This doesn't need a remake after only 13 years
jesus, how hard up is Hollywood for material?
This needed decent sequels, if anything.
A serious and scary remake would be good, actually. But using the same script is just stupid
Death Awaits (Horror forum)
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Death_Awaits/index/
Why would that be good? Did you dislike the original film, which wasn't that serious or overly scary?
Serious and scary will just be boring. There are already plenty of gross, overly serious virus horror films.
[deleted]
No, I liked it a lot. But the concept is absolutely terrifying and I'd have loved to see it done in a way that WAS genuinely scary
Death Awaits (Horror forum)
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Death_Awaits/index/
I actually like remakes sometimes, if they are decent. If I love a movie then why not see another take on it? It doesn't hurt the original at all so who cares? People get so upset as if their child is being replaced.
shareI'm not opposed to a remake. I AM opposed to remaking a movie by using the EXACT SAME SCRIPT. Waste of film
Death Awaits (Horror forum)
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Death_Awaits/index/
Then you don't like (by definition) remakes. You like REBOOTS. There is a difference.
sharethe question is why would Eli Roth allow this? Is it because he's getting royalties as being executive producer?
The only difference between a remake and a reboot is that the former is used by honest filmmakers while the latter is used to cover up the fact that, hey, the movie's a remake
Besides, this and Psycho 1998 would be the only real "remakes" by your definition
Death Awaits (Horror forum)
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Death_Awaits/index/