Page 1 of 1
Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 8:55 am
by GORDON
Trailer.
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810022022/video/10962759
Geez. Just looking at the trailer I am already hoping all of those people get killed.
Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:23 pm
by Malcolm
So many things are wrong w\ remaking this.
Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:56 pm
by Leisher
I posted info on this in another chain previously.
This is not a remake, but a reboot.
Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:50 pm
by Malcolm
Leisher wrote:I posted info on this in another chain previously.
This is not a remake, but a reboot.
Still, the first one was easily the best. Why fuck w\ the single most entertaining part?
Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:54 pm
by GORDON
Does it really need a "reboot?" Are they going to change the rules in some way? Will he actually be killable? The answer, at least to the last question, is 'of course not.' If it does well they'll need sequels.
Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:13 pm
by Leisher
"Reboot" is yet another idea from comics stolen by Hollywood.
The concept is that you have an established character that does well enough, but new readers won't give it a shot because they feel it has too much back story to catch up on or there's some stigma attached.
Thus, rebooting the character/franchise gives new readers a chance to jump on and be there "from the beginning", while staying true to the character within the story makes the old fans happy.
I'm ok with Friday the 13th being rebooted. The original is an absolute classic, and unlike Rob Zombie, they seem to be respecting that by not pissing on it. Notice that Jason is the killer and they're not hiding it. Judging by the voiceover work, it sounds like they're even keeping his original mother's voice for the back story.
Truthfully, I think Friday the 13th will do better than Friday the 13th 11, so I think it's a wise move.
Let's hope they saw the hack abortion job Rob Zombie pulled on Halloween and they avoid those mistakes.
Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 8:00 pm
by Malcolm
Yeah, but Jason really wasn't the killer in the original.
Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 7:02 am
by Leisher
Malcolm wrote:Yeah, but Jason really wasn't the killer in the original.
So? I thought you didn't want them to remake the original?
You're looking at this the wrong way. Go read what I typed up previously about "remakes" vs. "reboots" then come back.
Ok, taking it a step further, you've got this enormously well known character, but you're trying to give new viewers a jumping on point. Do you start all over, remake the original, and not include the character that everyone is coming to see? OR do you drop the numbers off the end of the titles and write the story in a way that it can use your established character that everyone is coming to see?
Resolving the back story of the original without remaking the original is easy:
-The kids are discussing why the camp was deserted. One of them talks about how years ago, a woman went nuts and killed a bunch of people she blamed for her special needs child's drowning death. His name was Jason.
One simple bit of dialogue and you have a "reboot" with the established character.
The only question is will the other sequels have occurred? Does everyone know about Jason? Has he been to Manhattan or space? Did he fight Corey Feldman...and lose? Did he fight a telekinetic? My guess is "No".
I assume that while you'll recognize Camp Crystal Lake, Jason, and his back story, all the other events you've seen are going to be swept aside so they can start anew.
It makes sense too as in a previous sequel, the government actually showed up to trap Jason. If they were still aware of his existence, there's no way Camp Crystal Lake would be getting reopened for business.
Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:30 pm
by Malcolm
I simply can't believe it's THAT hard to come up w\ your own psycho killer story so you go & mangle someone else's. Statistically speaking, you'll fuck up.
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:50 am
by Leisher
Saw it Saturday night.
First of all, it's not a remake. It's simply a re-imagining or a way to spruce up the Jason character for a new audience who hasn't followed him for the past 20 years.
They do NOT tread on the original film, which was very wise, and I honestly give the filmmakers all the credit in the world for that. In fact, this film would be better described as a new direction for the sequel rather than the original.
The original film is summed up in a quick 2-3 minute scene in the opening of the movie. This was very well done, with the exception of explaining the "how" behind Jason's existence. From there, we're brought 20 years forward and the real film begins...kinda. (you'll see)
And from this point, I hope your brain is off. Picture the typical horror "tricks" of how the filmmakers get people separated in films and amplify their stupidity by about 1000. To make things worse, Jason apparently has the Flash's super speed ability...among other things.
I cannot remember a horror film where I was expected to simply overlook so many massive fucking holes in logic. And I realize that we're talking about a horror movie featuring a guy who simply can't be killed, but that doesn't mean there aren't rules or this world the filmmakers have created.
For example: No matter how undead or magical Jason is, he cannot sprint from one side of a lake to the other and then back again in a matter of say 3 seconds. Yet, the filmmakers somehow overlooked this little flaw.
There are a ton more. Like some of the places he "materializes" are laughable.
Everything is just so far fetched and over the top and it shouldn't have been.
They had a real opportunity here to revamp Jason and make him less comical, but they blew it. "Jason X" had more realism than this film.
Is it entertaining? Kinda, but not really. You're better off renting the indy horror film "Laid to Rest".
I do want to give a special mention to Julianna Guill. If there was an Oscar for best rack, she'd win hands down. Her rack is so incredible that it's very, very obvious they altered the dialogue in a scene just so they could talk about her rack. I'm not kidding.
Other than the beginning and Ms. Guill, this film was a huge disappointment.
3 out of 10.
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:39 pm
by Malcolm
Saw this a couple days ago. I can't imagine why the fuck anyone would remake this movie in the form I witnessed.
To make things worse, Jason apparently has the Flash's super speed ability...among other things.
He runs. Ye fucking gods, Jason runs. When they show him moving at top speed, you really do have to wonder how he's got the ability to teleport anywhere he wants. At least the last half of the first franchise clearly established he had some supernatural shit going on.
Avoid this flick. It's not worth it. Not even renting.
Friday the 13th - remake
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:45 pm
by Leisher
Saw this on HBO and figured I'd check it out. Couldn't remember much about it except that it sucked.
I thought to myself "I wonder why this sucked so bad" and then saw Michael Bay's name all over the credits.
Asked and answered.
It still sucks. Really hot women though!
Friday the 13th - remake
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:57 pm
by TheCatt
Do they get naked?
Friday the 13th - remake
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:26 pm
by Leisher
Most do!
Friday the 13th - remake
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:00 pm
by Leisher
The rights are a disaster.
Essentially, the writer of the original owns the right to the name and all the characters in the original. However, he doesn't own everything after, and the company also still owns the name Friday the 13th. What?
So he doesn't own Jason as an adult, but owns Jason as a boy.
What a clusterfuck.
There will be NO money in Friday the 13th movies without Jason, and nobody wants to make them for every market except for the #1 market. These parties need to settle.
Friday the 13th - remake
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:11 pm
by Leisher