Mina
Fresh Meat
Posts: 24
|
Post by Mina on Sept 16, 2009 14:49:04 GMT -5
The Black Christmas remake,went into a lot more detail about the killers past...it was a bit more creepier than the original...
I always like comparing original movies to remakes!!
|
|
|
Post by mirai on Sept 16, 2009 14:54:27 GMT -5
i haven't seen the remake yet, but i do get into a bit of a debate over remakes every now and again, the latest one was about The Hills Have Eyes
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Sept 16, 2009 14:55:02 GMT -5
I heard that the remake went into some of the incest story. Not something I care to see. Sounds very Rob Zombie-esque.
|
|
|
Post by mirai on Sept 16, 2009 14:57:10 GMT -5
yeah it did, my greatest debate has to be what i have now termed 'the great Transformers debate of 2008'
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Sept 16, 2009 15:01:16 GMT -5
The Black Christmas Remake was pretty good and gory ( eye gougings ) .I haven't seen the original.
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Sept 16, 2009 15:04:28 GMT -5
Yep, because gory = good, compared to plot, character development, writing, directing = good.
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Sept 16, 2009 15:06:42 GMT -5
Yep, because gory = good, compared to plot, character development, writing, directing = good. It's not what I said. But I like gore and view it as an important part of slasher movies. Gore alone is not enough of course.
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Sept 16, 2009 15:10:38 GMT -5
You certainly didn't say that the acting was top notch, or the directing was great. Gore is not an integral part of the Slasher genre. My Bloody Valentine (1981) is the perfect example for that. These neo-Horrors/Slashers rely too heavily on shock value alone. Eye gougings is a perfect example of that. So is the incest storyline.
|
|
|
Post by mirai on Sept 16, 2009 15:12:52 GMT -5
to me slasher horror died in the 90's with the latter Halloween movies
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Sept 16, 2009 15:14:48 GMT -5
My Bloody Valentine (1981) is the perfect example for that. Yes but it wasn't done intentionally. The filmmakers wanted to make it very gory. It's the MPAA that decided to censor most of the gore.
|
|
|
Post by mirai on Sept 16, 2009 15:15:53 GMT -5
its like NOTLD 90, they censored all of the exploding heads
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Sept 16, 2009 15:17:04 GMT -5
It doesn't matter. The gore in the unrated version is not much either. The fact is, the movie had little to no gore and no nudity, but yet it is still an effective film. It didn't need the over the top gore and sexuality to carry the film. Would half of these neo-horrors be even worth renting without the gratiutous gore and nudity? NO.
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Sept 16, 2009 15:18:36 GMT -5
Fortunately the MPAA became more lenient over time.
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Sept 16, 2009 15:20:06 GMT -5
Fortunate for you. Unfortunate for those of us that enjoy movies that rely on more than just tits and guts.
|
|
|
Post by mirai on Sept 16, 2009 15:20:48 GMT -5
its like what Don says in the Phantasm II commentary about Ken Tigar's head drill, the MPAA clamped down on that because they got away with it in the first one and only allowed Don to show three frames of blood
|
|