Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Death Awaits. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Cabin Fever (2015)
Topic Started: Apr 19 2014, 12:22 AM (843 Views)
Raven
BANNED
I haven't see the other Cabin Fever sequels and never will, heard they're fucking terrible. I might see this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
awesomedinosaur
Member Avatar

This doesn't interest me, since I didn't like the first movie.
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image


The steel was polished to such a high sheen that she could see her reflection in the breastplate, gazing back at her as if from the bottom of a deep green pond.
The face of a drowned woman, Catelyn thought. Can you drown in grief?
She turned away sharply, angry with her own frailty. She had no time for the luxury of self-pity.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cman710

Smeagollum
Apr 19 2014, 10:43 AM
Cman710
Apr 19 2014, 10:39 AM
But they all seemed to follow the same formula and series of events.
So Friday '09 didn't follow the same formula and series of events?

Where was the term "reboot" in the 80s? Those re-things were a lot more different from their originals than most modern ones are. The Thing doesn't even use the same monster as the original.
Not really. If it had been a "remake" we would have gotten the first 2 minutes of the movie dragged out over the entire movie, in my honest opinion. It wasn't really a "remake" of the first movie, but more a reboot with ideas taken from the first 4.

Can't argue with you there. I always considered The Thing more of an adaptation though. Being they both derive from the same story, with The Thing being closer to the source material. I think there's a difference between "remaking" and "adapting" a story.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matty
Member Avatar
There are certain rules one must abide by to successfully survive a horror movie
I think that it's a little too soon to make a remake but despite that I'm intrigued in seeing what they come up with.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Smeagollum
Member Avatar

Cman710
Apr 19 2014, 12:09 PM
Smeagollum
Apr 19 2014, 10:43 AM
Cman710
Apr 19 2014, 10:39 AM
But they all seemed to follow the same formula and series of events.
So Friday '09 didn't follow the same formula and series of events?

Where was the term "reboot" in the 80s? Those re-things were a lot more different from their originals than most modern ones are. The Thing doesn't even use the same monster as the original.
Not really. If it had been a "remake" we would have gotten the first 2 minutes of the movie dragged out over the entire movie, in my honest opinion. It wasn't really a "remake" of the first movie, but more a reboot with ideas taken from the first 4.

Can't argue with you there. I always considered The Thing more of an adaptation though. Being they both derive from the same story, with The Thing being closer to the source material. I think there's a difference between "remaking" and "adapting" a story.
So if you remake one movie its a remake, but if you remake four its a reboot? I know that the definition of "remake" is: "In film, a remake is a motion picture based on a film produced earlier. The term remake can refer to everything on the spectrum of reused material: both an allusion or a line-by-line change retake of a movie." Nothing about any of the horror movies called "reboots" or "reimaginings" contradicts that. Shot by shot remakes like Psycho are an exception; most remakes are very different and always were.

"Re-adaptation" at least makes sense.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Always.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cman710

Smeagollum
Apr 20 2014, 05:45 PM
Cman710
Apr 19 2014, 12:09 PM
Smeagollum
Apr 19 2014, 10:43 AM
Cman710
Apr 19 2014, 10:39 AM
But they all seemed to follow the same formula and series of events.
So Friday '09 didn't follow the same formula and series of events?

Where was the term "reboot" in the 80s? Those re-things were a lot more different from their originals than most modern ones are. The Thing doesn't even use the same monster as the original.
Not really. If it had been a "remake" we would have gotten the first 2 minutes of the movie dragged out over the entire movie, in my honest opinion. It wasn't really a "remake" of the first movie, but more a reboot with ideas taken from the first 4.

Can't argue with you there. I always considered The Thing more of an adaptation though. Being they both derive from the same story, with The Thing being closer to the source material. I think there's a difference between "remaking" and "adapting" a story.
So if you remake one movie its a remake, but if you remake four its a reboot? I know that the definition of "remake" is: "In film, a remake is a motion picture based on a film produced earlier. The term remake can refer to everything on the spectrum of reused material: both an allusion or a line-by-line change retake of a movie." Nothing about any of the horror movies called "reboots" or "reimaginings" contradicts that. Shot by shot remakes like Psycho are an exception; most remakes are very different and always were.

"Re-adaptation" at least makes sense.
To me a remake is when you do the same exact story with some, but not many, changes. A reboot is usually when you start over from the very beginning but go somewhere COMPLETELY different with the story, usually in order to create a new continuity (like the latest Star Trek or James Bond movies movie series). And a re-imagining basically is when you take the basic premise of the original and do everything else completely different: different characters, different events, different everything. (I actually group Sorority Row into this category for example)

So all I am saying is going by my perception of terminology they are better going the reboot or re-imagining route. And that is my last word on the subject. Because this is really not worth arguing about at all. Given everyone words things differently.
Edited by Cman710, Apr 22 2014, 01:08 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Smeagollum
Member Avatar

Not trying to badger you. These terms just annoy me because they were created by money grubbers to hide behind the fact that what they were making wasn't original. If you're going to remake something, at least own up to the fact that you're remaking it.

And yeah, they should definitely go the "something different" route. We don't need another laugh riot about a horrifying disease infecting rapists.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Always.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kevin R.
Member Avatar
Jersey boy for life!
Smeagollum
Apr 23 2014, 11:27 AM
These terms just annoy me because they were created by money grubbers to hide behind the fact that what they were making wasn't original. If you're going to remake something, at least own up to the fact that you're remaking it.
Remake, reboot, reimagining, it's all the same to me too.

But damn, has it really been twelve years since the first Cabin Fever? That said, they're remaking a film that's only twelve years old?
Posted Image

My blog: Kevin's Review Catalogue
All reviews, A-Z
Latest review: Mars Attacks! (1996)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Repo
Member Avatar
Forget about the bloody gods and lsiten to what I'm telling you
KevinR1990
Apr 23 2014, 12:34 PM
Smeagollum
Apr 23 2014, 11:27 AM
These terms just annoy me because they were created by money grubbers to hide behind the fact that what they were making wasn't original. If you're going to remake something, at least own up to the fact that you're remaking it.
Remake, reboot, reimagining, it's all the same to me too.

But damn, has it really been twelve years since the first Cabin Fever? That said, they're remaking a film that's only twelve years old?
Could be one year old.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

I don't want to be a queen. I want to be the queen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cman710

Smeagollum
Apr 23 2014, 11:27 AM
Not trying to badger you. These terms just annoy me because they were created by money grubbers to hide behind the fact that what they were making wasn't original. If you're going to remake something, at least own up to the fact that you're remaking it.

And yeah, they should definitely go the "something different" route. We don't need another laugh riot about a horrifying disease infecting rapists.
Oh I get that you weren't trying to. I just have a tendency to argue so I was stopping myself before I built to that. Lol

And most definitely. Though I do wonder what that will entail.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Cabin Fever · Next Topic »
Add Reply