Why why why why why? The original version is fine, better than fine! It's great.
Mar 5 - 05:48 AM
It should be illegal to remake any movie that has been nominated for an Oscar.
Mar 5 - 06:12 AM
i hope they remake this movie and make it better than it ever was. Awesome!
Mar 5 - 06:15 AM
Keep Hope Alive!
Mar 5 - 06:22 AM
Man, I can't wait to see The Godfather remakes. Or how about a No Country For Old Men remake?
Mar 5 - 06:33 AM
Mar 5 - 07:54 AM
yeah, because remakes suck. WIZARD OF OZ (1939), BEN HUR (1959), THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (1959), THE THING (1982), THE FLY (1986), HOUSE OF WAX (1953), CAPE FEAR (1990), THE DEPARTED (2006), THE BOURNE IDENTITY (2002), OCEANS ELEVEN (2001), COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO (2002), HAMLET (1996), INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1978), THE ITALIAN JOB (2003), THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1956), MAN ON FIRE (2004), RANSOM (1996), SCARFACE (1982), MAGNIFICIENT SEVEN (1960), 300 (2006), THE UNTOUCHABLES (1987) and THE KING AND I (1956) suck ***. i wish they never made them. when will they learn?
smell the sarcasm.
movies are bad because they are, not because they're remakes. there are ten times more original movies being made every year and a lot of them blow. being original doesn't make them good. it just means they don't have an established fan base to get pissed at them.
hollywood is a business and businesses make money, not art. the name recognition alone is worth remaking ROSEMARY'S BABY (and somehow it's wrong to remake it but everybody forgets the ****ty sequel... guess that was okay). there will be more talk over this remake and any original horror film this week. what've you got? SHUTTER? DOOMSDAY? FUNNY GAMES? nobody cares. say ROSEMARY'S BABY and people start listening.
oh yeah. that audience they make those movies for, the ones 15 to 25 were born in between 1983 and 1993. 95% have never seen ROSEMARY'S BABY from 1968 and 80% of them have never heard of it. i got friends i love dearly and you can count the movies they own before 1990 on one hand. they're just not movie people.
Mar 5 - 08:03 AM
Scarface, Man on Fire, Ransom, The Italian Job and 300 all DID suck.
The Bourne Identity, 300, The Man who Knew Too Much, Hamlet, The Untouchables, Ransom, The King And I and the Wizard of Oz were all based on books. They were not remakes of other movies.
Film is an art form, and should be treated as such. Saying that it's a 'business' is saying that you hate movies.
You are wrong about everything you think. Die in a fire.
Mar 5 - 09:31 AM
Although he COULD pleasantly surprise us, none of the mentioned remakes had Michael Bay involved...All I can say is Rosemary's Baby has some pretty big shoes to fill. And as much as no one should touch this material, I wish they'd hire me. This would be an awsome film to (re)make (although I doubt I'm any more up to it than who ever they hire will be).
Mar 5 - 10:40 AM
Citizen James - the 50's "remakes" you mentioned were good because the advent of Sound, Technicolor or both. They were all remakes of silent films, B&W. Of the more recent remakes you mention, some are not remakes at all (Untouchables, tv series, 300 comic book).THe issue here is messing with a classic - the film is a modern piece of art (even if it is 40 years old now) and there is no need to recreate. If anything, it makes sense to re-release on film and introduce to younger generations that way, as opposed to butchering a classic (w/ Bay doing it, I can only imagine the explosions and tweeny boppers....)
Mar 7 - 12:38 PM
what's funny about your comment is most of those movies do suck. Nice one champ.
Mar 10 - 05:27 PM
Since most of your friends aren't "movie people", perhaps you should educate them on some of the classics, so they'll understand why true movie fans get so upset every time a soon-to-be assured craptacular remake is done.
Yes, movies are bad because they are(poor execution, concept, directing, writing) but mainly remakes are bad(with VERY FEW exceptions--The Fugitive being among them) because they just can't match the original in any way, shape or form. Or do you actually think the remake of Psycho was worth it, or the remake of Enter The Dragon will work without Bruce Lee in it?
It's virtually inarguable that 95% of the remakes that have been coming out over the last 10-20 years have sucked complete @$$. In my opinion, any studio exec that approves a remake of a classic film(they're called classics for a reason...age has little to do with it. Se7en was a classic when it came out, simply because of the ORIGINALITY behind it and that awesome, non-Hollywood ending) should immediately be handcuffed, given a last cigarette, and set in front of a firing squad. But that's just me.
And by the way...congratulations on your engagement. Hope you two have many happy years together.
Mar 5 - 09:28 AM
Also, you subverted your own point by saying both that they would make a lot of money from the remake AND that most 15-18 year olds haven't heard of it. How would it make money? And if you were a "movie person", not only would you know that Rosemary's Baby didn't appeal to teenagers when it was made and it still doesn't, you would know that Michael Bay is King Midas, if everything King Midas touched turned to sh*t.
Mar 5 - 09:36 AM
I got nothing against remakes, I really dont! I think that there are many that even surpass the original (The Departed, for instance) and also I've been looking foward for a Battle Royale remake for years. But in the case of Rosemary's Baby, it just feels completely wrong and out of place. I mean, it's so unnecessary...I can't even express my dissapointment at this news. If they want to re-introduce the movie to a new generation, then just put it again in theaters. There is no way in hell that a remake will improve on the original, nor even be equal as good.
Mar 5 - 09:39 AM
I wholeheartedly agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with remakes. There are indeed many remakes that are either on par with or even better than the original. (see: The Thomas Crown Affair) That being said, there are some movies that just do not need to be remade, Rosemary's Baby being one of them. In all honesty, it's a question of respect. Remaking a movie with no hope of improving on it (as in you just can't improve one of the best horror movies ever made) is disrespectful to the original film. If a remake is made with a legitimate chance of improving what is already there AND done with reverence for the original (see: King Kong) then there is a decent chance that it might just be a decent movie. But a remake for the sake of capitalizing on name recognition and with no chance or intention of improvement is disrespectful to the film, the filmmaker, and the fans. And that my friends is why every time a remake of a beloved film is announced, people all over the internet start smearing angry feces all over message boards.
Mar 5 - 10:02 AM
this is one remake i don't really get. i don't think it should be "updated' or "redone" or whatever. its one of those classics that i don't think can be translated into modern times and still be as effective
wow, scarface and 300 sucks?? i'm sorry to hear of the loss of your testicles...i'm sure you'll find them somewhere bud. and i BELIEVE the wizard of oz, the one we've all seen, was not the first movie based on that book. i think i read somewhere the FIRST movie based off the book was actually a silent film. so i'm not sure if thats technically a remake or not.
Mar 5 - 11:03 AM
Thats all I got. I'm reminded of a recent remake. Some of you may remember the craptastic voyage that was the remake of "The Wicker Man". Yeah, I know, wow. But heres the thing, I've seen the original Rosemary's Baby. It is awesome. It's what they call a classic. A general rule of thumb I live by is that remakes are done because no one in the industry can think of anything the least bit stimulating. They go with remakes because the scripts pretty much already there. The material is already there, I just have to add my name to it, and change a sentece here and there. It would be like me re-writing the novel Moby Dick, or Dorian Gray. I'm actually interested in seeing this remake...stay with me on this.....because I dont remember a single scene in the movie where something blows up, or a motorcyle jumps over a helicotper causing it to fly into a building at the same time a CGI meteor crashes into a building. Michael Bay is ridiculous. His movies are awful, and I'm convinced he's determined to ruin the movie industry. But in the end there is nothing Michael Bay and CGI can do to make Rosemary's Baby better. Your thoughts Citizen?
Mar 5 - 11:09 AM
Brilliant! They could have Gus van Zant do "Rosemary's Baby" like he did "Psycho" only this time use the Muppets.
Mar 5 - 12:25 PM
I don't think it's the idea of a remake that bothers me, it's the fact that Platinum Dunes is the company looking to remake it that I don't like. Every Film with Bay attached that I've seen has always been so lame.
Mar 5 - 12:43 PM
I'm not a Bay fan but The Rock was pretty damn great. Remakes & prequels tend to be boring though but it seems nothing is off limits to remake, I wonder who will play Captan Jack Sparrow 50 yars from now?
Mar 5 - 01:29 PM
I don't have a problem with well-done remakes. Some stories SHOULD be modernized, and brought before a new generation.
The problem with 21st century horror remakes, is that the audience is treated as if they are morons, with the attention span of a four year-old. "MORE BLOOD! MORE NOISE! MORE MTV DIALOGUE!", seems to be the order of the day. The scariest part is, that maybe the genre's fans can't appreciate horror. Or at least the well-written, suspense-filled stories that worked so well years ago.
There have some great horror remakes. THE THING and THE FLY, both made in the eighties, were new classics in my opinion. I didn't even mind the TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake, as it was fairly true to Tobe Hooper's vision. The same with THE OMEN. It wasn't as terrible as it could have been, saved by decent performances and keeping most of the original storyline intact.
For the most part, though, these movies have already been remade over and over, only with different names. How many demon baby movies have we had? Most are direct to video trash.
If they must remake ROSEMARY'S BABY, keep it classy. It would be nice to have a true horror film that catered to the viewer's intelligence.
Mar 5 - 02:06 PM
hey guys didja hear the great news McG is set to direct the remake of citizen kane starring denzel washington as charles kane dennis quaid as jebedaiah leland and martin lawrence as the voice of chuckles, the wacktacular talking news squirrel they say they're gonna do the original justice it looks real guddd
Mar 5 - 03:16 PM
Nicolaas van Oss
F**K!!! I don't really care if they remake mildly good slasher films, but why would those motherF's mess with a classic Polanski film?!
Mar 5 - 03:35 PM
I'll only see the movie if they superimpose George Bush's face on the Devil when he's sexing up the Mia Farrow character.
Mar 5 - 04:22 PM
FOR THE LOVE OF JEBUS!!!HOLLYWOOD STOP THIS INSANITY OF RUINING CLASSIC OSCAR-NOMINATED MOVIES....S#IT!
Mar 5 - 05:27 PM
Ralph Fiennes' 10 Best Movies
Stars and Cars of Need for Speed
Need For Speed is busted
Your 10 most anticipated