Is anyone else looking forward to this remake?
hhahahahahahahahhhahahahaha
just kidding
"I'm a werewolf and I have an appetite for vampire!" - Theodore, Tales From The Crypt Season 2
hhahahahahahahahhhahahahaha
just kidding
"I'm a werewolf and I have an appetite for vampire!" - Theodore, Tales From The Crypt Season 2
I actually am looking forward to this remake. No joke.
As much as I like the original Suspiria, there is some definite room for improvement and the project is in the hands of some competent filmmakers. I just hope for the best.
Actually, I wanna see this for one reason... to see how it will turn out.
shareYes, realistic blood was the whole point of the original and what Argento was after in the first place. Uhmmmmm...
:You're my wife now:
[deleted]
First of all I think you need to rewatch the movie (and perhaps a couple of other Argento movies as well to get some kind of idea of the man's visual style). Maybe then you'll realize how (intentionally) off all the colors are in the entire movie. That's one of the keypoints of Suspiria. Argento used such surreal colors to 1) give Suspiria a more dreamlike and hallucinatory feel and 2) create a kind of neo-expressionist look (it also shows in some of the sets like the hotel of the opening scene, a very obvious tribute to The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari and other similar expressionist movies) and 3) to make the movie feel more like some kind of twisted fairy tale. In the light of these I'd say anyone who thinks Suspiria sucked because the blood didn't look real shows a serious lack of understanding and should watch movies closer to their level of intelligence like Van Helsing or Underworld.
:You're my wife now:
i noticed that they haven't gotten a director yet. i'm against a remake of this, but if they're still going through with it, they should get a good director (in my opinion) like Guillermo Del Toro
share[deleted]
Well if you're looking for a more realistic horror movie then yeah I guess it does. I get a little riled up about this sometimes and don't mean to sound like a film snob but in order to enjoy and appreciate Suspiria one needs to watch it from a slightly different angle than some other (more "average") horror movie. There are already plenty of gruesomely realistic and graphic movies out there like the recent french flick Martyrs (which I warmly recommend) and I feel that removing the surreal look of Suspiria would just take away the movie's soul and make it more generic. The colours and the soundtrack are a couple of things that make Suspiria what it is and while I understand that not everyone is going to appreciate them I think it's difficult to deny that without these elements Suspiria just wouldn't be 'Suspiria'. MAYBE the whoever is remaking it can find a way to recreate the unique atmosphere but I fail to see the artistic relevance of such attempt. Ok, I've sounded enough like a pretentious prick for one day.
:You're my wife now:
WHAT?! This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard all night.
Horror is not blood and gore. (Although the Gore sub-genre does exist, and it is never close to realistic)
Horror is about a great story with suspense, a well created horrible thing (be it monster, murderer, disease, or what have you). Horror is achieved in film by pacing, cinematography, lighting, sound - basically creating a horrific ambiance , creating a world where these horrible things can and do exist.
Horror is not about blood or special effects.
Maybe you are one of those folks who have a fear of the sight of blood, and if that is the case, this little rant doesn't really apply to you. A realistic depiction of a spider on film would make an arachniphobe poop his pants. But that is neither here or there. Lets assume you aren't one of those people.
Now lets have a thought experiment... You are doing your morning routine, and you are shaving, and then you nick yourself. Blood starts trickling down your face (or legs if you are female.) Do you freak out? Do you have a panic attack? Do you get creeped out? Or do you just put on a bandaid and go about your business?
If horror was a realistic depiction of blood, then you would probably freak out at the most realistic depiction of blood ever (real life.)
Okay, now picture yourself walking home from a friends house late at night, to find that all of the power is out on your street. As you walk along, you hear a scraping sound behind you. You turn to see nothing is there. As you get closer and closer home, the scraping gets louder and louder.
Do you run up to your door, fling it open, and lock that sucker tight behind you? Heck yeah!
Horror is creating that feeling that something is right behind you. That feeling that makes you second guess if you believe in ghosts. Its that feeling that makes you think your creepy neighbor is using all those trash bags to hide dead bodies.
In general, less is more.(but not in Gore) The things in our imaginations are almost always more horrifying that what can be created on the screen.
[deleted]
There are examples of Horror without blood and gore.
Take for instance
Texas Chainsaw Massacre has very little blood. The original uses atmosphere and documentary like filming to give it a creepy mood.
Exorcist has very little blood.
Same with Jaws. or Alien.
Let's just say horror isn't what it used to be. Real Horror has a theme behind it, slashers without a theme are just lame slashers.
Throw in Psycho.
Women were afraid to take showers after seeing that movie. Yeah there was blood in it. But do you know what the "blood" was? Chocolate sauce.
And, to that other person, we can all play the dictionary game. Here... let me have a shot...
From dictionary.com:
5. Informal. something considered bad or tasteless
If that is the case, then From Justin to Kelly is a horror movie. Ridiculous, huh? That is because you are confusing the common word "horror" with movie business word "horror." Many businesses use common words to mean different things in the context of their work. Even by your standards of realistic blood = horror, then Saving Private Ryan = horror. But wait, neither of the two movies I just named are considered horror movies. That is because horror, as defined in the movie business, means something else than the common usage. Which sometimes they do overlap, don't get me wrong.
And overall, you just took a quote, and took it out of context. I do think there is a proper place for blood and gore. I love a good gore pic. But it won't have me shivering under my sheets. And instead of screams of fear, they will be screams of laughter when a really gore scene happens (sometimes people think I am sick.)
And I guess this all was a result of Argento's use of color, that is, not using realistic looking blood. Well, I should ask, would you tell Van Gogh to use another color, because those sunflowers don't look realistic enough?
[deleted]
Argento uses real blood now, but the whole point of Suspiria and really the reason this movie has become a cult classic is because of the unique color pallet and the atmospheric soundtrack.
Horror films nowadays don't have the edge nor do the makers of modern horror films have the artistic vision nor creativity to pull off a remake of this caliber. Part of it has to do with the audiences; what was scary 30 - 40 years ago doesn't work anymore.
Take Halloween for example; if that movie was made in the 90s it would have failed miserably.
I personally just think that if this does get finished; it's going to be sloppy.
[deleted]
[deleted]