on the stupidity of the statement. Really? Only the true visionaries of cinema should be allowed to remake something like Friday the 13^th or April Fool’s Day? Hey, I’ll be first to admit that the reason those remakes mentioned above are so great is because they were helmed by amazingly creative filmmakers. But does that really mean only directors of their ilk should be allowed to put new spins on old favorites?

I have a couple problems with this logic. For one thing, in many cases, it’s imposing an absurdly high standard on the genre. The notion that only a brilliant filmmaker should be allowed to remake Texas Chainsaw Massacre, for instance, sort of ignores the fact that Tobe Hooper is not exactly a brilliant filmmaker himself. Don’t get me wrong, his original Chainsaw is one of my favorite films of all time, and might just be the most effective horror film ever made. But how much of that was Hooper’s pure filmmaking skill, and how much of it was just the fluke of everything coming together perfectly? Looking at Hooper’s post-Chainsaw filmography (as much as I love Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, Life Force, and Poltergeist), I’m leaning towards fluke. Now this is just one example, and I know there are instances of crappy directors remaking films from directors of a much higher caliber. But, just as often, you will hear horror fans acting as if its some kind of travesty that a modern classic like Last House on the Left is being remade, without stopping to ask themselves if the original is really as good as they prefer to think, or is actually remembered fondly more for its impact at the time than for its actual quality as film.

My other problem with this argument is its exclusionary vibe. One of the great things about the horror genre has always been how often it produces exciting new talent. So why only allow already well-known directors to tinker around with its classics? In many cases, the original films being remade came from inexperienced, first-time directors. Why not allow similar newbies to take a shot at them, as well? Look, I’ll agree that it’s probably better for a new director to make his or her name with their own original idea, but the genre just isn’t the same today as it was back in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Nowadays, it’s probably easier for a new filmmaker to get a crack at a remake or sequel then it is for them to get the funding for a bold new idea. Maybe that’s a shame, but it’s the truth, and I for one don’t want to demand that they start refusing these remake jobs, and perhaps deny the emergence of another Zack Snyder in the process. At the end of the day, unknown directors have just as much reverence for their favorite movies as famous directors do. If Joe Schmoe really wants to pay homage to an old classic with his own personal take on it, then so be it.

And by the way, if you ever do get somebody claiming that only talented directors like John Carpenter should be allowed to do remakes, make sure to remind them of his Village of the Damned movie and how much balls it sucked.

”It represents the lack of creativity in Hollywood.” - This is another one of those arguments that suffers from a simple lack of common-sense. People love to bitch about how the horror films that are getting the big releases now are always the crappy “looking-for-a-quick-buck” ones, but that has almost always been the case. Yeah, the ‘70s and ‘80s produced a few studio-backed classics, but for the most part the biggest and best horror films have always been independent ventures. Why would we suddenly want to change that? Horror is the renegade genre of the film-world, and its truly groundbreaking work should primarily come from outside the system. People like to act like there are no more great horror films simply because all they ever see at the multiplex are sequels and remakes. But these are folks who are just too lazy to go track down movies like The Signal, Mulberry Street, Midnight Meat Train, Splinter, Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer, Dance of the Dead, Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, Hatchet, May or any number of other truly fun and captivating lesser-known horror films of recent years. The good stuff is out there, and half the fun of being a horror fan is discovering it. If Hollywood wants to throw us a bone and make a good horror film every now and then (like 30 Days of Night or Drag Me to Hell), then that’s great. But we shouldn’t rely on them to do so.

And speaking of Drag Me to Hell, do you remember that movie? It was the high-profile return to horror of genre icon Sam Raimi? It was the thrilling antidote to all the studio remakes and sequels being cranked out? It was the chance for horror fans to finally put their money where their mouth is and support an actual quality scare-film instead of the same old crap? Remember that?

Now do you remember when it bombed?

Fans can whine all they want about how Hollywood doesn’t give them what they want, but look what happens when they do. Drag Me to Hell was one of the best horror films to grace theaters in years, and in the end it couldn’t even come close to competing with remakes of My Bloody Valentine and Friday the 13^th, or a third Final Destination sequel. And don’t tell me it’s because the studio didn’t support it, because that movie was hyped to hell (pardon the pun). Now I realize that as I write this, Paranormal Activity is on its way to possibly becoming the most successful indie-horror film since Blair Witch Project, so there are cases of audiences actually supporting the right movies. But, more often than not, the general audience would rather watch their favorite franchises continue or be re-imagined than try out something new. It’s just the way it is, and I can accept it. It doesn’t mean we are denied new original material. It just means we have to go out and find it, and that we end up sharing it only with a smaller group of truly dedicated fans. Call me crazy, but that kind of sounds like a good thing.

”The remake trend is holding back the good, original films.” - As I’ve already mentioned, there are still plenty of great new horror movies out there for those who want to find them. Would there suddenly be a lot more if studios stopped cranking out sequels and remakes? I doubt it. Some haters seem to operate under the deluded assumption that if these remakes weren’t being made, it would free up the filmmakers to make original films instead. So what? If somebody is making a crappy remake, chances are good they would just make crappy original films as well. There is no evidence to suggest that the horror genre would see a significant upswing in awesome films if only studios cut back on the easy money-makers. We may remember certain eras fondly, but point to pretty much any given time in horror movie history, and I guarantee the ratio was probably something like 20% good movies, and 80% awful ones. That’s the way it always was, that’s the way it is, and that’s the way it always will be. For every Drag Me to Hell, there’s three or four Mirrors or Dead Silence - original, non-remakes that still stink. So, really, if that’s the case, why get bent out of shape over whether the crappy movies are remakes or not? Shit is shit no matter what.

”These remakes are nothing more than transparent attempts to make a quick buck.” - To this one I can only say, “uhhh, yeah….so what?” It amused me to no end to hear so many fans complain that the recent Friday the 13^th remake was just made to cash in on the franchise’s name value. Well, wasn’t that exactly what every Friday the 13^th film was? Let’s not act like these remakes are always dumping all over some sort of grand cinematic legacy. A large part of the horror genre has always been about making a buck.

But, alright, I also know that sometimes the films being remade are of a higher quality than Friday the 13^th, and I’m a little more willing to listen to this type of criticism when it’s concerning something like a new version of Suspiria or Nightmare on Elm Street. But, let me approach it from a different angle. Even in these cases, the critics complain that the filmmakers are just cashing in, and have no respect or affinity for the source material. I don’t think that’s the case. To be sure, I have no doubt that the studios themselves often sign off on these projects because they look like a sure profit. That’s what studios are supposed to do. What studio wants to lose money?

That being said, just because the studio executives might not “get it,” that doesn’t always necessarily mean the filmmakers they eventually attach to the project don’t as well. For instance, Michael Bay clearly didn’t understand what was so special about the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, as evidenced by his claims that the remake wouldn’t be about gore like Hooper’s film was. But, judging by their approach to the film and the final product, I believe Marcus Nispel and screenwriter Scott Kosar had a lot more respect for Hooper’s film than Bay did. And I think that’s often the case. Directors try to get attached to particular remake projects because they are fans of the original. I get that. There are certain movies that mean a lot to me (like The Abominable Dr. Phibes) that, given the chance, I would love to remake and put my own personal touch on. Not out of disrespect for the original, but exactly because I love it so much, and think it would fun to offer my own take on those characters. It’s the same reason writers have continued to deliver stories of Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, Batman, Spiderman and numerous others, long after the original writers have had their say. It is not always a cynical cash grab…sometimes, it really is about admiration.

OK, now that I’ve looked at some of the more prevalent criticisms of the remake trend, I suppose it’s time that I offer up my own opinions on why remakes are a positive thing.

It only helps the original films. - This is one that I think the detractors secretly understand, but don’t want to admit to themselves. Remakes not only do not destroy the originals, but in fact often serve to boost their profile. I’m willing to bet the remakes of films like Dawn, Chainsaw and The Hills Have Eyes not only created new horror fans, but also drove many to see the original films. A lot of those viewers probably wouldn’t have watched the originals if not for the newer versions. Whether or not they preferred the old or new version is irrelevant – the fact is the older movies get a little extra attention once remade, helping prevent certain films from being forgotten or unjustly ignored as they age. Plus, from a purely “selfish horror fan” perspective, remakes are also great because they often lead to brand new special editions of the original. Check out My Bloody Valentine, which undeservedly suffered from a lame bare-bones release until the 2009 3-D version led to the special edition DVD fans had always hoped for, complete with the infamous cut footage. If it takes a remake to dust off and polish up some of the lesser-known films, then that’s perfectly fine by me.

It’s good for business. - Yes, the horror genre is a business. Let’s not forget that. And, as I mentioned before, right now remakes and sequels tend to be the ones that make money. You might not be happy about it, but as a horror fan it’s hard not to be happy just to see the genre thriving, plain and simple. Do you really think Paranormal Activity would have been given the release it was if not for the recent success of some of the more derivative horror films? We all know money talks – that’s never going to change. But the good news is that as long as these movies are doing well in theaters, it creates a boom for the whole genre. I already said that there are plenty of well-done indie horror movies out there…and the reason they’re getting easier to find right now is because the recent surge in horror’s popularity has once again made the genre a highly profitable one. There’s a whole butterfly effect thing going on here. You might get annoyed that every ‘80s slasher is being remade, but as long as enough of those remakes do well, then it convinces companies that maybe its worth their time to put out some smaller horror films in limited or straight-to-DVD releases.

The “Fairy-Tale Factor.” - This is my final and biggest reason for supporting horror remakes, and I have Tobe Hooper to thank for it. Now I know I took some shots at him before, but the fact remains that I like Hooper, not just because he made one of my favorite movies, but because he always comes across like a genuinely funny, decent guy whenever I read or see an interview with him. And my impression of him only improved when I first heard him describe how he felt about the Chainsaw remake. Not only was he pleased with the film, but he seemed almost flattered by it. I think he really dug that an idea of his was powerful enough to be re-visited years later, and I’m sure he loved the chance to see his vision filtered through the eyes of another filmmaker. But it was one thing in particular that he said that stuck with me – and I apologize for not remembering the exact quote, so I’m paraphrasing here – he compared Texas Chainsaw Massacre being remade to the multiple versions of Dracula that have been made. It seemed like he felt as if the Chainsaw remake was a sort of validation that Leatherface might just be worthy of that same sort of grand horror tradition. I think he’s right.

Can we all agree that characters like Dracula and Frankenstein (and the monster) are not the icons they are solely because of the original novels by Bram Stoker and Mary Shelley? They became legendary because of their numerous adaptations. There was something to their stories that enabled them to be done over and over again…and not many horror fans have ever complained about that.

Well, the horror-villains of today, while perhaps not as complex or memorable as Dracula or Frankenstein, are still this generation’s horror icons, and as such should be awarded the same sort of ability to be revisited with a fresh perspective from time to time. I’m not saying that every horror remake is going to do the original justice, or bring something new and original to the table that wasn’t there before. But there’s always the possibility that it will, and that’s why I no longer nay-say the general idea. Both Tobe Hooper and Wes Craven have embraced the idea of remaking their old films, because they recognize a simple fact (and I think Hooper might have actually said something along these lines, too) – horror films are today’s fairy tales. After all, what is Texas Chainsaw Massacre if not an incredibly twisted version of Hansel & Gretel? The original fairy tales we all know and love did not get their power just from their initial telling; their power came from being told over and over again, passed down from generation to generation, sometimes with slightly different plot-points, but always with the same basic heart of the idea.

If horror movies have become today’s fairy tales, then it only makes sense for there to be a generational re-telling of the classics. No, all the details won’t be the same each time…but that’s the point. This is not something to shun. Heck, horror fans should celebrate it. The very fact that horror is the only genre to remake its best movies as often as it does is a testament to the power of these stories, and their primal ability to shock and scare year after year. Characters like Freddy Krueger, Jason Vorhees, Leatherface and, heck, even Chucky have already started to enter the same sort of horror hall of fame as the classic Universal monsters. Given time (and let’s face it, there will be even more remakes of their original films in the years to come), they might just become as relevant as Little Red Riding Hood or Cinderella. That’s not to say you should tell their stories to the little ones when trying to put them to sleep. But it is to say that these characters will live on, most likely in various forms. That goes for all great (or sometimes just decent, or even terrible) horror movies – they need not be held up as some sort of untouchable relic, too important to update. I say bring ‘em out to play every couple decades or so, give ‘em a whole new spin. Why not? There was probably some one who was bothered that John Carpenter was remaking The Thing because the original meant so much to them as a kid. Likewise, just because a film like Nightmare on Elm Street or Suspiria is so important to you, doesn’t mean the remake of it won’t possibly be important to the future horror fans of tomorrow.

Don’t take this article to mean that I believe all horror remakes are good, or that they are always worth your time and money. I’m no idiot. I recognize that a fair number of these remakes have been awful (Prom Night, The Fog, The Hitcher, and When a Stranger Calls certainly come to mind). But I don’t mind that somebody made them. And that’s all I’m saying. I’m not telling you to like every remake that comes out…I’m just getting sick of people complaining about them even being made. You can continue to waste your time crying out against the onslaught of remakes, or you can just get over it, and treat them like any other type of horror movie – skip the ones that look like shit, but enjoy the ones that are actually fun (The Blob (1988), My Bloody Valentine 3D) and maybe even better than the original (The Hills Have Eyes, Willard). C’mon, remake haters, just put aside the anger and give it a try. There will still be some new horror movies with original ideas waiting for you on the other side. I promise.