Re-makes vs. Re-imaginings

by Darren
(California, USA)

There is a distinct difference between a re-make and a re-imagining of a classic horror movie. A re-make amends the characters and/or story while still using nearly the same plotline as the original film. A re-imagining uses the success of the original film and the established title to enlist intrigue yet does not use very much or any of the plotline of the original film. I have realized just recently that while I can usually tolerate re-makes of classic horror films, I absolutely despise re-imagings and here is why:

The term re-invent will be used in this article to describe the general re-make/re-imagining agenda.

Two of my favorite re-makes are Night of the Living Dead and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

The Night of the Living Dead re-make amended the character of Barbara to take charge of the situation and gave her more of a will to live, the lack of which in the original lead to her death. This made her a stronger, more appealing character. The film also contrasted the characters of Ben and Mr. Cooper to share the blame for their blunders, which rested solely on Mr. Cooper in the original. This made the situation more realistic. The film also amended the climax of the original film by replacing Ben's disparaging attempts to stop the hoard of zombies from encroaching into the house once Barbara had been taken, with a gun fight between Ben and Mr. Cooper. And while the official ending wasn't as haunting as the original in which, Ben, having survived the night of terror is gunned down as he is about to finally escape from the farmhouse, it still offered it's own reward at the stinging murder of the greatly hated Mr. Cooper.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre re-make amended the character of Leatherface to show more of his scared and misunderstood nature that was only hinted at in the original. The film also amended Erin's namesake for Sally from the original character by making her more of a resourceful and level-headed person. The plot was also amended to give a better reason as to why the teens are killed off, because while in the original they unsuspectingly visit a place near the Leatherface house and are slaughtered, in the remake the suicide of the hitchhiker leads them to wait for the county police force, which they don't know is just the Sheriff from the HeWitt family. Also, the lack of the dinner scene, which admittedly was a let down in the re-make was made up for by the new ending in which Erin is able to rescue a baby the family has captured and kill the greatly hated Sheriff Hoyt.

I admit, these films aren't perfect but they brought to light new characterization and plot points that don't detract from the film itself and don't make a mockery of the original's plot which I believe should be the idea of all re-invents.

Two of my least favorite re-imaginings are Halloween and Friday the 13th.

John Carpenter's Halloween was the highest grossing independent film of it's time and its title is taken in reverence to its many contributions to the horror genre. In the remake, Rob Zombie is fully aware of this and banks on the popularity of the franchise he overhauled and made almost a completely different story. The beauty of the original was the audience's lack of understanding of Michael's motives. Zombie instead makes Michael a misunderstood kid with sluts as a mother and sister and a redneck bad-mouth father figure. And he’s always being teased by elementary school bullies. He then goes on for the first hour of the film counting all the ways why Michael is the anti-hero and why everyone should feel sorry for him. This attitude, whether unintentionally done or not makes the audience realize that any attempt at sympathy for the actual hero of the movie, i.e. Laurie, is moot. This greatly contradicts the original vision where the audience cheered for Laurie. The film goes further downhill when Zombie finally gets to the part in which Laurie and her friends are stalked and killed. In this part of the film all characterization of Laurie and her friends is completely cut out as is every ounce of suspense. This again contradicts the original film which capitalized on both those aspects. The official ending recounts an alternate set of events to the original film in which Laurie hides within the Myers’ house as Michael stalks her. Loomis is killed by Michael and Laurie shoots Michael point blank in the head after being knocked over a balcony in the Myers’ house by Michael himself in his first long distance run – go team!

The original Friday the 13th franchise is one of the highest grossing in the horror industry and the title has released one of the longest sets of films in the horror genre. With this in mind Markus Nispel, obviously misreading his success for the re-make of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre for his re-imagining of the ending decided to overhaul the entire concept of the original Friday the 13th film and present a completely new story. The original film’s plot, while a simple one, was intriguing for its use of the slasher cliché as well as the mystery of who the killer is. It's shocking twist ending in which it was revealed that a mother whose child has drowned while at the camp was killing the counselors, trying to prevent the re-opening of the camp, made the movie all it has been cracked up to be. The new plot is nothing more than a couple of kids getting slaughtered because they came to a place being guarded by hermit Jason Voorhees. In the first two minutes of the film, we watch from the sidelines as the ending of the original film is recounted in flashback format (Jason sees his mother being beheaded). There are several nods aimed toward Friday the 13th fans but the way they are worked in doesn’t work for the film itself and the ‘he’s back to stay’ ending was too cliché to even watch.

One reason why I think re-imaginings fail is because they aren't good movies to begin with, so counting on the success of the name doesn’t make up for lacking in writing and direction. Another reason is that writers are too lazy, uncreative and scared to release these re-invents that only resemble their namesakes in title and icon, on their own merit.

Guess what? The re-invents that everyone always defends, the re-invents that everyone always says the best things about, are the re-imaginings of Halloween and Friday the 13th. I just want to know why. When I critically can find everything wrong with the re-imaginings, how is that everyone else defends and enjoys them but yells and screams and completely puts down the re-makes of The Night of the Living Dead and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, films that follow a similar storyline like their namesakes, improve upon certain character and story points, and overall live up their namesakes?

What are your thoughts on re-makes vs. re-imaginings?