The Girls That Get it, Get it, And The One’s That Don’t, Don’t
The Girls That Get it, Get it, And The One’s That Don’t, Don’t
What's a good remake?
Remaking cult classics is a normal thing; they already have a fanbase/audience, so it will be easier to make money off, there is already the script and story, etc. Although this is normal a lot of times the film is not what we remember. Now sometimes it’s because of nostalgia or not remembering what we thought. And other times it’s because they just didn’t get It.
Fright Night 1985
A teenage boy named Charlie is trying to get laid but sees his neighbor bringing in coffins through the door. Getting distracted by this, he starts to spy on his neighbor finding out that Jerry his neighbor is a vampire. He tries to stop Jerry and in turn, ditches his girlfriend. In the end, he kills Jerry and saves his girlfriend.
Parody "making fun itself and the genre"
A monster horror film
Special effects were still cheesy for its time period
Fright Night 2011
A teenage boy named Charlie has an old best friend who goes missing and when he investigates he finds out his neighbor Jerry is a vampire. Now on a mission to protect his mom and girlfriend from their neighbor, he tries to kill him.
Takes itself seriously; tone
Trying to be a "scary" horror film
Special effects were more serious
Couldn't see anything
Made Jerry more human than a monster
More traditional; sexist and homophobic
Fright Night 1985 and the 2011 remake are a great example of not knowing/understanding the story you're remaking. The original Fright Night was a light-hearted coming-of-age story about a teenage boy who spent his whole time fearful of his neighbor instead of hanging out with his girlfriend. It’s easy, sweet, and simple with the jokes still raunchy but not borderline offensive. While the remake is more of a darker story, taking away the coming-of-age part and making it more mission-driven. It’s not as easy-going as the original, it has more traditional overtones and follows the themes of horror films at the time. The original’s whole message was to make horror films how they used to be and less what they were at the time. That’s why they chose a monster flick, at the time horror featured man-on-man conflict because of the culture of serial killers. It was supposed to make fun of those types of horror films while still being fun and not taking themselves seriously. The remake has the same message but opposes the original message, during 2011 the vampire craze was only getting stronger, and the romanticization and humanization of vampires have changed society's perception from an ugly bat creature to sculpted, dark, mysterious men. The remake does a good job of making fun of the vampire craze but instead of steering its way from the traditional horror film, it became the very thing the original hated.
During the 80s slasher flixs were a big thing; serial killers were big during that time
Twilight came out in 2008 and a vampire craze was going around
The original is trying to talk about the horror films at the time while still bringing back the original monster flick vs. The remake which is making fun of twilight while still taking itself serious
These could be stand alone films; uses the same characters but a whole new plot with the only thing staying the same is Jerry being his neighbor and him having to kill him
Transmutation?
The remake didn't get the original; “kids these days just want to see a man in a hockey mask stab a bunch of teenagers" vs. "real men don’t read Twilight"
Is it because it was made at a different time?
These are the same scenes, but you couldn’t tell that from these images. In the original this is a really important part of the movie, it’s where Jerry lures Charlie’s girlfriend at a club. It’s colorful, sexy, men step in, and all the signs of a safer environment but still has that eery feel. Which is a part of the Dracula lore, remember “she” has to want it. Whereas the remake is more dark, creepy, sexual assault, no one helps her. And to top it off it has that 2010s no lighting effect so you can’t see anything.
This is the last fight scene in both movies, the final showdown, so it’s meant to be big… Right? Once again in a pivotal moment, the scene is ruined because of the lighting. Why couldn’t they see that-LITERALLY! Also, they got rid of all the emotional tones in this scene. The original has more practical effects and doesn’t shy away from the monsterification even if it looks insane. There was destruction, it’s realistically accurate on what a fight between a 100+-year-old vampire and a 16-year-old boy with an old man professor would look like, that’s because the core of the story was about growing up. The Professor helped Charlie defeat his monster but Charlie had to do most of the work. The remake amplifies the wrong tone, focusing more on the violence and the fight not on the actual struggle. The Professor now David Tennant, a much more fit version does most of the work while Charlie is dressed in spy tactical gear and swoops in to stake him through the heart. All of the destruction to the house isn’t done by their hands but by Jerry as he’s dying compared to the original.
THE END
JK…
The filmmakers didn’t care enough to read behind the surface of the film, they thought about how the first layer of the film is making fun of teens at its time, which it did but missed the deeper point of it being for teenagers. They tried to rely on the nostalgia and audience that are grown even though this is marketed towards teens, it doesn’t matter because it loses its appeal for both audiences the second you see Jerry’s dungeon full of high schoolers. Although it represents the culture at that time and brings the scarier narrative back, it does all this while being hypocritical. You’re making fun of sexy vampires but having someone with a six-pack play him and in his first scene, he doesn’t have a shirt on. The message is construed with no real meaning behind it.
Culture and time have changed so the remake is more of a transformation/imitation of the original.