Yep, they've gone and done it again. Hollywood has decided to remake the best horror movie of the decade just a year after its release. Now they're trying to deny the fact that it's a remake by saying it's instead a "re-adaptation" of the book, even when all evidence says otherwise.

Not only has the mere idea of it received mixed reactions, but it was all made even worse when people saw leaked audition tapes for the role of Eli (renamed Abby for the remake)


http://io9.com/5315525/vote-for-your-baby-vampire-in-the-let-the-right-one-in-remake

As you can see, the actresses up for the role were Ariel Winters, Mary Mouser, and Chloe Moretz. The vast majority of fans preferred Winters over either of the other two girls. But apparently, it's Chloe Moretz who received the role. As much as I like her as a child actress, she just doesn't have what it takes for the role. Ariel was much better but they've gone and wasted that opportunity, pissing off fans even more.

Things are not looking so good, but who knows? They might surprise us (not really -- in fact, I'm expecting it to be mediocre) We shall see. After all, Matt Reeves isn't too bad of a director. [edit] Actually, I take it back, Matt Reeves does indeed suck. Cloverfield is the only film he's done and it's nothing like Let The Right One In. Cloverfield was okay, but I don't think he's the right man for the job. It's no wonder he accepted Moretz for the role.

Your thoughts?

--Julio

I believe Let The Right One In was quite a bit different from the book. Still, it's very unlikely they'll come to any better ideas in the new script.

Once those kids stopped yakking at the start I quite liked Cloverfield. Some it was rubbish but I never heard the director's name before. JJ Abrams took all the credit. I think all he did was produce.

It would be great to see them make a good film of this, not likely but hey, we can hope. The story is excellent so they're off to a good start at least.

Hollywood remakes successful foreign films for the philistines who won't watch movies with subtitles. This is why I find the remakes offensive.

Three things:

1. How does all evidence point to they're not adapting the book but remaking the movie?

2. I thought Ariel Winters was dreadful. She's a TV actress that looks, walks and talks like an actress, not a real girl, and certainly not Eli (sorry, Abby). Mary Mouser played her too sweet without even the slightest hint of something menacing beneath the surface, but Chloe Moretz, though at times a bit too menacing, defintiely showed the greatest understanding of the character of the three IMO, so good call with that piece of casting.

3. Because Cloverfield "was nothing like" Let The Right One In doesn't mean he can't direct anything else. Star Wars wasn't anything like American Graffitti, Lord of The Rings wasn't anything like Frighteners or Heavenly Creatures, yet they turned out pretty well. Hell lets go one step further back, Heavenly Creatures wasn't anything like Meet the Feebles, Braindead or Bad taste...

I mean looking at a movie whose main gimmick was that everything was filmed by a central character, SUCH a niche type of film, and thinking that says anything about his directorial abilities in a regular production doesn't make sense to me. Matt Reeves is unproven still in my book. He might fuck it up or he might make a good film, but Cloverfield is indication of neither.

Finally, I would say this about the 'fans' reaction to the casting: The fans aren't directing the movie. THey're not producing and they're not writing it. A movie is a director's, screenwriter's and cinematographer's vision and the sooner they shut out the shrill cries of 'fans' the better the movie will be for it...because for better or worse a movie cannot be made by consensus or online polls and petitions. And as a filmmaker, if you need 'fans' to help you make a decision, then you're in the wrong business in my opinion. Trust your own instincts. It needs to be in your gut.

My $2.20.

Quoted Text 1. How does all evidence point to they're not adapting the book but remaking the movie?

Well, for starters Eli/Abby is definitely a girl -- they have removed the gender angle from the story altogether. The fact that they have removed his androgynous traits is just mimicking the ambiguity of Eli's gender in the Swedish film. But the Swedish film at least implied it. Hollywood doesn't have the balls to do even that.

Also, the marketing  for the remake says "based on the award-winning Swedish film" with no mention of the book. This movie is being made by hacks and it shows.

Quoted Text 2. I thought Ariel Winters was dreadful. She's a TV actress that looks, walks and talks like an actress, not a real girl, and certainly not Eli (sorry, Abby). Mary Mouser played her too sweet without even the slightest hint of something menacing beneath the surface, but Chloe Moretz, though at times a bit too menacing, defintiely showed the greatest understanding of the character of the three IMO, so good call with that piece of casting.

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Ariel Winters definitely gave the best performance. Her look, her mannerisms and her line-delivery were all perfect. Mouser and Moretz both have the same problem -- they were too sweet, even though Moretz pitifully tried not to appear so. And IF Abby is supposed to be a boy in the film after all, Moretz WILL NOT be able to pull it off. There's no way in hell she could pass for a boy no matter how much make-up they put on her. I'm not saying Ariel Winters looks like a boy, but she could pass for one if the film intended it.

Quoted Text Finally, I would say this about the 'fans' reaction to the casting: The fans aren't directing the movie. THey're not producing and they're not writing it. A movie is a director's, screenwriter's and cinematographer's vision and the sooner they shut out the shrill cries of 'fans' the better the movie will be for it...because for better or worse a movie cannot be made by consensus or online polls and petitions. And as a filmmaker, if you need 'fans' to help you make a decision, then you're in the wrong business in my opinion. Trust your own instincts. It needs to be in your gut.

If it's your own material, sure, trust your gut. But if you're a piece of shit hack who knows nothing of how characters that aren't yours are supposed to be portrayed, you're better off listening to people who know what the hell they're talking about.

This is just yet another pathetic attempt to cash in on other people's talent. Go and make your own fucking vampire film if you want to. Don't screw up two great works of art with a formulaic vision for a more mainstream audience. It's insulting.

--Julio

Quoted from Takeshi Hollywood remakes successful foreign films for the philistines who won't watch movies with subtitles. This is why I find the remakes offensive.

Get a dubbed version or don't watch is my opinion.

And the fact that Oldboy is in the less than capable hands of Spielberg and Will Smith and will likely be a terrible PG-13 adaptation I wish those two nothing and hope they are forced to cancel it due to any number of reasons.

It's all a shame though. There are some extremely talented people in Hollywood. Of course they're heavily diluted with talentless money grabbing hacks but...

There's no reason why they have to fook up a remake. They have every opportunity to make a better film. You think they'd manage it now and again.
Surely a better film would get them a bigger audience and therefore make more money.

Quoted from ReaperCreeper Well, for starters Eli/Abby is definitely a girl -- they have removed the gender angle from the story altogether. The fact that they have removed his androgynous traits is just mimicking the ambiguity of Eli's gender in the Swedish film. But the Swedish film at least implied it. Hollywood doesn't have the balls to do even that. Also, the marketing  for the remake says "based on the award-winning Swedish film" with no mention of the book. This movie is being made by hacks and it shows.

Well firstly, the marketing department is a completely different beast than the filmmakers, and confusing the two is unfair to both of them. The reason why marketing would namedrop the film and not the book seems fairly simple: The film is more widely known.

Secondly the only thing that really backs up your claim that this is a remake of the film and not an adaptation on the book is one completely cursory element: the fact that they dropped the androgynous perspective, which the Swedish movie more or less also did. But the question I would ask is:: DO you think if there had been no Swedish film, and they were simply adapting the book, they would've dropped that aspect still? I do. I think they're dropping it because it's...kinda weird and they're not sure what role it actually plays in the story (neither am I).

So like the Swedish film, in adapting the source material they make changes, and coincidentally, one of those changes happen to be in the Swedish film too.

I don't think that's very strong evidence to be honest.

Quoted Text I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Ariel Winters definitely gave the best performance. Her look, her mannerisms and her line-delivery were all perfect. Mouser and Moretz both have the same problem -- they were too sweet, even though Moretz pitifully tried not to appear so. And IF Abby is supposed to be a boy in the film after all, Moretz WILL NOT be able to pull it off. There's no way in hell she could pass for a boy no matter how much make-up they put on her. I'm not saying Ariel Winters looks like a boy, but she could pass for one if the film intended it.

Well at the end of the day it's a matter of opinion, not truth or facts, but I would say that I disagree vehemently with you on that. If you're persuaded by what WInters delivered then I don't really know what to say...I thought it was so fake and hammy and I'm glad the film-makers had the sense  to cast a real actress or they could've easily ended up with a Silent Hill or 28 Days Later scenario.

Quoted Text If it's your own material, sure, trust your gut. But if you're a piece of shit hack who knows nothing of how characters that aren't yours are supposed to be portrayed, you're better off listening to people who know what the hell they're talking about. This is just yet another pathetic attempt to cash in on other people's talent. Go and make your own fucking vampire film if you want to. Don't screw up two great works of art with a formulaic vision for a more mainstream audience. It's insulting. --Julio

Fans know what the hell they're talking about? Really?

Fans know how to complain when things aren't 100% like they were in the book/comic/video game of original language movie. They are the people who got a FPS sequence into DOom. They are the ones who want a Halo movie where you never see Master Chief's face, or Half Life movie filmed entirely in the first person because 'that's how the games were'. THey're the ones who can't fathom why LOTR shortened the walking sequences to Mordor. In other words, more often than not fans don't know what they're talking about.


As for whether or not it's formulaic. I don't know. And I suspect neither do you or anyone else unless you've read the script...so that's a moot point. But I'm not saying this is gonna be good, it could suck monkey balls for all I know...what I'm saying is when you allow 'fans' to make movies Alien VS Predator: Requiem happens.

At the end of the day what gives me hope for this production is one simple fact: They didn't up the ages of the characters. They made them 12. They did this well aware that there's a thing called Twilight happening right now about teen vampire romance, and how easily they could cash into that. But they made them 12. An age that won't get teenage couples into the cinema, that won't get kids into the cinema because they can't. The limited their audience, and thus grossing opportunities, seemingly out of one reason and one reason only...because they wanted to stay true to the book (or film if you want).

If they wanted to milk this cow for all it's worth, they could've. But they made them 12 years old.

And I think that's worth reflection.

Fans DO know what they are talking about.

Quoted from Aaron Fans DO know what they are talking about.

They don't know art but they know what they like, aye?  

Quoted from Aaron Fans DO know what they are talking about.

But you don't have to pander to them, they're your built-in audience. Do you think JJ Abrams loses any sleep because the trekkie purist complained about the new 'Star Trek' (from what I've read anyway)? I doubt it because that one made a fortune at the box office. If you want to see what happens when a filmmaker worries more about not pissing off the fans than making a movie that appeals to more than just its built-in audience, go rent 'Watchmen.'

Quoted from Old Time Wesley And the fact that Oldboy is in the less than capable hands of Spielberg and Will Smith and will likely be a terrible PG-13 adaptation I wish those two nothing and hope they are forced to cancel it due to any number of reasons.

Crikey.

I had to check the IMDB to see if you were joking. It would've be funnier if you were.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1321511/

Edit: If Will eats a live octopus I'll dips me lid.

Quoted from bobtheballa go rent 'Watchmen.'

I loved that movie. However, that is a whole different story. Watchmen is completely complex in it's material. You have to stick to the book to get it right. Plus, why stray from it's story, it's IMO a great one.

Hey Aaron. I loved it too. I'd heard all types of comment about Watchmen but it did sound fascinating. And it was. I'd never seen a superhero movie like it. It ain't perfect. Rorschach's VO grates in the beginning but it soon became intriguing.
I loved 300 though and he has the same style. I don't care what anyone says about Snyder - he's got balls and he has a unique style, a rare combination in most directors these days. To revert to my youth - it fecking rocked. I remember Moore when he was a mere upstart on 2000AD. However he was always a great writer, even way back when. Strange Gibbons is involved yet Moore seems unwilling to even view the finished product. For each their own.

Back on topic lest the mods delete me, LTROI is a fooking amazing movie and please, for fook's sake [I'm from Madchester (c) 1995 N.M.E can you tell?) please, for all that is holey, if you have to remake Let The... & Oldboy [at least they pick great movies to do, someone somewhere has taste], try and make it enjoyable and engaging for the mere mortals out there. We like to see things like that. If you insist on standing on the shoulders of your betters, at least do it with some forethought for your audience.

Since I'm a Watchmen fan, I respect Moore, but I wish he would have chosen to be a  part of. Your right though, strange that Gibbons was. I keep saying, and I might be alone here, Snyder is underrated. He's got a great visual style to his films and they are just awesome.

Now about LTROI....IT. DOESN'T. NEED. TO. BE. REMADE.  End of story.