Psycho remake...good or bad idea or just plain criminal
Omd17
I just starting hearing about this one. Whats the deal with it? Can't they
leave well enough alone? I love the original. Will it be in black and white?
HitchKing
remake. And guess what it says above the title. That's right "A Gus Van Sant
Film". Bastard.
Omd17 wrote in message <19980924112938...@ng153.aol.com>...
>
>I just starting hearing about this one. Whats the deal with it? Can't they
>leave well enough alone? I love the original. Will it be in black and
white?
"Smile you son of a bitch"
Roy Scheider in JAWS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
This message has been brought to you by HitchKing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Makeup/6752/
THE MOST TERRIFYING FILM EVER MADE!!!
hai...@hotmail.com
(Omd17) wrote:
> I just starting hearing about this one. Whats the deal with it? Can't they
> leave well enough alone? I love the original. Will it be in black and white?
The movie will not be in black and white, it is supposed to be a
"modernization" of the film. The movie uses the same script that
Hitchcock used for the original, but the movie just has a '90's spin.
Vince Vaughn plays Norman, and Anne Hesche plays Marion Crane. It is
supposed to have more sex and violence than the original, and is supposed
to be a homage to Hitchcock's original.
hai...@hotmail.com
Omd17
A gus van stant film? And it is word for word? well he can just kiss my ass.
And color? They are crazy. Damn them
The New Flesh
<19980924112938...@ng153.aol.com>...
>
> I just starting hearing about this one. Whats the deal with it? Can't
they
> leave well enough alone? I love the original. Will it be in black and
white?
>
Nope, it will be in color with an all new cast. Sucks huh?
The New Flesh
Stink Hot At 5 A.M When The Machine Starts Up Again, The Sky Is Still Pink
The New Flesh
<hairy71-2409...@danky141.mis.net>...
they
> > leave well enough alone? I love the original. Will it be in black and
white?
>
> "modernization" of the film. The movie uses the same script that
> Hitchcock used for the original, but the movie just has a '90's spin.
> Vince Vaughn plays Norman, and Anne Hesche plays Marion Crane. It is
> supposed to have more sex and violence than the original, and is supposed
> to be a homage to Hitchcock's original.
>
It's more of a bullshit travesty towards Hitchcock's film.
Shiflet
>
> NOt only will it be in color. It will be a shot by shot, word by word
> remake. And guess what it says above the title. That's right "A Gus Van Sant Film". Bastard.
Kinda makes you wonder what's the point, doesn't it?
> "Smile you son of a bitch"
> Roy Scheider in JAWS
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> This message has been brought to you by HitchKing
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Makeup/6752/
> THE MOST TERRIFYING FILM EVER MADE!!!
Danny Shiflet
"We plan ahead, that way we don't have to do anything right now"-
Valentine, Tremors
Robert Kramer
>Nope, it will be in color with an all new cast. Sucks huh?
Really? I thought they were gonna use the original cast (sarcasm).
Robert Kramer
>NOT only will it be in color. It will be a shot by shot, word by word
>remake. And guess what it says above the title. That's right "A Gus >Van
Sant Film".
I'm all for remakes only when they take a different approach than the
original. A good example is the 'NOTLD' remake. I think this shot by shot,
word for word remake is just to make sure they can't go wrong at the box
office.
Jeffrey Ruud
>
> In article <19980924112938...@ng153.aol.com>, om...@aol.com
> (Omd17) wrote:
>
> > I just starting hearing about this one. Whats the deal with it? Can't they
> > leave well enough alone? I love the original. Will it be in black and white?
>
> The movie will not be in black and white, it is supposed to be a
> "modernization" of the film. The movie uses the same script that
> Hitchcock used for the original, but the movie just has a '90's spin.
> Vince Vaughn plays Norman, and Anne Hesche plays Marion Crane. It is
> supposed to have more sex and violence than the original, and is supposed
> to be a homage to Hitchcock's original.
Even if we do know that it's just going to be a ridiculous travesty of Hitchcock's
classic.
--
Jordan Ruud
E-mail me at: jruudat...@sprintmail.com
Flames, spam, and stupidity will be ignored.
And visit my web page at:
http://home.sprintmail.com/~jruudatniagara/index.html
"Mark this farther and remember. The end comes suddenly. Enter
that antechamber of birth where the studious are assembled and
note their faces. Nothing, as it seems, there of rash or violent."
Franknseus
Perhaps the point of the Psycho remake is to prove how many irrational
zealots with no idea what they're talking about could be made to piss
themselves over a movie they haven't seen.
Yes, it is alleged to be a shot for shot remake, and it appears that the
shower scene at least is done this way.
This is a crazy and unusual way to make a remake, and that is a good thing.
The movie, however, is shrouded in secrecy, and it's possible that all of
this is a ruse.
Van Sant is a good director who has dreamed of doing this for a decade, the
script is being modified by Joseph Stefano (author of the original), the shots
in the commercials look fantastic, and the Bernard Herrman score is being
arranged by Danny Elfman, whose favorite score is Psycho, by Bernard Herrman.
I don't care how many people spout out lame cliches about remakes, this has
the potential to be interesting, and there is no denying that it is daring and
experimental. Those are good things. I didn't see anyone getting this pissed
about The Birds 2: Land's End, which was fucking horrible. And Psycho is a
movie with three full color, non-Hitchcock sequels (and a Bates Motel tv movie,
I think). It's not like its legacy is pure.
If you are a Hitchcock fudamentalist then fine, don't watch it. But I want to
see it, so put down the pitchfork and get out of my way.
Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
--
http://www.bucketheadland.com/visitorcenter/
"With God's help I will someday becoem a full jedi/Dolphin, and find the
Ethiopian Woman of my vision." --from the web site "Bruce lee, Star Wars, and
all the Full Jedi"
WideScreenPig
> Perhaps the point of the Psycho remake is to prove how many irrational
> zealots with no idea what they're talking about could be made to piss
> themselves over a movie they haven't seen.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
> Yes, it is alleged to be a shot for shot remake, and it appears that the
> shower scene at least is done this way.
> This is a crazy and unusual way to make a remake, and that is a good thing.
It's a lazy and superficial way to make a remake, and that is a BAD thing.
> The movie, however, is shrouded in secrecy, and it's possible that all of
> this is a ruse.
If only that were true ...
> Van Sant is a good director
who's made one decent picture and a bunch of overrated shite afterward.
> who has dreamed of doing this for a decade, the
> script is being modified by Joseph Stefano (author of the original),
and who not doubt being paid a pretty penny for his efforts.
> the shots
> in the commercials look fantastic, and the Bernard Herrman score is being
> arranged by Danny Elfman, whose favorite score is Psycho, by Bernard Herrman.
So we're not only treated to shot-for-for thievery, but note-for-note as well. At
least it's consistent. But so are feces.
> I don't care how many people spout out lame cliches about remakes,
These comments are cliches. They're remakes of comments that have been said
before. .
> this has
> the potential to be interesting, and there is no denying that it is daring and
> experimental.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh yes there is. Xeroxing is neither experimental nor daring. It is
insulting to the audience and to the creators of the original. Van Sant is dancing
on Hitchcock's grave and asking us to thank him for the privilege of watching it.
If Van Sant were truly "daring" (ie. if he had the balls to really try something
new), he'd go back to the original source material (Robert Bloch's fine book) and
try to tell the story from a contemporary perspective (and given all that has
happened re: serial killers since the original film and now, I think there's a lot
of interesting new ground to tread), although I strongly doubt any film from Van
Sant could stand the scrutiny compared to Hitchcock's.
This absurd attempt to recreate the original shot for shot smells like a cheap
cash-grab by all concerned. By definition this film CAN NOT BE any better than the
original, and the fact that its a remake only sullies its status, rendering it, in
fact, instantly inferior. So I ask you: what's the fucking point? The Psycho
remake is like drinking your own piss -- it's horrible, but you can't shake the
feeling that it's somehow strangely familiar ... like you drank it before.
> Those are good things. I didn't see anyone getting this pissed
> about The Birds 2: Land's End, which was fucking horrible.
The Birds isn't Psycho.
> And Psycho is a movie with three full color, non-Hitchcock sequels (and a Bates
> Motel tv movie, I think). It's not like its legacy is pure.
The sequels were fine followups that stood on their own. And none of them sought
to be retreads of the original.
> If you are a Hitchcock fudamentalist then fine, don't watch it.
I'm not a Hitchcock fundamentalist. I just despise ignorance on the part of
audiences who will suck up whatever they're told instead of thinking for
themselves, and I despise the cynicism of filmmakers who are only too happy to take
advantage of that.
> But I want to
> see it, so put down the pitchfork and get out of my way.
I strongly doubt that with huge studio backing and monster publicity/2000-screen
release, you're going to have any problem seeing it, pitchforks or no.
WideScreenPig
Takes all his showers with the curtain wide open.
james
om...@aol.com (Omd17) wrote:
>
> I just starting hearing about this one. Whats the deal with it? Can't they
> leave well enough alone? I love the original. Will it be in black and white?
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
The Master
movie will give the original a bad reputation, or maybe a good because they
can judge how much better the original is.
---
" heres Johnny"
----------Jack Nicholson
-----"the Shining"
----------
The Master
original.
---
" heres Johnny"
----------Jack Nicholson
-----"the Shining"
----------
In article <01b19280$7d798860$8fd493d0@joehenson>, "The New Flesh"
<s...@vei.net> wrote:
>hai...@hotmail.com wrote in article
><hairy71-2409...@danky141.mis.net>...
>> In article <19980924112938...@ng153.aol.com>, om...@aol.com
>> (Omd17) wrote:
>>
>> > I just starting hearing about this one. Whats the deal with it? Can't
>they
>> > leave well enough alone? I love the original. Will it be in black and
>white?
>>
>> The movie will not be in black and white, it is supposed to be a
>> "modernization" of the film. The movie uses the same script that
>> Hitchcock used for the original, but the movie just has a '90's spin.
>> Vince Vaughn plays Norman, and Anne Hesche plays Marion Crane. It is
>> supposed to have more sex and violence than the original, and is supposed
>> to be a homage to Hitchcock's original.
>>
>
Shiflet
>
> Perhaps the point of the Psycho remake is to prove how many irrational zealots with no idea what they're talking about could be made to piss themselves over a movie they haven't seen.
But don't count on it.
> Yes, it is alleged to be a shot for shot remake, and it appears that the shower scene at least is done this way. This is a crazy and unusual way to make a remake, and that is a good thing. The movie, however, is shrouded in secrecy, and it's possible that all of this is a ruse.
If it is, fine, but if it isn't it's obviously just another attempt to
get cash without even an ounce of creativity.
> Van Sant is a good director who has dreamed of doing this for a decade, the script is being modified by Joseph Stefano (author of the original), the shots in the commercials look fantastic, and the Bernard Herrman score is being arranged by Danny Elfman, whose favorite score is Psycho, by Bernard Herrman.
>
> I don't care how many people spout out lame cliches about remakes, this has the potential to be interesting, and there is no denying that it is daring and experimental.
Yes and no. Copying an idea is not daring an experimental, but flat out
admitting to it certainly is...
> Those are good things. I didn't see anyone getting this pissed
> about The Birds 2: Land's End, which was fucking horrible.
Name one person who's liked it.
> And Psycho is a movie with three full color, non-Hitchcock sequels (and a Bates Motel tv movie, I think). It's not like its legacy is pure.
> If you are a Hitchcock fudamentalist then fine, don't watch it. But I want to see it, so put down the pitchfork and get out of my way.
>
> Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
> --
> http://www.bucketheadland.com/visitorcenter/
>
> "With God's help I will someday becoem a full jedi/Dolphin, and find the
> Ethiopian Woman of my vision." --from the web site "Bruce lee, Star Wars, and
> all the Full Jedi"
Danny Shiflet
Franknseus
>It's a lazy and superficial way to make a remake, and that is a BAD thing.
Are you serious? Can you imagine what a pain in the ass it would be to
re-create the original movie, and especially to pull it off?
I don't know if you've seen the TV commercial that shows shots of the movie.
I happened to get part of it on tape and I examined the shots using the mighty
powers of the pause button. I was amazed by the re-creation of the shot of the
camera zooming in on Marion Crane's screaming mouth. This is of course one of
the most famous shots, used on some of the video covers even, and is melted
into our minds. Somehow, they managed to make this look *exactly* the same,
except it's Anne Heche. It's one of the weirdest things I've seen on screen in
a long time.
No, this isn't going to be better than the original, and only an
insignificant number of kids who will grow up to know better will ever think it
is. If it truly is a shot for shot remake, that's a bizarre fucking thing. It
will be extremely surreal to watch such a familiar movie remade in this way. If
it were a traditional remake, I wouldn't be excited. But I like it when people
try new things, which this is, even though you and millions of others will
never be willing to admit it.
>> Van Sant is a good director
>
>who's made one decent picture and a bunch of overrated shite afterward.
Drugstore Cowboy is a great movie. My Own Private Idaho and To Die For are
pretty damn "decent pictures" as well. Even his worst work like Even Cowgirls
Get the Blues is interesting and original. It's not like he's just some hack.
>So we're not only treated to shot-for-for thievery, but note-for-note as
>well. At
>least it's consistent. But so are feces.
What kind of world do you live in where you can reasonably call this
"thievery"? Do you honestly think there are people around who are not aware of
Hitchcock's film or of Bernard Herrman's theme, and who will somehow avoid the
hype and discussion of the bizarre approach to this remake?
Who are these people who will give Van Sant and Elfman credit for Hitchcock
and Herrman's work? I want to hear names and explanations of why you hang out
with them.
>Ohhhhhhhhhhhh yes there is. Xeroxing is neither experimental nor daring. It
>is
>insulting to the audience and to the creators of the original.
Joseph Stefano is one of the chief forces behind the original. Among other
things, he is the one who decided to make the movie about Marion Crane. He is
obviously not insulted by this movie that he is writing, and has said that he
thinks "Hitch" would get a kick out of it.
>If Van Sant were truly "daring" (ie. if he had the balls to really try
>something
>new)
I can't believe this. You're actually questioning Van Sant's "balls" after he
had the audacity to announce a shot-for-shot remake of one of the most
cherished films in cinematic history.
>he'd go back to the original source material (Robert Bloch's fine book) and
>try to tell the story from a contemporary perspective (and given all that has
>happened re: serial killers since the original film and now, I think there's
>a lot
>of interesting new ground to tread), although I strongly doubt any film from
>Van
>Sant could stand the scrutiny compared to Hitchcock's.
It's not a bad idea. But I don't think Van Sant's idea is bad either, so what
do I know?
>This absurd attempt to recreate the original shot for shot smells like a
>cheap
>cash-grab by all concerned.
I keep hearing this argument and I think it is absolutely preposterous. If
Van Sant wanted a cheap cash grab, he would make something else along the lines
of Good Will Hunting. This is a project that has put millions up in arms, even
Jamie Lee Curtis commented angrily about it on some entertainment tabloid show.
This is not a good way to make a quick buck.
And if they really thought Psycho was a way to make a quick buck, they'd make
it drastically different from the original (to get the "I've already seen it"
contingent) and put in popular teen stars and bands.
>By definition this film CAN NOT BE any better
>than the
>original, and the fact that its a remake only sullies its status, rendering
>it, in
>fact, instantly inferior.
Van Sant has also stated this. Why would you expect it to be better, and why
would you want it to be? (I mean yeah, it would be cool if somehow you could
make a better version of Psycho, but obviously that's not likely to happen.)
I think it's possible to appreciate something like the Night of the Living
Dead remake while knowing that it is not nearly as good as the original.
So I ask you: what's the fucking point? The
>Psycho
>remake is like drinking your own piss -- it's horrible, but you can't shake
>the
>feeling that it's somehow strangely familiar ... like you drank it before.
I wouldn't know about that. But another analogy I've heard is that it's like
reliving a familiar old nightmare you had as a child.
Franknseus
>> Those are good things. I didn't see anyone getting this pissed
>> about The Birds 2: Land's End, which was fucking horrible.
>
>Name one person who's liked it.
I can't. But what does that have to do with anything? No one seemed to give a
rat's ass about the existence of the movie. I've never once heard anyone
complain that they shouldn't have made it. But I have seen approximately 8
million angry, irrational people swearing on the internet about the Psycho
remake before it even started filming, even though it has a better cast, better
director, better writer and less obvious approach than the Birds sequel.
Shiflet
> I can't. But what does that have to do with anything? No one seemed to give a rat's ass about the existence of the movie. I've never once heard anyone complain that they shouldn't have made it. But I have seen approximately 8 million angry, irrational people swearing on the internet about the Psycho remake before it even started filming, even though it has a better cast, better director, better writer and less obvious approach than the Birds sequel.
I've heard Birds 2 criticised by several people, and it was never
intended as a remake, but as a sequel, which are often blasted as a
whole.
> Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
> --
> http://www.bucketheadland.com/visitorcenter/
>
> "With God's help I will someday becoem a full jedi/Dolphin, and find the
> Ethiopian Woman of my vision." --from the web site "Bruce lee, Star Wars, and
> all the Full Jedi"
Danny Shiflet
WideScreenPig
>WideScreenPig wrote:
> >It's a lazy and superficial way to make a remake, and that is a BAD thing.
>
> Are you serious? Can you imagine what a pain in the ass it would be to
> re-create the original movie, and especially to pull it off?
I know exactly how hard it is. It's time consuming and painstaking. It's still
lazy and superficial. And a waste of energy. There is no thought behind it, just
replication.
> I don't know if you've seen the TV commercial that shows shots of the movie.
> I happened to get part of it on tape and I examined the shots using the mighty
> powers of the pause button. I was amazed by the re-creation of the shot of the
> camera zooming in on Marion Crane's screaming mouth. This is of course one of
> the most famous shots, used on some of the video covers even, and is melted
> into our minds. Somehow, they managed to make this look *exactly* the same,
> except it's Anne Heche. It's one of the weirdest things I've seen on screen in
> a long time.
Weird ain't good, friend.
> No, this isn't going to be better than the original,
So why make it then?
> and only an
> insignificant number of kids who will grow up to know better will ever think it
> is. If it truly is a shot for shot remake, that's a bizarre fucking thing. It
> will be extremely surreal to watch such a familiar movie remade in this way.
Surreal ain't good, either.
> If
> it were a traditional remake, I wouldn't be excited. But I like it when people
> try new things, which this is,
Explain please how an identical copy of a 38 year old film is a "new thing".
> even though you and millions of others will
> never be willing to admit it.
I'm ready willing and able to admit it ... if it were true. But it's not. Sorry.
> >> Van Sant is a good director
> >
> >who's made one decent picture and a bunch of overrated shite afterward.
>
> Drugstore Cowboy is a great movie.
Yup.
> My Own Private Idaho and To Die For are
> pretty damn "decent pictures" as well.
Pretentious shite and an overblown TV movie, respectively.
> Even his worst work like Even Cowgirls
> Get the Blues is interesting and original. It's not like he's just some hack.
Until now.
> >So we're not only treated to shot-for-for thievery, but note-for-note as
> >well. At
> >least it's consistent. But so are feces.
>
> What kind of world do you live in where you can reasonably call this
> "thievery"?
What kind of world do you live in where you can reasonably call this "new" and
"original"?
> Do you honestly think there are people around who are not aware of
> Hitchcock's film or of Bernard Herrman's theme, and who will somehow avoid the
> hype and discussion of the bizarre approach to this remake?
It's not a question of people knowing about it. It's the fact that it's been
done. The shot composition, cinematography, editing and even the MUSIC have been
lifted whole from the original PSYCHO and used here with nary a trace of irony or
wit. They were the creation - the sweat and blood HARD FUCKING WORK - of
Hitchcock, Saul Bass, Bernard Hermann and others. And they have been TAKEN and
USED BY OTHERS. Van Sant and his cronies have merely to tread on their hard work,
pick up a (substantial) cheque from Universal, hit the talk show circuit to discuss
"how much they revere Hitchcock" (while simultaneously cashing in on his legacy for
their own ends) and "how much they love the original" (so they obviously have to
make it again, because who would WATCH that movie? It's so old, and in black and
white!).
> Who are these people who will give Van Sant and Elfman credit for Hitchcock
> and Herrman's work? I want to hear names and explanations of why you hang out
> with them.
Their names are Gus Van Sant, Danny Elfman, Sid Sheinberg, Anne Heche, Julianne
Moore, Vince Vaughn and (sadly) Joe Stefano. And I do not "hang out" with them.
> >Ohhhhhhhhhhhh yes there is. Xeroxing is neither experimental nor daring. It
> >is
> >insulting to the audience and to the creators of the original.
>
> Joseph Stefano is one of the chief forces behind the original. Among other
> things, he is the one who decided to make the movie about Marion Crane. He is
> obviously not insulted by this movie that he is writing, and has said that he
> thinks "Hitch" would get a kick out of it.
Too bad "Hitch" can't get a check out of it. Oh wait, Stefano's getting paid
enough for both of them. Of course, only after he signs the publicity clause in
his contract ...
> >If Van Sant were truly "daring" (ie. if he had the balls to really try
> >something
> >new)
>
> I can't believe this. You're actually questioning Van Sant's "balls" after he
> had the audacity to announce a shot-for-shot remake of one of the most
> cherished films in cinematic history.
It's not audacity. It's ignorant, hypocritical, shallow, disrepectful, unoriginal,
moronic and cynical.
Audacity implies bravery. Bravery implies taking artistic risks. Hitchcock was
audacious. He did things that had never been done before. He took chances ith
storytelling. It's unlikely that Van Sant would have the "audaciousness" to kill
off his lead actress thirty five minutes into the narrative ... except of course in
this movie. But of course, he's only doing it because Hitchcock did it first.
> >he'd go back to the original source material (Robert Bloch's fine book) and
> >try to tell the story from a contemporary perspective (and given all that has
> >happened re: serial killers since the original film and now, I think there's
> >a lot
> >of interesting new ground to tread), although I strongly doubt any film from
> >Van
> >Sant could stand the scrutiny compared to Hitchcock's.
>
> It's not a bad idea. But I don't think Van Sant's idea is bad either, so what
> do I know?
Not much, apparently.
> >This absurd attempt to recreate the original shot for shot smells like a
> >cheap
> >cash-grab by all concerned.
>
> I keep hearing this argument and I think it is absolutely preposterous. If
> Van Sant wanted a cheap cash grab, he would make something else along the lines
> of Good Will Hunting. This is a project that has put millions up in arms,
And millions in Van Sant's bank account.
> even
> Jamie Lee Curtis commented angrily about it on some entertainment tabloid show.
> This is not a good way to make a quick buck.
It's a fucking great way to make a quick buck. Especially if Universal Studios are
signing the checks and you've got a healthy back-end deal with profit
participation. Not to mention the publicity spin you pull off of it.
> And if they really thought Psycho was a way to make a quick buck, they'd make
> it drastically different from the original (to get the "I've already seen it"
> contingent) and put in popular teen stars and bands.
Yeah, instead of using obscure, unknown actors like Vince Vaughn, Julianne Moore
and Anne Heche.
> >By definition this film CAN NOT BE any better
> >than the
> >original, and the fact that its a remake only sullies its status, rendering
> >it, in
> >fact, instantly inferior.
>
> Van Sant has also stated this.
Then ask yourself why he's making it.
> Why would you expect it to be better,
Haven't you been listening?
> and why
> would you want it to be? (I mean yeah, it would be cool if somehow you could
> make a better version of Psycho, but obviously that's not likely to happen.)
I hate repeating myself. If it's not likely to happen, WHY DO YOU THINK THEY'RE
MAKING IT? Answer: $$$.
> I think it's possible to appreciate something like the Night of the Living
> Dead remake while knowing that it is not nearly as good as the original.
Savini's NOTLD is a perfect example of what to do with a remake: take the
opportunity to go left where the first one went right. Explore other possibilties
inherent in the material. Take chances. It would have been simple for NOTLD '90
to have been a shot-for-shot clone. But it wasn't, because Savini, Romero and
company were trying to do something NEW.
> So I ask you: what's the fucking point? The
> >Psycho
> >remake is like drinking your own piss -- it's horrible, but you can't shake
> >the
> >feeling that it's somehow strangely familiar ... like you drank it before.
>
> I wouldn't know about that. But another analogy I've heard is that it's like
> reliving a familiar old nightmare you had as a child.
If I want to relive the nightmare, I'll just watch the original PSYCHO. If I want
to watch a paint-by-numbers duplication, I'll see Van Sant's film. Oh wait ... no
I won't.
WideScreenPig
Franknseus
>Weird ain't good, friend.
>Surreal ain't good, either.
Well, now we're getting somewhere. Maybe this is the difference between you
and me. I think weird and surreal are both good things. I am not a big fan of
the ordinary and banal. Sitting in a theater and watching an exact re-creation
of a movie is not something I have ever experienced before. I want to
experience it this one time, to see what it's like. I'm still not convinced
that the whole movie will be a shot for shot remake, but if it is it is an
insane approach, and I appreciate that. I like filmmakers who make a movie
because they want to rather than trying to make a movie that will please
everyone and fill seats.
If this approach has ever been done before, please tell me when.
This IS a new thing. Like I said, you will never ever admit it or understand
it, no matter what. I will enjoy seeing Van Sant go on to make other movies
that are not remakes (or adaptations, as with his upcoming Don't Worry He Won't
Get Far On Foot, based on the autobiography of the great quadraplegic
cartoonist John Callahan). But what the hell will it be like to experience
something like this? It is unprecedented, and those few who are open to it will
certainly find the experience interesting.
>Explain please how an identical copy of a 38 year old film is a "new thing".
Okay. When was the last time you saw "an identical copy" of any film? What
was it like to sit and watch it?
No, haven't experienced it before? Me neither.
>The shot composition, cinematography, editing and even the MUSIC have been
>lifted whole from the original PSYCHO and used here with nary a trace of
>irony or
>wit.
First of all, they have not been lifted. They have been re-created. It's the
difference between stealing a Corvette and building your own Corvette. And why
the hell would you build your own Corvette? I have no idea. But I'd be willing
to take it for a spin.
Secondly, OF COURSE they are doing it with a sense of irony and wit. You are
so angry and irrational about the whole idea that are completely unwilling to
see what is right in front of your nose. I have no idea how you could possibly
think that Van Sant doesn't realize what a weird approach to a remake this is,
except that you are pissed off and unwilling to think of the project in a
positive light.
It's clearly a postmodern experiment. You don't have to appreciate that, but
it is absolutely asinine to argue that Van Sant doesn't realize what he is
doing.
>and "how much they love the original" (so they obviously have to
>make it again, because who would WATCH that movie?
Again, you're the hundred millionth person to make this completely irrational
argument. I am willing to bet my measly savings that if the remake does well at
all, rentals and sales of the original Psycho will go through the roof this
Christmas. Sure, when people see a remake of Les Diaboliques they might not
bother to compare it to the original. But if this really is a shot for shot
remake, it is begging you to compare the two side by side to see how accurate
it is. If Universal is smart, in fact, they will re-release the original
theatrically while the remake is still around.
>> Who are these people who will give Van Sant and Elfman credit for
>Hitchcock
>> and Herrman's work? I want to hear names and explanations of why you hang
>out
>> with them.
>
>Their names are Gus Van Sant, Danny Elfman, Sid Sheinberg, Anne Heche,
>Julianne
>Moore, Vince Vaughn and (sadly) Joe Stefano. And I do not "hang out" with
>them.
See, this is what I'm talking about when I say that people are being
irrational zealots about this whole thing. What you've just said above makes
absolutely no sense. All of these people are human beings with common sense
(well, except maybe Sid Sheinberg - is he really involved?) None of them are
taking or attempting to take the credit of the creators of the original film in
any way. There are very, very few people on earth who have not seen the
original and will not know the nature of this remake when they see it. I hardly
doubt these people are trying to impress the five most clueless people on
earth. I just can't see how a reasonable person who can form complete
sentences, like yourself, can really believe that they are trying to do that.
Please, take a deep breathe and think about it for a minute.
I'm similarly confused by your references to Van Sant picking up a paycheck.
Yes, he will get paid for the project. No more than he would have gotten for a
more obvious movie, and I would guess less. It is highly unlikely that this
will be anything other than a box office flop. Even if it does well, another
Matt Damon/Robin Williams movie would have probably done a lot better.
If you're trying to make a quick buck, you don't piss off 95% of American
moviegoers in order to do it. It's just not logical. If you really think this
movie is a good way to make a quick buck, why don't you poll everyone you know
and see what they think about it. So far, I think I have come across three
people excited to see the movie, and one of them is me. The majority of the
other people I've talked to about it are very, very angry and keep swearing and
calling Van Sant names while expressing their feelings about it.
Whatever it is, it's not a safe movie or a surefire hit.
Robert Kramer
>and it's possible that all of
>this is a ruse.
- Cunning attempt to try and trick me.
Shiflet
>
> The remake of The Fly was better than the original...why cant anyone
> give remakes a chance?
The fly wasn't a shot for shot word for word remake either. Remaking a
film exactly is a total sign of unoriginality.
> "So never mind the darkness, we still can find a way" - Axl Rose,
> November Rain
tim...@tiptontel.com
> HitchKing wrote:
> > NOt only will it be in color. It will be a shot by shot, word by word
> > remake. And guess what it says above the title. That's right "A Gus Van Sant
Film". Bastard.
>
>Shiflet responded:
Kinda makes you wonder what's the point, doesn't it?
I've never been a fan of Van Sant films, but at least he has always worked
with a little creativity. Now, just when he's at the high point of his
career, this fiasco. There are only two possible reasons for him to remake
Psycho: 1) He likes a quick buck; 2) he has an insane idea that he can become
known as 'the director who improved on Hitchcock's masterpiece'. The money
he'll probably get. The other is a pipe dream. By the way, no press
screenings for the new Psycho. The claim is that the new shower scene and the
revealing of 'mother' is so shocking that Van Sant doesn't want the critics
to ruin it for the audience with advance word. But, as anyone with a little
film savvy knows, the usual cause for not allowing press screenings is that a
film bites bigtime and the studio is hoping for good opening week money
before the word gets out. My guess is that this Psycho is pure shit. Homer
aka tim...@tiptontel.com
Franknseus
>I've never been a fan of Van Sant films, but at least he has always worked
>with a little creativity. Now, just when he's at the high point of his
>career, this fiasco.
He's not at his artistic peak, but yes, he just had a very successful film.
And he's using his newfound clout to make a movie that he's always wanted to
make, that he never could have made without the huge success of his last film.
How is that a fiasco? It's what more people ought to do. Fuck critics, fuck the
internet. This movie is obviously not made to please everyone, or most people,
or very many people. If it's not for you, get over it.
>There are only two possible reasons for him to remake
>Psycho: 1) He likes a quick buck; 2) he has an insane idea that he can become
>known as 'the director who improved on Hitchcock's masterpiece'.
That's a pretty narrow view there. Van Sant has said very little about this
film, but he has said that he is not trying to improve on the original. Of
course he's not! He's a fan of the original, he's exploring it. It's an
experiment. There is no way in hell it's going to make a lot of money, so your
#1 reason is pretty much to be disregarded as well.
>By the way, no press
>screenings for the new Psycho.
Van Sant has been adamant about this from the start. He says he wants the
movie to affect the audience the same way the original did. Thus, he doesn't
want anyone to know what to expect. Personally, I suspect that it is not really
a shot for shot remake.
The no-test-screening rule of thumb has nothing to do with quality, it has to
do with studios not having faith in a movie making money. And if you are a
horror fan I would think you would realize that movie studios, with their
quests for gigantic piles of cash, are not someone to listen to about the
quality of a movie.
Craig Hamann
t> From: tim...@tiptontel.com
t> Subject: Re: Psycho remake...good or bad idea or just plain criminal
t> Newsgroups: alt.horror
t> >Shiflet responded:
t> Kinda makes you wonder what's the point, doesn't it?
t> I've never been a fan of Van Sant films, but at least he has always
t> worked with a little creativity. Now, just when he's at the high
t> point of his career, this fiasco. There are only two possible reasons
t> for him to remake Psycho: 1) He likes a quick buck; 2) he has an
t> insane idea that he can become known as 'the director who improved on
t> Hitchcock's masterpiece'. The money he'll probably get. The other is
t> a pipe dream. By the way, no press screenings for the new Psycho. The
t> claim is that the new shower scene and the revealing of 'mother' is
t> so shocking that Van Sant doesn't want the critics to ruin it for the
t> film audience with advance word. But, as anyone with a little savvy
t> film knows, the usual cause for not allowing press screenings is that
t> a bites bigtime and the studio is hoping for good opening week money
t> before the word gets out. My guess is that this Psycho is pure shit.
Homer aka tim...@tiptontel.com
That's pretty much the way I see it too, Homer. I don't know why on
earth a remake of the film is needed in the first place. One of the
things that most irritates me is that there are piles of good original
scripts in Hollywood that are constantly forgotten so that a remake can
be done. Go figure. Anyway, as far as my view of Van Sant's PSYCHO
goes, I think that the "just plain criminal" part of the subject header
sums it up nicely.
Craig
Dr Walpurgis
> But, as anyone with a little
> film savvy knows, the usual cause for not allowing press screenings is that a
> film bites bigtime and the studio is hoping for good opening week money
> before the word gets out. My guess is that this Psycho is pure shit.
But that's what they said about THE AVENGERS and...er...well, I liked it, anyway.
tim...@tiptontel.com
curiosity. I'm going to go the $1.50 theatre this week to catch it.
Moldyspud
>> But that's what they said about THE AVENGERS and...er...well, I liked it,
>anyway.
>>
>Um, yeah. In fact, your repeated defense of The Avengers has raised my
>curiosity. I'm going to go the $1.50 theatre this week to catch it.
>Homer
>aka tim...@tiptontel.com
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Oh man, the avengers SUUUUCKS, I have never see such a bland movie! No suspense
and no character building so you don't really give a rats ass if they die or
not. I was just sitting there saying "wow neato effects. Wish the movie would
end already."
It didn't even seem like there was a plot. it seemed like there was some guy
(sean connery) just fooling around with the weather.
And the rest of the characters were just wasting time. It had funny parts and
Uma Thurman is always nice to look at. But geez... What a waste of good talent.
It's just another "Special effects out do the rest of the movie."
Grrr, they can't get away with movies like that dangit!! :)
Rev. Evil Ed
>
> tim...@tiptontel.com wrote:
>
> > But, as anyone with a little
> > film savvy knows, the usual cause for not allowing press screenings is that a
> > film bites bigtime and the studio is hoping for good opening week money
> > before the word gets out. My guess is that this Psycho is pure shit.
>
My friends and I enjoyed it. Of course, we like the show, and we
also happen to adore British humor. It wasn't anything FABULOUS,
but it was entertaining and many times funny. I thought the thing
that was totally out of place was the henchman saying, "Fuck!"
I understand WHY it was done, I just didn't think it worked in
context with the film's humor.
--
"Would you like to ride your own ass?"
-Sign at a Thai donkey ride.
--------------------------------------------
The QCBB, "The Lamest Show on Earth"
http://www.waste.org/~eviled
Dr Walpurgis
Mikael Falk
same script is a good thing? A stroke of genious, daring and creative
like nothing else before? Well...
Say I was to release Shakespeare's "Hamlet". Or, well, do a "word by
word remake" of the novel, just changing the name of the author to
me... would that be creative? Nope. It would be theft, plain and
simple.
If I did a "note by note" remake of Bach's "Air", would I be a
creative musical genius? Or, if I photocopied "Mona Lisa", what would
make me an artist on par with da Vinci?
Boy, getting famous and becoming a genius seems easy.
Mikael Falk
"Jesus Christ!"
"Not quite."
The Master
---
------Ahhhhhhh!
----Janet Leigh in Hitchcocks
------------"Pycho"----
----------
In article <360FCC38...@mynx.wow.aust.com>, James Dominguez
<de...@mynx.wow.aust.com> wrote:
>I have been reading this thread with a mixture of horror and hilarity (yes, I am
>a Peter Jackson fan!!) and I thought I might just add my pretentious, gloating
>two cents worth.
>
>AMERICANS DESERVE A PSYCHO REMAKE
>
>I am an Australian, and us Aussies see a lot more British stuff than you
>Americans do. Nothing is more obnoxious than watching a US studio "remake"
>(read: totally fuck up) a British classic, or mutilate a clasic British novel
>into a monstrous film. I don't hear much complaining from you guys when this
>happens. I mean, did anyone cry "sacrilege" when George Pal moved the Martian
>war machines to North America, removed their legs, ignored the storyline of War
>of the World almost completely, and just popped back briefly for the deus ex
>machina? No Americans did, that's for sure.
>
>I am quite secure in my belief that the Psycho remake will be cinematic
>blasphemy, and I am glad that finally somebody is going to mangle an AMERICAN
>classic to such a degree that you people will finally try to do something about
>the shit we have been putting up with for decades.
>
>I know, I sound like an absolute arsehole, but it is relief more than anything.
>You are going to learn a lesson from this film, aren't you? Please? *begs*
>
>
>--
>======================================================================
>= From the keyboard of = "If we accept that a mother can kill =
>= James J. Dominguez = even her own child, how can we tell =
>= de...@mynx.wow.aust.com = people not to kill each other?" =
>= IRCNet: DexX ICQ: 10419916 = - Mother Theresa =
>======================================================================
>
>
Shiflet
>
> I HOW could Pycho be a British classic if is it an American film?
That was the point. He said the Americans have ruined many British
classicks, and he said it's nice to see them ruin one of thei own.
James Dominguez
James Dominguez
> The Master wrote:
> > I HOW could Pycho be a British classic if is it an American film?
> That was the point. He said the Americans have ruined many British
> classicks, and he said it's nice to see them ruin one of thei own.
Not quite... I hate to see Psycho fucked up as much as any of you, but
hopefully this remake will cause such outrage that studios will think twice
about doing it in future. I am still disgusted at To Wong Foo... etc.
Not only a shameless rip off of an Australian classic (Priscilla, Queen of
the Desert, by the way), but done very very badly on top of that.
Dr Walpurgis
>
> HOW could Pycho be a British classic if is it an American film?
It isn't. British director, though.
Dr Walpurgis
> Um, yeah. In fact, your repeated defense of The Avengers has raised my
> curiosity. I'm going to go the $1.50 theatre this week to catch it.
Good show!