Movies you PRAY they never remake

Or do you mean that they wouldn't have the balls because they'd have too much respect for the original? And the capability wouldn't be enough because they could never reach the quality of the original?

I still don't understand the "mainstream appropriate" thing. Not scary enough for today's audiences?

__________________
Rules:

When women have a poet, they want a cowboy.
When they have a cowboy, they want a poet.
They'll say "I don't care if he's a poet or cowboy, so long as he's a nice guy. But oh, I'm so attracted to that bad guy over there."

Understand this last part, and you'll get them all.

Well, first I need to understand what your definition of super graphic is. You say there are movies being made today that the big mainstream studios are taking risk on. Well, what are they? Any along the lines of a twelve-year-old stabbing herself in the crotch with a crucifix and yelling, "Let Jesus **** you."?

Since it would be a remake, and that is what this thread is about, how about you show me some super graphic examples of mainstream remakes doing so well that it would only encourage The Exorcist to be remade. Sure, tons of independent films can be edgy, but nobody is going to remake The Exorcist for ****s and giggles.

Stall all you want, I already know the answer.

Oh boy, here we go again

LOL, no worries. I'm ignoring this one. He can call it stalling if he wants; I'm not dealing with this level of arguing.

It's cool. No worries.

We are actually having this discussion in our latest podcast episode because we are comparing the original Death Wish to the 2018 remake. There awesome remarkable differences in how film's story and character development has changed over the years.

It.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Titanic, of course.

There's never been a movie more remade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...he_RMS_Titanic

HAH! Makes a strong point. But now on looking through it though, I'm not sure that this list is about remakes (per se) (like all the many Dracula's are).

For instance, I would think that a remake of Cameron's Titanic would be one centering on the love interest, the mother, the billionaire, etc., etc.

Some of those are more in the realm of documentary, and some have other fictionalized elements other than Jack and Rose.

I agree, not all of those films on the wiki page are all inclusively about the Titanic. Some only have a scene or two that is set on the Titanic. But, a lot of those films are all about the Titanic. I've seen a bunch of them, I forget how many now, at least a half dozen.

Agreed.

Lots of agreeing going today Have you seen any of the Titanic movies? If you're interested I know of a good factual one, and a good fictionalized dramatic one.

Which ones are they?

__________________
My ratings are generally skewed towards the positive side.

A Night to Remember (1958) is by far the most factual Titanic story I've seen. The most fictionalized drama that I've seen was Titanic (1953) I believe James Cameron's 1997 Titanic was a combination of those two movies. I like all three.

I disagree. :-P

I've heard that the 3D convo of Titanic was carefully overseen by Cameron (the 3D master). I've never had a chance to see it on my passive 3D Sony.

[Intentional emphasis on passive. Most 3D haters never saw a passive 3D (using circularly polarized glasses...no flickering...no charging...etc., etc.) and when they saw my TV, they've largely seen the light and tried to order one, only to find that they can't easily. ]

Cameron pointed out that the conversion was roughly at the "2.8D" quality. This guy really changed the industry with his emphasis on positive parallax and not using 3D for 3D sake. It's just a vehicle to pull you further into the storyline.

I'll fix that...

Oh, come on. There's no risk with Stephen King titles; everybody knows that. He's practically a subgenre. People know who Stephen King is, there's that enormous built-in audience already there. Very few film fans knew who William Peter Blatty was.

You can't compare It with The Exorcist. The new It movie was practically made for today's tweens, and is very tame in comparison to The Exorcist. I see no risk, and no super graphic stuff with this example. To me, CGI gore blunts the shock factor.

I'll reiterate my opinion.

I do not believe there is any mainstream studio out there that would think that they could make money off of remaking The Exorcist today. That's why it hasn't been tried. And if they ever do try it, it will be such a far cry from the original that it probably wouldn't even be recognizable.

Had the first It film been made in the '70s, and contained the original tween orgy, I would say the same thing about that. There's no way that a film like that would be made today. Look at the movies from the '70s, and look at all the attempts to remake them. Seems like they fall really hard when trying to recreate that freedom the '70s captured.

You asked. You were the one who sounded so assertive that any modern remake of a horror classic was guaranteed to be some neutered PG-13 nonsense (and name-checking James Wan of Saw and The Conjuring fame as your face of PG-13 horror is...a little absurd) and that no mainstream studio would ever bankroll an R-rated remake (or that said remake would be successful), but I mention It and all of a sudden it's all "Stephen King/CGI gore doesn't count" (also, does it have a built-in audience or is it made for tweens, and if it's the latter then why isn't it PG-13?), to say nothing of how other '70s horror remakes apparently fail to "recapture the freedom" even when they do deliver something sufficiently R-rated like Rob Zombie's Halloween.

As for The Exorcist, it still seems presumptuous to think that this 47-year-old movie is somehow too edgy for any modern studio to even remotely replicate and release into the mainstream, especially when nowadays it's been reduced to punchlines about pea soup and spinning heads. The most popular television show of the last decade was Game of Thrones, after all.