Original vs Remake


Having watched the remake first, and without high expectations I quite enjoyed it. The reason people in imdb are bashing it is because they have seen the original back in the 80s. If they watched it today like I did they would find it a little insipid and even outdated.

I could see Colin applying himself to create a distinct vampire character, and his acting was very good with his smooth expressions and seductive tone. Chris was not bad but kind of disappointed me with the same rigid moves and a lazy face throughout the movie.

It's true that Colin was more of a young and careless vampire than Chirs. But the action scenes in the original were boring sometimes. I almost fell asleep while Charlie and Vincent were walking around Jerry's house waiting for Amy to wake up. I mean seriously, there were moments of Jerry standing around like a mummy explaining the vampire hunters how to kill him and waiting for the final blow. The remake had a more to the point action.

The remake had more character development which can be seen for the relations between: Evil Ed and Charley; Evil Ed and Jerry when he turned; Charley's mom with a crush on Jerry.

In the original I thought Evil Ed was no real friend of Charley and was there only to bully him from now and then.
Evil Ed was just annoying and the scene when he was bit and suddenly turned was just lame. There had not been any character development of Evil Ed at this point and suddenly he is a victim of the other boys in school. While the remake built Ed up just fine and gave him a fair reason to turn.

The remake had a funny and modern Peter Vincent character while the original had the Crypt Keeper from the Tales from the Crypt with no sense of humour.

I can understand the dancing scene in the original might have been quite an impact back in the 80s. But that scene only does not make the whole movie great.

In the end the remake is more engaging and only nostalgia can flavour the original IMO. However I give credit to the original for the idea, the lower budget, no CGI and still nice special effects.

reply

In the end the remake is more engaging and only nostalgia can flavour the original IMO.

Piffle, seraph.

If it was merely nostalgia, and this was a better film than the original then it would have done better at the box office. This film BOMBED. It was removed from half it's theatres after only two weeks because it was doing so badly.

Here's the differences.

The original film started on a small amount of screens - and the demand to see it was so large, and those limited screens made so much money, that they opened it up to a wider showing.

The remake was opened on over twice as many screens as the original was shown on in total - and did so nadly it was removed from over 1500 of them after two weeks.

The original was the second grossing horror of 1985 - second only to Elm Street. The remake...? Ummm........one of the lowest grossing studio films of the year. Comparing it's total worldwide gross to the total worldwide gross of the original, even counting 26 years of inflation, the remake made a fraction of what the original did. Hell, the remakes DVD has only been out a month and is at a lower sales rank on Amazon than the originals DVD edition.

The original had award winning special effects from masters of the art, a huge amount of money was spent out of the films budget for them and they're still effective 26 years later. The remake? Even the better reviews of the film have noted that the remake effects were poor in the least.

The writing? The original was written by an award winning writer/director, and the screenplay is still regularly noted for it's depth of characterisation in genre circles. This remake, written by a low-rent writer known for box office duds, bad quips and bad storytelling.

As for the music, yes the original was indeed a child of the eighties and maybe you had to be there to enjoy that kind of music - but the score, the score was a masterful piece of work from Brad Fiedel and imparted a huge amount of distinct flavor to the film and it's sequel. This remake? I can't even remember the score at all. There was nothing distictive of flavorful about it.

As to comparing the characterisations, I cannot see how you can possibly root for the remake in this regard - the main characters were pastiches of the originals and the only decent character was Collette playing Charley's mom. Characters in the remake were a joke, or non-existent.


Now I can understand if you're a younger person than I am by about 20 years, that you might find this CGI, scriptless turd more interesting simply because it is 'new' to you, as opposed to a film probably made when you were a small child or not even born. But in performance, in quality, in acting, in production value, and in how it'll be remembered the remake was nothing compared to the original. And that's not simply nostalgia - a little yes, I grew up watching the original, but the truth of the matter is that the original was a great film then that did brilliantly. It's still a great film now. Even Colin Farrel has said on an Irish chat show that he loves the original and thinks the remake was "s##t". That should tell you something.














Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

Nope, I'm an adult person and I do enjoy 80s horror movies and both CGI and the soundtrack of the original are great indeed and together mark a range of movies from that time. Also I'm a big fan of 70s/80s music.
Although I didnt like the remake's CGI that much, it didnt ruin the movie form me.

The fact is that I had lower expectations when I saw the remake and I considered it a very enjoyable movie. Nothing remarkable or worthy of awards or great critics. But then again critics and awards have been continuously loosing value for myself to carry that on a pedestal.

With all the great critics about the original I was kind of expecting a great movie and in the end It did not meet my higher expectations.

For me its just another 80s horror movie. The 80s truly marked the birth of a new horror genre: The Shining, The Thing, Friday the 13th, An American Werewolf in London, Nigtmare on Helmstreet, Halloween, Evil Dead... even Lost Boys was better than Fright Night and still very poor when compared with the previous ones.

Moreover I thought Fright Night was hardly a horror movie when compared with the above and so is Lost Boys. More like one of those episodes of tales from the crypt which is fine by me cause I like the genre. I just don't picture it as the massive achievement you seem to do.

The reason the remake is not doing well in the box-office is probably because the audience has changed. In the 80s the horror movies were overrated. Today they are underrated. I can count through my fingers the horror movies that came to my city in 2011 and I bet you all of them are not rated above 5* in imdb. And for my experience Fright Night (2011) being rated 6.6 on imdb is kind of a good rating considering it is a horror movie plus with all the negative comments. Despite it is not the best movie of the year, considering all the horror movies released the last year, I can say it is one of the best of 2011 in the genre.

True, I was not overwhelmed by it but still I had a good time watching it which I didn't so much with the original. Perhaps it is a matter of taste or a silly obstinacy, in the end people see what they want to see.

reply

the main reason for poor box office scores is because of the economy is screwed up and ticket prices are extremily high

reply

Yeah pal, that's it. "The economy & high prices" caused THIS movie to flop. But then how do you explain the other films that came out that year that were huge hits? Did everybody suddenly find their money after "Fright Night" was pulled from theaters?

#hands up don't loot

reply

"If it was merely nostalgia, and this was a better film than the original then it would have done better at the box office. This film BOMBED. It was removed from half it's theatres after only two weeks because it was doing so badly."

Good movies are bombed. Look at Shawshank Redemption. Look at the gross for that but on IMDB it has Number 1 on the Top 250 Films list.

reply

If it was merely nostalgia, and this was a better film than the original then it would have done better at the box office. This film BOMBED. It was removed from half it's theatres after only two weeks because it was doing so badly.

incorrect.
30 million budget.
44 million earned just form box office.
Thats 2,75 times the average box office of movies released in past 365 days.
In Release: 84 days / 12 weeks
Widest Release: 3114 theatres

now please stop spreading lies.

--------------------------------------------------
If you want horror - tune in the news channel.

reply

I hate remakes from my generation (late 70s to early 90s). I'll never forget seeing the original as a kid on VHS tape in the summer of 1986! I was blown away and it is one of my all time favorites!

This remake was a desperate Netflix rental this weekend. I also saw it got good reviews from Roger Ebert and other critics. I figured, how bad could it be? So I broke my generation remake rule..

They should have changed either the name of the movie or at least the names of the old beloved characters.

In the old version, Charlie and Amy are average good kids. They didn't come off as nerds or the cool kids. They both had average looks for the 80s.. In this one Amy is super hot and part of the cool group so Charlie becomes part of it being with her! In the old version, it seemed like Charlie and Amy felt sorry for Evil Ed so they let him hang around. This one Charlie wants to avoid him because he's the creepy nerd making him look bad!

I know times change so in these modern times you couldn't have Peter Vincent as a TV horror host like Sir Graves or even Elvira because kids wouldn't understand. But having him as a Kriss Angel or David Blaine type felt outdated too! I hoped they would have had him like an Art Bell or George Noory type doing a Coast to Coast AM show on the radio or a YouTube show!

And then we get the awful tacked on backstory that vampires actually killed Vincent's parents a few decades ago and it just happened to be Jerry himself!

The scene with "turned Amy" wasn't nearly as long or as scary as the original!...The added on group of turned teen vampires added nothing to this new movie!

Then there was Charlie's mother. I love Toni Collete but that whole scene of the house on fire then the car chase was just the worst led by her! Way too mellow acting like it was really no big deal what was happening around her for most of it!

And lastly the final scene! No tease at all of a final scare or the characters looking over their shoulders with an odd noise or sight unlike the original! Even the end credits were annoying! I sat through them thinking we'd get a tease if they hoped to make a sequel. It was nothing more than an actual highlight recap of the entire movie itself!

reply

"incorrect.
30 million budget.
44 million earned just form box office.
Thats 2,75 times the average box office of movies released in past 365 days.
In Release: 84 days / 12 weeks
Widest Release: 3114 theatres

now please stop spreading lies."

Well all I can say is, in my area of town it lasted less than 2 weeks at the $10 show and was at the $1.50 theatre in no time. I just check my local showings and the box office weekly reports. I also know as far the Top 10 Box Office goes (what the casual viewer tends to think is a hit or bomb) it barely cracked the Top 10 first week and then was off the radar in a week or two.

Makes me wonder. Does my local $1.50 place still count as one of those 3114 theatres? I know the management at the local $10 place. They're very nervous and picky as to what they bring in because of the box office slump last year. They just finally added The Descendants and they don't know if they'll even carry The Artist at all. When they consider something a bomb it will be pulled in a week or two and that's what happened with Fright Night over there.

FYI- same owner owns the $10 and $1.50 place in the area.

reply

i did some more investigation and it seems that many tethers ended it after 2 weeks. so i guess the 1,5 dollar one is counted towards these and is in the 12 weeks period.
Whether a movie is a bomb or not depends on its earnings, not of the top 10 grosser in release week. movie released together with many big names can easily never get into the top 10 but still be a huge success. Also some movies, especially cult movies like Fright Night do much better on the DVD/BR than in theatres. a good example is Blair Witch, that completely exploded on the dvd area and arguably spawned a genre (its not the first to do it, its first to make it popular). Just like Firefly/Serenity bombed at theaters but they got well off in the dvd releases. Movies dont dissapear after theaters stop showing. however big companies usually only care about theaters, and thus we get the same formulatic AAA-movies liek trasnformers getting the funding.

--------------------------------------------------
If you want horror - tune in the news channel.

reply

Exactly! There's one thing I hate and that's actually going to a movie with all the rude animals in there making it hard to hear the actual movie!

I wish all of Hollywood took up Soderbergh's idea from a decade ago. Release a movie on the same format on the same day and give movie fans the choice of how they want to see it! Big screen, DVD, streaming, or pay-per-view! I'd pay $10 or $15 to watch a new movie like The Artist at home to see what the Oscar buzz is about.

You can damn sure bet that idea scared the hell out of the outdated, greedy, yet powerful big screen owners and they squashed it!

reply

incorrect.
30 million budget.
44 million earned just form box office.
Thats 2,75 times the average box office of movies released in past 365 days.
In Release: 84 days / 12 weeks
Widest Release: 3114 theatres

now please stop spreading lies.


Strazy, sorry to burst your bubble but there's no lie. It made 41 million in total worldwide box office take. It's base production cost was 30 mill but including licensing, fees, promotion and merch it cost around 60 mill (go do a bit more research, none of this is made up ) which puts it at 20 mill short of even breaking even - which for a relatively low budgeted Hollywood horror film is poor to say the least. It did so badly in fact that it was pulled from OVER HALF of all it's theatres in less than two weeks. It didn't even last that long in some overseas markets. By all accounts, it's a finacial box office failure. Add to that the fact that on dvd it fell off the rental charts after two weeks also, and on sell through has done so badly it's rated over a thousand spots below the top amazon sales (the largest sell through sales list) then there's simply no way to spin it - it was a bomb. It failed massively. You may personally like it but that doesn't alter the facts that it massively underperformed both at the cinema and on retail/rental.





Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

IM sorry but i cant take seriously a person who think that 30 million is a small budget.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply

IM sorry but i cant take seriously a person who think that 30 million is a small budget.

Wow, my life is crushed. A random person on the internet doesn't take me seriously . Let's get back to the point though shall we...30 mill is indeed a smallish budget for a tentpole horror film, especially one with a major star as it's lead. For example Final Destination 5, a relatively naff horror series with no discernable 'star' power cost ten million more to make on base costs alone. The Nightmare on Elm Street remake, with nothing but C-list celebs and not much in the way of special effects budget cost 5 mill more. So it wasn't an 'expensive' movie by Hollywood horror standards at all.


Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

...if you are a crappy director. Many of the best horror movies in the last 10 years were low budget flicks (cause many of them were from Overseas, France and South Korea in particular).

reply

Say what you like about this film, but the music score was amazing

reply

Say what you like about this film, but the music score was amazing

Uhh no. It was incredibly bland and forgettable.





Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

You sure it was not shallow and pedantic buddy? I agree with you though, this movie sucked compared to the original. You probably could take it a bit easier while arguing with kids on the internet. So what if they don´t agree with you? They can take their skateboards and their hip hop and shove it up their collective ass for all I care.

Even though I prefer the original, I still enjoyed this one. You can´t go into a remake of an 80s horror flick and expect a masterpiece. If anyone did, and this is not directed at you HapHazzard or anyone else specifically, that person would be a pretty big *beep* idiot.

Whats that on your face!

reply

Fuguy. Get it right. It was pedantic and shallow.







Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

Haha, well played man!

Just rewatched the original,´been a while since last time I did that. Weirdly enough it seemed even better after just watching this new abomination.

Whats that on your face!

reply

Just rewatched the original,´been a while since last time I did that. Weirdly enough it seemed even better after just watching this new abomination.

It's not surprising. They say after traumatic, horrific experiences, survivors can feel even the little things in life feel somewhat 'amplified' - colors more vivid, tastes more delicious, experiences more intense. It's small wonder a great film like Fright Night 1985 seemed even better after you'd suffered so mightily through this.





Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

Even though I prefer the original, I still enjoyed this one. You can´t go into a remake of an 80s horror flick and expect a masterpiece. If anyone did, and this is not directed at you HapHazzard or anyone else specifically, that person would be a pretty big *beep* idiot.


PERFECTLY stated, every sentence...thank you.



'Karstens Creations- Original Art & Custom Dreams'
http://www.karcreat.com

reply

Who cares about the box office when discussing the quality of a film, seriously? IMDb's number 1 on the top 250 BARELY scratched the surface when it bombed. On it cost 25m to make, and made a little over 28m.. And look at it now, one of the most beloved films of the 90's.

Donnie Darko, another popular film lost money despite only having a budget of 4.5m! It's a Wonderful Life, argueably the most popular Christmas film barely turned a profit on it's release. It cost nearly 3.2m, and only made 3.3m.. The list well & truly goes on for great films that underperformed.

Now I'm not trying to compare the quality of these films to the quality of the Fright Night remake, but just merely pointing out the fallacy of bringing up box office numbers in a discussion of a films quality.

Back to what the OP is saying, I haven't yet seen the original, but I've been meaning to for a long while, long before I even considered watching the remake. I watched the remake over the weekend though as it looked like some easy fun, and I was pleasantly surprised to find it so exciting, well acted & fascinating to watch. I really enjoyed the film's characters also, particularly Jerry & Peter Vincent, of course. I do plan on watching the original ASAP.

Even Colin Farrel has said on an Irish chat show that he loves the original and thinks the remake was "s##t". That should tell you something.

Where did you hear this? Can you prove he said that, because I think that maybe you misunderstood. The only thing I can come across of Farrell criticising the film was simply that he was a huge fan of the original and in reading the script he was hoping it would be crap, but he loved it & went with it.

reply

Who cares about the box office when discussing the quality of a film, seriously? IMDb's number 1 on the top 250 BARELY scratched the surface when it bombed. On it cost 25m to make, and made a little over 28m.. And look at it now, one of the most beloved films of the 90's.
Now I'm not trying to compare the quality of these films to the quality of the Fright Night remake, but just merely pointing out the fallacy of bringing up box office numbers in a discussion of a films quality.



If this was a good film in it's own right, of course it wouldn't matter if there was zero box office. The quality would be it's own reward so to speak. But in this case, the lack of box office is deserved. It's a dreadful film and added up in toto, it's box office is just another indicator of how badly received it was. It's just another discussion point in this film's case as to how bad it was. There's brilliant films out there that make no money, yes indeed. But sometimes - frankly, often - bad movies make little money, as is the case here. Just as sometimes box office isn't an indicator, sometimes it actually is. Like here.

Back to what the OP is saying, I haven't yet seen the original, but I've been meaning to for a long while, long before I even considered watching the remake. I watched the remake over the weekend though as it looked like some easy fun, and I was pleasantly surprised to find it so exciting, well acted & fascinating to watch. I really enjoyed the film's characters also, particularly Jerry & Peter Vincent, of course. I do plan on watching the original ASAP.

If you haven't seen the original then do yourself a favor and seek it out. I have no idea how old you are so whether the film will be 'dated' or not to you but even taking that and the change in tastes over the last 25 years to junk food as opposed to a decent meal, so to speak, there's no way you would not see the original was better written with deeper levels of characterisation and just all out a better story.

Where did you hear this? Can you prove he said that, because I think that maybe you misunderstood. The only thing I can come across of Farrell criticising the film was simply that he was a huge fan of the original and in reading the script he was hoping it would be crap, but he loved it & went with it.

I have not misunderstood. Simply because you don't know of the incident, don't assume people bringing it to your attention must somehow be a cretin. I am not the first, nor the only person to have brought this up. He was a guest on The Late Show as I understand it, and in an unguarded moment when questioned about the film he said it was "sh#t". This has, as I've said, been brought up by a bunch of different people here and no, I have not found the clip so can't personally verify it. But as a bunch of other people have all described it the same, and considering Farrell's candidness about the films he's not pleased with that he's been involved in - and the fact it IS verified he was playing up on set after various takes in protest over how he disliked the studio interference and dumbing down of the characters - I can well believe it. He's most certainly made people aware the script they shot was a rewrite from the script he agreed to do and was not pleased about it.





Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

^ sure buds.

EffOff

reply

Wow Juleseh, that's got to be one of the most clever comebacks, ever! Good for you;)








Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

thanks babe

EffOff

reply

You're welcome. I like to give positive reinforcement to those in need

Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

your mom must be proud.

reply

I know . Although I prefer to think she's more in awe, than proud. Proud of herself for the intellectual collosus she brought into this world, perhaps....








Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

lol whatever you say, pal.

reply

Awww the words of defeat!! C'mon, you can do better!






Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

Disregarding the above discussion (JK, guys), I think the original was better. I felt it gave a little more into the characters, especially "Evil" Ed. McLovin did it pretty decent, but he wasn't hardly in it that match. At least Stephen Geoffreys had more screen time in the original, especially in vamp mode. I also liked the genuinely more creepy feel and effects from the original. But hey, the remake is still pretty good and proof that if Hollywood puts their mind to it they can remake films the right way, even if they weren't needed in the first place.


"Hey, you want a toothpick?"

reply

The original was one was slightly better.. but I think that is more of a nostalgic view of it.

reply

I noticed that you like World War Z. Which was crap.

reply

i would have to disagree with you
i saw the original way back when i was a kid i was born in 1985
so i have watched a good deal of 80s movies. i enjoyed the original but i by far enjoyed the remake way better

reply

I pity you if you are an adult, since I didn't know adults could act so childish and petty.

And more than that, I don't judge a movie based purely on the fact of whether or not it's a remake, since Piranha 3D was a remake and it was, literally, 300,000,000 times better than the original (which was about as entertaining as looking at the flaccid dangling dick of a chimpanzee for an hour and a half).

reply


Awww, it's so nice to know a random stranger on the internet pities me. That's me told, and I vow to change my ways immediately. You've made me see the light, I tells ya. But as you obviously haven't read my comments thoroughly you've gone off on a tangent about remakes. I don't have a problem if they're good. This one was not. Not in any way, shape or form. As to you not knowing that adults could act so childish and petty, please. Either you're truly reaching for a way to insult while not knocking your own holier than thou missive, or you've never left your home since birth and this is your first time on the internet. I'm guessing I know which, troll. Still, at least you have your love of crap films to comfort you. Toodles, numbnuts.




Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

All the Piranha movies had in common was the title and piranhas killing people.

reply

Very well-said! You put this guy "in his place," but without being rude or disrespectful..very nice. I honestly think younger people have lower expectations when it comes to film, and music for that matter. These remakes/reboots of classic stuff seem like poor, soulless copies of better material. That "Fright Night" remake was so hollow and forgettable, that I can't even connect it to the original movie. I find it all kind of depressing.

#hands up don't loot

reply

Sorry but I'm 36 and I prefer this to the original. The original has aged horribly. Also the reason it failed was more timing than anything. When this opened, vampires (and werewolves to be fair) only belonged to lonely teenage girls and overweight, undersexed housewives. They wanted romantic, sparkly vampires, the ones that pined for them. They didn't want blood soaked killing machines.

reply

The original has aged horribly.
_________________
How? The special effects were state of the art for a bigger budgeted horror movie of it's time and most films have an outdated look to them as times goes by, so will this remake. You can say this about any classic horror film from last century and this can't be helped due to contemporaries.

The original Fright Night-85', is full of gothic atmosphere, 80's nostalgia and even kitsch, that makes it a real charmer of horror\comedies. The script was witty and the characters were far more amusing and interesting. While vampires and the boy who cried wolf are not exactly original stories, the film was originally presented and I don't recall seeing anything like it that had gone before.

I have seen this remake twice, first in 3D at the cinema and then on blu ray a couple of years ago. I quite enjoyed it in 3D and was interested to see what they would do with the story, and my friend who had never seen the original was enjoying it, so I got amusement out of his own enjoyment. Upon second viewing, I started to scrutinize what was wrong with it. It's an acceptable remake, but the main characters were just not as endearing and the dialogue with newbie lingo\idioms, is only representative of how unappealing many of the younger generation can be today. It was designed to pander to an age demographic and it backfired by flopping. I do however, think that Colin Farrell was perfectly cast as Dandridge. He does tend to be box office poison for some reason though.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩

reply

I haven't seen the original in years, so I couldn't give you a frame-by-frame comparison. I remember it being a decent enough movie, but they're both essentially the same; a light, entertaining movie.

There's a few people around here who seem to remember the original as some groundbreaking, pioneering, film, but I apparently saw a different film.

The only real differences I could say was that original was more hokey funny and this one was a little more clever. It was less hokey. I like hokey and don't have a problem with hokey, but just think this one had a different approach to the humor.

I definitely think Roddy McDowell was a more memorable character than Tennant's though.

Visit my movie review site!
http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/

reply

There's a few people around here who seem to remember the original as some groundbreaking, pioneering, film, but I apparently saw a different film.

Kuato, you can remember it however you please. People's tastes are different. You can't change the facts though. The original, whether you agree or not, IS considered one of the best horror films of the eighties and was the second most successful of the year. The original was a huge success and more screens were opened to it because of it. The effects in the original WERE state of the art at the time, this is well documented - this remake is noted for poor CGI in even it's positive reviews. The original, including taking inflation into account, made massive amounts of profit - the figures have been posted on this board several times - whereas this remake is still making a loss and only halfway to breaking even in all costs. The remake DVD is at a lower sales rank than the original - a film 26 years old compared to one just on new release over the Christmas period. The original is fondly remembered and noted as a classic across horror sites on the web, in print reviews etc. This remake? Even it's main actor is remembering it as "s##t" in interviews. Time will tell, but it's not looking like it's going to achieve cult classic status anytime soon.





Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

[deleted]

Learn to spell cheesy and I might take you seriously. Ok then - forget the massive financial success of the original versus the dismal financial failure of the remake. Lets look at other aspects shall we?

The original won awards. Where are the awards for the remake?

The original was made in an almost 'independant' way, released on a small amount of screens. Word of mouth was so good it was opened to a wider national release and became the second most successful horror film of the year, behind only Elm Street. The remake? Lack of public interest had it pulled from over half its theatres after only two weeks.

The original was praised at the time for it's depth of storyline and characterisation in a genre not normally known for it. The remake? Most reviews, even when mostly positive, have noted the lack of depth in writing and characters. And that's not even going into the bad reviews.

The original? Special effects that were state of the art at the time, massively expensive and done by groups of people noted as masters in their field. The remake? Again, even positive reviews have noted the poor level of cheap CGI.

The original? BELOVED by its main actors. Roddy McDowell loved being a part of the original and its sequel, and often spoke of his experiences on set fondly. Never had a bad word to say about either film. Chris Sarandon is also very happy to have been a part of the film and speaks of it fondly, at conventions, to fans. All on record. The remake? Tennant has said f#ck all about it since it tanked, and Farrell has publically called it s##t.

The original? In genre magazines, behind the scenes programmes, horror retrospectives, lately since the net began on websites dedicated to the horror genre and at genre conventions it is held as one of the genuinely great horror movies of its time, is still hugely respected for its success at the time and is warmly remembered and still hugely enjoyed 26 years later. Still regularly seen on 'best vampire genre' lists. All checkable. The remake? After a month on DVD release, it's rentals are pathetic, it's DVD and Blu sales are miniscule - again, all checkable - and the most prolific poster on its imdb board is little old handsome me, pretty much. Hardly anyone cares about it at all, either way.

The original? Conceived, written, fought for, eventually directed by a noted genre fan and respected director and writer Tom Holland. Zero studio interference, and the varying departments of production are well noted to have loved the work and put in huge effort on making it a love letter to the horror films of old, whilst at the same time re-invigorating the genre - something the film achieved and is indeed noted for, a fact that seems to irk some remake fans here. The remake? Initially had a terrific script, had a great direction to go and was conceived to stand alone as a meta-version of Fright Night, utilising actors from the original playing themselves and having to deal with a 'real' vampire. Studio execs at the last minute decided the modern audience was 'too stupid' to understand the concept, and had the project shelved, commisioned a straight, cheap flat out remake script from a writer know for box office bombs (which this turned into too as you know) and hired a director who openly lied back and forth about his knowledge of the original and whether he even liked it or not. The main actor was so fed up by being told to 'dumb down' his performance that he is known to have recited passages from Dracula on set between takes to show everyone what good vamp fiction could be like. Kinda a stinging protest that eh. So, not too much love or respect in this cynical cheap disposable slot filler eh?

There's no way around it matey. You might like the remake - poor you if you do, but hey ho. Plenty of films I like aren't too 'good' in real terms. But when it comes to actual quantifiable things like quality of production, success, amount of fans, how it's viewed critically, how much effort was put into its production and so forth, the remake loses in every single category. (Again, there are films I hate that I cannot deny are made brilliantly, with great effort and production values - acknowledging one had more effort put into it than another doesn't mean you have to like the lesser produced one less on a personal level, as some rabid 2011 FN fans here are trying to do.)

It was dumbed down to save money, slated as a cheap way to cash in on a successful brand name in an effort to maximise profit to outlay, and it shows. And it failed for those same reasons. There's a reason certain remakes work - The Blob, Dawn of the Dead, The Fly, The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatchers and so on. Because they treat the core material with respect, but the people involved genuinely try every way to make something better than the original film, to stand apart. They made no effort to do that here, it was from the minute they shelved the initial project and reinvented it as a straight remake only purely a cheap, easily made slot filler, and that's the truth whether you personally enjoyed the movie or not.



Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

Jesus HapHazzard.. write a f#$king thesis already.

reply

Jesus HapHazzard.. write a f#$king thesis already.

Yeah seraph, it must suck when someone you don't like knowns more about a subject than you, huh - and can actually articulate their reasons, when you're struggling with capitalisation of your own handle. Now run along, the short bus is waiting for you.






Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

You corrected someone for spelling cheesy and then misspelled "knows." Just saying it's kinda funny.

We Are The Corps!! "Left the GL boards after two years when the trolls showed up."

reply

Well, that's posting from an iphone for you, but if that's the best you've got to critique anything I've said, you're not doing too well are ya





Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

I only skimmed the posts haha, no critiquing from me I try not to argue on boards, just discuss and whatnot.

We Are The Corps!! "Left the GL boards after two years when the trolls showed up."

reply

[deleted]

I just got done watching this movie, rented from Redbox. My thoughts: this movie is nowhere near as good as the original, it's just not. The actors tried their best, but the script isn't up to snuff. The joy of the original is in the little details, and that's what makes it a good, fun movie. Sure it's dated, but then again it was made 25 years ago so I think we can cut it some slack. What's this version's excuse?

The remake isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but it's also not really worthy of being called Fright Night. It's very dissimilar - it's not even really an updated version, so much is different that it might as well have been named something else except for the fact they wanted to cash in on the name.

My number one problem with this movie: Christopher Mintz-Plasse is horribly, horribly miscast as Evil Ed. The original scene where Jerry turns Ed is probably the single best scene in the entire film. You can feel the creeping dread as Evil Ed walks down the alley. Evil Ed isn't just a geek, or unpopular or whatever, there's more to him than just that. Stephen Geoffreys' performance is clearly influenced by the stigma and pain of being gay in an unaccepting world, and part of what Jerry offers is a redemption and acceptance that Evil Ed has never been offered before. You can feel his revulsion and fear give way as Jerry seduces him by offering him the one thing he wants most - to belong. It's heart-wrenching and sad and triumphant at the same time. The version in this remake is hollow and meaningless. The fact that you can't recognize the difference tells me all I need to know about your opinion.

reply

[deleted]

lol, you guys talk about the original like it's some gripping, intense masterpiece. Get over it, you may like it, but it's not all that great. Sure for a vampire movie maybe, but look at the ton of vampire movies that are pure garbage. So yes, comparing it to the likes of the lost boys 2, the original Fright Night is a masterpiece. Comparing it to everything else, it's a lame, ordinary vampire flick with no originality or depth. Stop talking about it like it's Shawshank, seriously

Kenny, try reading comprehension. No-one here is comparing it to quality drama in other genres. As has been stated many times, it was a massive success within the horror genre so stop whining if we actually present you with facts about the original production - and they are facts, well known. It's no Shawshank, indeed, but no-one is saying it was. It was however one of the most successful horror films of the 80's whether you like it or not, that fact stands. That said, go reading about the production yourself - another fact is it's widely noted for being far more developed in script and characterisation than most other horror films so just because you don't like it personally doesn't make it a lame, ordinary vampire flick. That's the last thing it is and is widely known for being the opposite of that within the genre. Like I say, personal taste is one thing, but at least try and have the facts on your side when you want to make a pronouncement on a films inherent quality.

And while I can agree with you, Fright Night was no Shawshank in terms of drama and quality, well, the same thing can be said about this remake, except here, Fright Night 2011 was no Fright Night 1985. By a larger margin than what seperates the quality of Fright Night and Shawshank, too. Both Shawshank and FN 1985 at least had award winning writers, directors and actors known for quality on both stage and screen, known also for professionalism. The best that can be said about FN 2011 is it had a 4'6" drunken Irish actor, famous for his massive eyebrows and the fact he's open and frank about deliberately giving bad performances when he doesn't like the script he's working with.







Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

The original is a lot better. Of course I'm a child of the 80s and saw the original first, so there's that. However I see a lot of other remakes prior to viewing the original, and I typically find the original to be a better movie. So there's that. Originals are just usually better.

reply

subterrane:

Stephen Geoffreys' performance is clearly influenced by the stigma and pain of being gay in an unaccepting world


I too used to make comments like Dr. Phil, and then I put an arrow to the knee.

reply

I just got done watching this movie, rented from Redbox. My thoughts: this movie is nowhere near as good as the original, it's just not. The actors tried their best, but the script isn't up to snuff. The joy of the original is in the little details, and that's what makes it a good, fun movie. Sure it's dated, but then again it was made 25 years ago so I think we can cut it some slack. What's this version's excuse?

The remake isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but it's also not really worthy of being called Fright Night. It's very dissimilar - it's not even really an updated version, so much is different that it might as well have been named something else except for the fact they wanted to cash in on the name.

My number one problem with this movie: Christopher Mintz-Plasse is horribly, horribly miscast as Evil Ed. The original scene where Jerry turns Ed is probably the single best scene in the entire film. You can feel the creeping dread as Evil Ed walks down the alley. Evil Ed isn't just a geek, or unpopular or whatever, there's more to him than just that. Stephen Geoffreys' performance is clearly influenced by the stigma and pain of being gay in an unaccepting world, and part of what Jerry offers is a redemption and acceptance that Evil Ed has never been offered before. You can feel his revulsion and fear give way as Jerry seduces him by offering him the one thing he wants most - to belong. It's heart-wrenching and sad and triumphant at the same time. The version in this remake is hollow and meaningless. The fact that you can't recognize the difference tells me all I need to know about your opinion.


Bravo, subterrane. Fully agree with every word.



Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

Maybe you two should start up the Stephen Geoffreys Fan Club. Where you can discuss the amazing depth that others find nonexistent in terrible overacting.

reply

The Original is, by all means, better.

But as I said before, the remake as a stand alone film (probably not comparing it with the original, besides it is very different) is a good horror film.

I will be close but still untouchable
Sabaton

reply

Look at this guy pulling out box office records and money made and blablabla...

Dude, remember it was 1985... First, back in the days there was not that much movie made as of today, second the horror gender was "happening" comparing that these days its been used and overused again... I could name you 30 vampire movies that happened after Fright Night 85, when back in the days, only a couple existed... And most of them where silent "black and white" that probably didn't interest people of that time.

Look at Commando, one of my favorite movie when i was a kid. I watch this movie probably 60 times... I know all the dialogue. Yet sometimes i rewatch it today for nostalgia and im like "yeah ok... i understand why i loved this that much as a kid" Today it look a bit ridiculous that Matrix was barely touched a couple time when hundreds of soldiers where firing at him... Altough The Expendables is not a remake of Commando, is an hommage of it, and use a very similar pattern, and it update the concept to a bit more realistic side, at least enought for today's audiance.

What im trying to say is that Fright Night remake follow mostly the original scripte with up to date changes. And its not because of bad script or bad direction that the movie bombed, its mostly bacause the concept is outdated and with today's SUPER HUGE MOVIES like Avatar, Transphormers, Fast and Furious, Batman TDK all the mega movie with crazy CGI that are made, sure Fright Night CGI look a bit "low budget" and this movie can't compare to them.

As for the orginal special effects, they where maybe good for the 80s... but today they look CRAP. The bat version of Jerry look like a retarded gremlin, the human vampire look is pretty bad looking today. Seriously i accept that its old, and for its time it was good, but today its TOTALLY oudated, and nobody that didn't saw the original before or forgot about it can't help himself but laught like crazy at the death of Billy's scene... Green glue... yeah right.

reply

Sorry but there was no CGI in the original Fright Night. It was all hands on makeup and props. Which I still find better in a lot of cases.

reply

You have a point destroyerwod, and I'll take it further. Movie ticket sales are going down across the board. It's a different world now then it was then. Back then you had limited tv and the movie theater. Now you have tons of ways to get entertainment. You have netflix, redbox, video stores, hulu, internet (pirating), and lastly, movie theaters.

I can't tell you the last time I spent $10 to see a movie. With all the options out there, not a lot of people see films in theaters anymore.

For the record, I like the movies each in their own way, but one would have to analyze more than box office sales to get the full picture, it's not exactly fair to say one did really great and one bombed unless they did so at the same time without the variances.

You have been compromised. Abort mission, destroy phone. *Dwight throws phone off the roof*

reply

Autumn. You might have a point. Except for the fact that it's absolutely bombed on sell through sales and on rental as well. So basically, it's a failure across the board.









Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

I recently watched both the original and the remake and I have to say even after all these years the original is hands down so much better. I felt they destroyed the whole fright night story by throwing in Chris angel. It would've been great if they called it something else rather than fright night because i thought it was a great horror flick.

reply

Each film has its pros and cons but in my opinion, the remake is just a lot more stylish and entertaining. The original is good, but it seriously hasn't aged very well. On top of that it suffers from some pretty poor direction.

I imagine that roughly 98% of the people that saw the original in theaters and loved it, are the ones who hate the remake.

reply

I imagine that roughly 98% of the people that saw the original in theaters and loved it, are the ones who hate the remake.

VHS and DVD rentals over the last 27 years would disagree with you, it was successful at the cinema and also steadily successful on rental/retail for that entire period since. That's not possible unless a wider audience came to it beyond those who saw it in the cinema.

The polar opposite of the remake, which would suggest 98% of the people who saw the remake warned their friends off bothering with it. Hence why it's a new release that's renting badly, and on sell through is a few thousand spots down the retail numbers lists BELOW the original movie.





Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

I liked it. And I'm a slut for the original, too. This re-make did not suck with teeth. (No pun intended...) I was expecting it to blow badly... Alas. Didn't. (Although I WAS waiting for the Native American Graveyard to suck down everybody's abode at the end... Again...,alas...)

reply

What is that, Poltergeist? lol

You have been compromised. Abort mission, destroy phone. *Dwight throws phone off the roof*

reply

crypt keeper rules " hello kiddies" a proper horror movie must have his intro!

reply

I saw the original first and I thought it was just okay. I wasn't really scared by it, didn't find it all that funny (besides cheesy things that weren't supposed to be funny), and I found Ed to be EXTREMELY annoying. That said, there were a few memorable moments that I liked and I did enjoy Peter Vincent very much.

Unusually, I found myself liking the remake better. There was some more depth to the characters and I just found the movie to be fun. It kept me entertained and (being a fan of David Tennant) I loved the new Peter Vincent. To be fair however, the original character was probably better, I'm just biased in that aspect. It wasn't perfect, there were a few slow scenes and Christopher Mintz-Plasse had a pretty hammy performance once Ed was turned. But overall, I consider it a better movie.

And as for it doing poorly at the box office, I think it would have made more money if it had been released in 2D at all theaters. The 3D was unnecessary and added nothing (but the price!) to the movie. But that's just my thinking.

"You don't like rice? Tell me, Michael, how could a billion Chinese people be wrong?"

reply

The only character that had any extra depth AT ALL was Charlie's mom. All the rest were two dimensional in the extreme compared to the original movie - it's something even the more positive reviews picked up on.






Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

Does it really matter? It's just my opinion.

"You don't like rice? Tell me, Michael, how could a billion Chinese people be wrong?"

reply

I've seen a lotttttttttttt of movies and I have to say even tho the original is better(and not going by statistic of grosses in the box office mentality, but stylistically) I do have a fondness for the remake. It could have went somewhere and I was waiting for that. Then towards the end I was falling asleep(and I was in WIDE AWAKE mode) and it just crashed...don't know exactly what happened, but it just didn't do anything.


I guess I lost excitement of it after the slut girl next door that Charley saves and brings her into the daylight and she explodes like something you saw out of Spartacus. Actually the whole CGI blood looked like Spartacus. I guess I was watching a little of both...

reply

You know that's right....she was the only good character, which is ironic as in the original she seemed to be the only lacking character....how very odd.

reply

No one ever wins these arguments so it's a waste of time trying to convert a fan of the original into a fan of the remake or vice versa. It comes down to personal taste and regardless of how much weight or eloquence you think you have behind your argument, people like what they like.

I'm a child of the 80s and like the original just fine. I don't consider it an all-time classic by any stretch but it is entertaining and does have the nostalgia factor going for it. I liked the remake a lot. I think both films serve their purpose in providing an hour and a half of entertainment on a Friday night. That being said, if it makes you feel better to bash one version in order to prop up the other version, knock yourself out.

reply

That being said, if it makes you feel better to bash one version in order to prop up the other version, knock yourself out.

Aww, so sweet to give your permission...thanks!





Give me a hedgehog and I'll show you.

reply

My pleasure. Glad you appreciated it.

reply

I never said anything about converting anyone

reply