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.

Quoted from Aaron ...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.

I can't argue with any of that. Spot on.
I think Moore got pissed off when things got legal and some dickhead accused the studio of plagarism or some such shite. Courts are best avoided, so he took his exceptionally well crafted script toys back to his faithful Northampton to play alone. And who can blame him?

Gibbons on the other hand is handy with the pens so they can't do him.

As for LTROI, that's the wisest thing I've heard in a while. Keep it up lad, you're on a roll...

Agreed on the Watchmen thing.

I mean Hollywood is just going crazy with these remakes lately to the point where I can't even begin to think of just how many movies have been remade in the past 3 years. This movie is....

A. To young to be remade, it still feels rather new
B.  Doesn't even need a revamp by Hollywood
C. Is fine as a stand alone movie.

  Plus the fact that I'm against remakes so........

Hollywood is fond of safe bets. In the current economic climate they have shited their pants even more than usual. Remakes can present a set of projected box office projections, as do sequels, prequels, dumbquels and arsequiels.

They love figures. Green ones and pretty ones. Sadly it's all about the money honey.

But, occasionally they do make something really good too.

Credit where it's due. We can slag until we're old men. I'm probably gonna get there first. But without them, where would we be?

Yes, occasionally remakes can be good. But, besides the $$$$$ (Which is really what they are aiming for) what's the point of remaking something that has already been made?

Quoted from Aaron Yes, occasionally remakes can be good. But, besides the $$$$$ (Which is really what they are aiming for) what's the point of remaking something that has already been made?

I'm gonna try one last time. If  money is their sole aim with this why are they purposely including stuff from the book and film that will alienate a HUGE chunk of their movie going audience? When they left other stuff out?

You know, I don't think LTROI needs to be remade. But I'd rather see a remake of a great story, than an 'adaptation' of a video game or a Hasbro toyline. At least with this I KNOW the source material works. That means this movie already has a huge advantage of your GI Joes and Transformers...

Oh and Bobtheballa, very good example with Watchmen. That's exactly what happens when you're afraid to piss off fans, who again really have no clue what works on film. Snyder is a brilliant visual director, and there are parts in it where that really shows, but that movie did not work, and the reason is Snyder wasn't directing as much as he was going through a checklist entitled "Tihngs to do to make Alan Moore like me!"

That's the thing. You can't argue with fans, they have built in specific responses that logic or reason can't temper. So you can only do one of two things: listen to them or not listen to them. You can be an ombudsman or a director.

Remakes and adaptations have been the Hollywood standard from the beginning. The majority of the highest grossing and award winning films have been either remakes or adaptations. The original stories occasionally float to the surface, but they are rare, and usually, whoever is behind them is extremely successful. We may be familiar with Let The Right One In, but outside of a group of aspiring screenwriters and movie junkies, who's heard of it? If you asked a random person on the street (in the United States) if they've seen it, the vast majority would say no.

Now, let's consider the repercussions of this remake. The consensus here is that it will tank. Fine. They decided to tagline it, "Based on the successful Swedish Film" or something along those lines instead of referencing the book. Guess what? That means people who see that tagline just might check out the original film. Heck,. I got it from my public library, so it's not like it's hard to get ahold of. In addition, another adaptation of the book will give the original author more royalties, and I doubt that person is complaining about that.

Since a lot of people are aware that a lot of Hollywood adaptations don't hold a candle to the original foreign adaptations, I would also be willing to wager that some viewers will go back to the first version to see what it was all about. Hence, the remake will shed light on the original more so than there ever was before. So Hollywood is potentially creating a big advertisement for the original film to some people. Granted, not all, but those people wouldn't have watched the Swedish version anyway.

I'm really not seeing how this is a bad thing. Complain all you want but any publicity is good publicity. Just sit back and watch the fireworks.

However, I do want to throw this out. Lord of the Rings was mentioned. How many people saw the 1978 version? It's got an awesome soundtrack and some really clever animation. Those things aside, though, Jackson's version is far, far superior in every way.

Remakes may not always be necessary (looking right at some modern horror movies), but sometimes, they serve to either enhance some already good material (I stand by my opinion that the American Ring was better than Ringu) or just make people curious enough about the original to go back to the version that inspired the remake (I sure hope people decided to watch the 78 Halloween after Zombie's attempt). But you know, if Hollywood wants to blow some cash, it's theirs to blow. Best way to protest is to not watch it.

An Oldboy remake? Hm... Not sure about that one, but I'll probably watch it all the same.

George, your right, it is good publicity for the film. But Hollywood just takes anything and says "Hey-let's remake this". Not sure how this is gonna turn out

I actually don't think remakes are good publicity for the original films. With the exception of big ones like Friday The 13th, to your average moviegoer, most of them are original films. And why wouldn't they believe that? The trailers rarely indicate they're for remakes. Even so, I don't think the general public would ever flock to the originals, especially in the case of foreign films. I'm predicting this'll turn out looking like Orphan or The Unborn. Why would fans of those movies, having become accustomed to the style, wanna weed out some boring Swedish movie with subtitles when they could just rent A Haunting in Connecticut or something?

It doesn't matter though. Hollywood will almost certainly remake every film you ever loved, for better or for worse, but in the end, Let The Right One In will still be great.

Hey, as a result of this discussion, we have quite a few who have only viewed it that know about the original. It won't lure them all, but more will know of the film than otherwise would have.

speaking off topic I was over my sister'N'laws place a few weeks ago and her husband was all excited cause from his work he got a pirate copy of Watchmen and he told me he got a cool superhero movie for his 6 and 8 year old sons to watch while being totally ignorant of what he really held in his hand. I was so horrorfied my bottom jaw hit the floor.

As some one said above: philistines.

Yeah,  fucking philistines. They will doom us all.

It's heart breaking to hear that such a beautiful artful movie such as let the right one in even  has to be remade. Just terrible and sad.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjavOLdPk1c&

Looks like a shot-for-shot remake ala Psycho '98 with a police subplot (different to the one in the book) added in for good measure. What a waste of money and talent.

--Julio