Horror Movie Remakes & Reboots: Yay or Nay?

Horror Movie Remakes & Reboots: Yay or Nay?

Reboots. Most of us can’t stand when a movie is remade, either because the original doesn’t need to be remade or because Hollywood is getting lazy and can’t think of new material. Sadly, while it is both of these its much more the second than anything. Producers and directors tend to think of ideas that have already been created, and rather than try to build off them, they just decide to redo the actual film itself. This is a big issue in most genres, but it also happens in horror. Some horror movie remakes leave us scratching our heads, while others tend to have us saying, wow that was absolutely awful. Whose idea was it to remake that? It should go without saying, however, that you’re not going to please everyone, especially in Hollywood and horror. Most producers and big-wig movie directors don’t care about the public or their audience. They know whatever they create, even if remade, will make them lots and lots of money because people like us will still go to the theaters to see it.

So what about horror? Are the remakes and reboots as bad as they are in other genres? Well, that’s what we’re going to go over. Horror always has one goal: to scare and creep out the viewer or reader as much as possible. Classic horror movies like Dracula and Nosferatu are chilling in their own right; however, when it comes to remakes and reboots, we need to leave Dracula out of this conversation, as it’s had too many remakes and different versions that I don’t know if Dracula himself would even appreciate it. As Hollywood horror moved through the years, it took on many different vibes and feelings. Some, like Burnt Offerings, were ghost stories meant to chill you to the bone, or like Mansion of the Doomed, which was so shocking it was banned in the UK. But these two examples of horror films are to show that they came from a different time and the exploitation of horror films, and neither one, to my knowledge have been remade. In most cases, the horror films that get remade and rebooted are slasher films and monster movies(Godzilla, take a seat with Dracula, you’ve been remade too many times, too). Let’s go over some remakes and reboots that may or may not have been all that great.

Dawn of the Dead: If you know me, then you know that this is my 2^nd favorite horror film ever, behind only The Shining. I first saw it with my father years ago, and I remember going to bed, and it stuck with me. I watched it again a few years later, and I enjoyed it so much the second time around that it became a go-to movie for me. But what about the remake? I’ve only seen it once, and it’s not bad, and many claim it’s as good as the original, if not better. I don’t know anything about it being better than the original, but it does hold up as a modern remake. I am biased, as I love the original and think the remake doesn’t do it justice, and the modernizing of it makes it lose what made the 1979 version so good. Did it need to be remade? Eh, I say no.

The Shining: I’m not even going to get into the remake because it’s such a piece of garbage. We all know the only reason the remake exists is that Stephen King hated the original that Stanley Kubrick made, so in 1997, he made his own mini-series of it and proceeded to butcher his own adaptation. I watched it 1 and a half times, and I could use a reminder of how bad it is, but yeah, it’s not good. Did it need to be remade?

Chucky: I’m referring to the version that stars Aubrey Plaza, and Chucky has a chip in him that a worker hacks and makes faulty, slowly causing Chucky to become evil. I’ve heard a lot of people ripping on this, but honestly, I like it. It’s a totally different take on the original of the spirit of a serial killer, Charles Lee Ray, taking over a doll and becoming a killer again. Also, Chucky scared the crap out of me as a kid, so for me to approve and enjoy the remake is saying something. I will say that around the time it was made, I believe there were still a few more films of the original being made, and of course, the series came out, which was solid. Did it need to be remade? No, but it's a nice fresh change from the original.

Friday the 13^th: With 10 films in the original franchise, what do you do? You reboot it, of course. The 2009 version starring Jared Padalecki and Danielle Panabaker, in my opinion, is way better than people give it credit for. For one, I feel the potential victims have a better chance at talking to Jason and reasoning with him, if only for a moment. Also, Derek Mears, who plays Jason, is a big guy, so he definitely makes Jason seem way more intimidating. The kills are pretty much the same, but I think this movie gets a bad rap, and it shouldn’t. Did it need to be remade? No, but the movie is decent.

Halloween: I’m referring to the Rob Zombie one,s not the abomination reboots in which they brought back Jamie Lee Curtis. The Rob Zombie adaptation,s in my opinion are better than the original. Yes, I said it, hot take. I just feel that Zombie taps way more into the psychological aspect, and we see the disturbed mind of a young Michael Myers as a boy, which we don’t get in the original. Also, the characters are way more in depth, and all have their own stories, whereas the original we only have Laurie Strode, and we don’t really even get her,s and when we do, it changes constantly. Rob Zombie’s take on the Halloween franchise was much needed, and I know not everyone shares that opinion. Did it need to be remade? Yes, I feel it needed a different take.

Poltergeist: While this movie introduced me to the lovely Saxon Sharbino, it comes up a bit short on solid remakes. It doesn’t really follow the same formula as the original, which is technically good for obvious reasons. However, it follows a different family, and much of it is just dull, and it could almost be considered a different movie, just with the title Poltergeist slapped onto it. It has its moments, such as the ghost hunter coming to investigate the house, but he doesn’t hold a candle to Tangina Barrons, played by the late Zelda Rubinstein. Did it need to be remade? I say no.

IT: I leave this one for last because King did the opposite of what he did for The Shining. With The Shining, it was a movie then remade into a mini series, whereas IT’s original was a mini series(I believe a seven-hour-long one at that) and then later on was made into two full-length movies. I would say that they both have merit, and it really depends on who you ask. When I think of Pennywise, I can’t say I just think of Tim Curry anymore; I also think of Bill Skarsgard as well. The new version is certainly darker and more modernized, both culturally and in a horror sense. Also, merchandise tends to cater to the newer version remake rather than the original. Did it need to be remade? Yes.

Have you signed up for my newsletter yet? You’ll receive a free book!