+ Box Office # 1 - The Fog Rises to Top Spot +

[Franklin Hummel]

The original THE FOG by John Carpenter has some very slight Lovecraftian references and
themes in it. I *don't* know if these were included in the new version, but perhaps it's
best if they weren't, given it seems it is fairly damn bad.

Has anyone seen it and can confirm this or not?

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=9224
The Fog Rises to Top Spot at the Box Office
Weekend Box Office Wrap-Up for October 14-16, 2005
By John Hamann
October 16, 2005
Top [Five] for Weekend of October 14-16, 2005
Rank Film Number of Sites Percentage Drop Estimated Gross ($)
Cumulative Gross ($)
1 The Fog 2,972 New $12.2 $12.2
2 Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit 3,656 -27% $11.7 $33.3
3 Elizabethtown 2,517 New $11.1 $11.0
4 Flightplan 3,111 -40% $6.5 $70.8
5 In Her Shoes 2,840 -39% $6.1 $20.1
Despite three films earning over $10 million, including two new titles and a
holdover with a drop of less than 30%, overall box office continued to stay
well behind last year's totals in what has been a brutal year for movies.
New films this weekend included a remake of John Carpenter's The Fog,
Cameron Crowe's Elizabethtown and Keira Knightley's latest in Domino,
directed by Tony Scott. With three potentially powerful openers, it's just
sad that the top ten box office titles couldn't push their combined totals
past $70 million.
The number one film of the weekend (at least for now) goes to The Fog, which
was wisely held back from critics until they could see it with audiences on
Friday. If you hadn't guessed, the top opener this weekend barks like a dog,
carrying a 9% fresh rating at RottenTomatoes.

See http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10004998-fog/ for reviews.

The Fog, from Revolution
Studios and distributed by Sony, grossed $12.2 million this weekend from
2,972 venues. It had a soft-for-number-one venue average of $4,104. After
opening Friday to about $4.1 million, the PG-13 rated horror flick somehow
ended up with a weekend multiplier of 3.0, something that never happens for
a film of this genre. Usually teen horror opens strong on Friday nights then
soften as the weekend continues. Take for example 2004's The Grudge, an
October release. That film had a Friday gross of $15.1 million and a weekend
gross of $39.1 million, which leads to a multiplier of 2.6. George Romero's
Land of the Dead had a weekend multiplier of 2.4. What may have happened is
that baseball playoffs may have kept part of the country home on Friday
night, leading more people to see the film over the rest of the weekend. My
other guess would be that the estimate for The Fog is inflated, or Friday's
$4.1 million estimate was low. Whatever the case, the good news for Sony and
Revolution is that this one was made for a song, costing only $20 million to
make, an amount the teen horror flick should easily earn from DVD sales and
rentals.

-- Franklin Hummel in Boston, Massachusetts

[Shane "Remo D." Dallmann]

Post by Franklin Hummel
The original THE FOG by John Carpenter has some very slight Lovecraftian references and
themes in it. I *don't* know if these were included in the new version, but perhaps it's
best if they weren't, given it seems it is fairly damn bad.
Has anyone seen it and can confirm this or not?

Well, since you asked... I didn't touch on the Lovecraft references, but
conceptually, it's close enough to Carpenter's original (parting company as
it comes to an end). So if you found it once, you're likely to find it
twice.

Here's my take on it...

ESCAPE THE FOG


Ah, but is that the website address or actual advice?

Well, here it is. And am I going to approach it as a new movie or as a
remake of something I'm quite old enough to remember freshly the first time
around?

It's a no-two-ways-about-it remake. The characters are re-invented, and
there's a different approach to the ending, but this is by no means a HOUSE
OF WAX in-name-only deal. And while the basic premise and story still retain
their appeal, director Rupert Wainwright is out to prove that he can do it
better (that's the general idea, right?).

The problem, as I see it, is that he comes up with such an undeniably
terrific jump/shock in the very early going. We acknowledge it--but it's
obvious that he acknowledged it, too--well before he finished the movie. So
he figured he could do it again. And again. And again. Try at least three
times in the NEXT TEN MINUTES?

Couldn't care less about the PG-13 deal. The original would be PG-13 if it
were released for the first time today. THE FOG was never known for its
graphic gore, sex or anything extreme. But those ghostly arms reaching out
of the mist apparently aren't good enough today. Now we have to have fire
blasts and CGI special effects (there's a hell of a Liquid Plum'r commercial
in here somewhere).

And yeah, we've gotta have "rave" teens a la HOUSE OF THE DEAD instead of
crusty old sea salts. And wouldn't you know it--we've got to add a comic
relief character with no parallel in the original film. He's there with the
wisecracks, he's put in mortal danger (but of course can't be killed
himself), and since the tension built in the last fifteen minutes is
supposedly unbearable, he can ease the stress by saying things like "Hey,
leave me out of this! MY family's from Chicago!" (Can you guess this
character's ethnic heritage if I don't spell it out for you?)

Oh, and Stevie? The lighthouse radio voice? Some people complained that the
structure of the Carpenter original was compromised by the fact that the two
central characters never met. But I thought it was quite impressive that the
Adrienne Barbeau character, desperate as she was to rescue her son,
recognized her duty to stay on the air and try to protect the local
population and seafarers. What does it say about the Selma Blair version
that she actually abandons her post without a thought?

SO much emphasis on the "hallmark" symbol of the crown, the scale and the
number seven. We see it everywhere, and characters are possessed to scribble
it themselves. We get it, okay? We know where the items came from, okay?

Crown, scale, seven.
Crown, scale, seven.
Crown, scale, seven.

Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger
Mushroom mushroom
Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger
Mushroom mushroom
Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger
Oh! It's a snake! A snake! Oh, no, it's a snake!

The new ending didn't work very well for me--there's a decent idea behind
it, but an old-fashioned ghost story deserves an old-fashioned hook (such as
the cross made from stolen treasure).

As a remake, THE FOG is a failed exercise in the "anything you can do, I can
do better" school. As an original, it simply proves that nobody believes
that today's viewers can settle for an atmospheric ghost story. Gotta have
that razzle-dazzle... and it's just out of place here.

[wiz]

With all the great horror an sci-fi stories that have been
published,you would think someone would do something orginial instead
of remaking a film that has already been done.I have yet seen a remake
that was better than its orginial.

[Aaron Vanek]

Post by wiz
With all the great horror an sci-fi stories that have been
published,you would think someone would do something orginial instead
of remaking a film that has already been done.I have yet seen a remake
that was better than its orginial.

I confess that I like Carpenter's "The Thing" to the Hawks version
(although that one is really good as well), and the remake of "Dawn of
the Dead" is very close to surpassing the original (I'd have to
see/compare them again).

Originality is not bankable, unfortunately. You can sell the same thing
over and over again to investors, because you have actual figures of
money grossed in behind it. Since the entertainment industry is run by
blind, idiot gods (corporations), they'd rather have a mediocre remake
than risk millions on an original feature.

Plus, the movie-going audience is primarily composed of (and certainly
targeted to) kids who haven't seen the original, but heard of it, so
it's all new to them. Ask your same question to someone under age 18.

Overall, I agree with you. I even like the original "Man Who Knew Too
Much", the Hitchcock thriller (who directed the original AND the remake).

My question is: why not remake a bad movie with a good cast, crew, and
budget? Some of William Castle's stuff has a great premise, but falls
apart in execution (ignoring his gimmicks, they aren't terrible movies).
--
Aaron Vanek

Buy my movies at: http://www.lurkerfilms.com

Reviews of my last movie:
http://www.flipsidemovies.com/yellowsign.html
http://www.filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?Id=4472

"Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
--President George W. Bush, on his latest Supreme Court nominee

[symbioticpsychotic]

Post by Aaron Vanek

Post by wiz
With all the great horror an sci-fi stories that have been
published,you would think someone would do something orginial instead
of remaking a film that has already been done.I have yet seen a remake
that was better than its orginial.

I confess that I like Carpenter's "The Thing" to the Hawks version
(although that one is really good as well), and the remake of "Dawn of the
Dead" is very close to surpassing the original (I'd have to see/compare
them again).
Originality is not bankable, unfortunately. You can sell the same thing
over and over again to investors, because you have actual figures of money
grossed in behind it. Since the entertainment industry is run by blind,
idiot gods (corporations), they'd rather have a mediocre remake than risk
millions on an original feature.
Plus, the movie-going audience is primarily composed of (and certainly
targeted to) kids who haven't seen the original, but heard of it, so it's
all new to them. Ask your same question to someone under age 18.
Overall, I agree with you. I even like the original "Man Who Knew Too
Much", the Hitchcock thriller (who directed the original AND the remake).
My question is: why not remake a bad movie with a good cast, crew, and
budget? Some of William Castle's stuff has a great premise, but falls
apart in execution (ignoring his gimmicks, they aren't terrible movies).

Agreed. But whilst the remake of Dawn of the Dead was a good stand alone
film it is not as good as the original. Romero himself couldn't remake Dawn
of the Dead with half the merit. It's all about timing. Remakes? Who cares,
the bottom line is that the original films will still come out andway, you
just have to sort through the shit to find em, and furthermore, remakes are
almost dead certain moneymakers, you'd probably find that the less remakes
there were, the less money would be prepared to be shelled out by the
distribs to take chances on original material, therefore less original
pictures, therefore more remakes and sequels.

The only real outlaw of remakes in my opinion is Psycho. For the most part
remakes are reimaginings, or transition from foreign to english
sociaologies, they're not carbon copies and are a fresh look at a
preexisting idea, it happens in almost every area of your life.

And when was the last time you complained about upgrading your mobile phone?
Same concept, but they cost more than a movie ticket.

[bod]

Post by symbioticpsychotic
Agreed. But whilst the remake of Dawn of the Dead was a good stand alone
film it is not as good as the original. Romero himself couldn't remake
Dawn of the Dead with half the merit.

the remake of dawn was like a fuck in a bus shelter....the best bit was done
with over with to quickly and the rest of the film was spent buying the
tramp a bag of chips to stop her thinking you only interests were emptying
both barrels into the fucker!!

[Bonestructure]

I've always considered Carpenter's THE THING a sequel to the original, in a
weird kind of way. I love both films.

[Aaron Vanek]

Post by symbioticpsychotic
The only real outlaw of remakes in my opinion is Psycho. For the most part
remakes are reimaginings, or transition from foreign to english
sociaologies, they're not carbon copies and are a fresh look at a
preexisting idea, it happens in almost every area of your life.

Although, more and more, the remakes are close to the original. Did
anyone see the remake of "Texas Chainsaw"?

Post by symbioticpsychotic
And when was the last time you complained about upgrading your mobile phone?

Just yesterday. I like my old phone. Nowadays, the features that used to
be free now cost money, and they charge you more to get more features
that you don't want or need.

I just want something simple that works--in movies, just an original
story. Too bad originality is risky.
--
Aaron Vanek

Buy my movies at: http://www.lurkerfilms.com

Reviews of my last movie:
http://www.flipsidemovies.com/yellowsign.html
http://www.filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?Id=4472

"Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
--President George W. Bush, on his latest Supreme Court nominee

[Al Smith]

The only real outlaw of remakes in my opinion is Psycho. For the most part remakes are reimaginings, or transition from foreign to english sociaologies, they're not carbon copies and are a fresh look at a preexisting idea, it happens in almost every area of your life.

Although, more and more, the remakes are close to the original. Did anyone see the remake of "Texas Chainsaw"?

It was magnifique, as pretentious people trying to sound French
would say. I enjoyed it. Solid work.

[dx27s]

Post by Aaron Vanek
My question is: why not remake a bad movie with a good cast, crew, and
budget? Some of William Castle's stuff has a great premise, but falls
apart in execution (ignoring his gimmicks, they aren't terrible movies).

I would love to see this too. There are lots of movies that would be so
much fun to remake today, but we tend to only see the "tried and true"
titles. I especially like the idea of taking some horribly cheesy movie
of the past and turning it into a modern day masterpiece. The problem is
that you need great writers and directors to pull it off. It's easy to
just throw lots of money into a production and get something that looks
totally hot, but fails in the storytelling. A perfect example would be
Thirteen Ghosts... and wasn't that based on a William Castle movie?

[Aaron Vanek]

Post by dx27s

Post by Aaron Vanek
My question is: why not remake a bad movie with a good cast, crew,
and budget? Some of William Castle's stuff has a great premise, but
falls apart in execution (ignoring his gimmicks, they aren't terrible
movies).

I would love to see this too. There are lots of movies that would be
so much fun to remake today, but we tend to only see the "tried and
true" titles. I especially like the idea of taking some horribly
cheesy movie of the past and turning it into a modern day masterpiece.
The problem is that you need great writers and directors to pull it
off. It's easy to just throw lots of money into a production and get
something that looks totally hot, but fails in the storytelling. A
perfect example would be Thirteen Ghosts... and wasn't that based on a
William Castle movie?

Yes, the Joel Silver version of 13 Ghosts was a Castle movie (not a bad
one, either). I didn't see the remake, but my producing partner (fan of
the original) did, and hated it.

My personal crackpot theory is that with the general decline in
intelligence and education in America, artistic taste and sensibilities
also suffer. In today's "everything should be happy and pleasant" world,
you don't want to risk offending or confusing anyone, so art has to
shoot for mediocrity to ensure the widest possible audience is served.

If something is difficult to understand, why watch it? People don't
watch TV/movies to think, they want to be entertained.

It's my personal cross to bear in that thinking entertains me.
--
Aaron Vanek

Buy my movies at: http://www.lurkerfilms.com

Reviews of my last movie:
http://www.flipsidemovies.com/yellowsign.html
http://www.filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?Id=4472

"Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
--President George W. Bush, on his latest Supreme Court nominee

[Al Smith]

If something is difficult to understand, why watch it? People don't watch TV/movies to think, they want to be entertained.
It's my personal cross to bear in that thinking entertains me.
--
Aaron Vanek

Must be one of those teeny little crosses.

[Michael Sears]

Post by dx27s
It's easy to
just throw lots of money into a production and get something that looks
totally hot, but fails in the storytelling. A perfect example would be
Thirteen Ghosts... and wasn't that based on a William Castle movie?

I've heard it said on several occasions that the most emotionally
powerful performance in that movie came from a character who had no
lines (The Angry Princess).
Doesn't say munch for the rest of the movie or cast.

[Al Smith]

My question is: why not remake a bad movie with a good cast, crew, and budget? Some of William Castle's stuff has a great premise, but falls apart in execution (ignoring his gimmicks, they aren't terrible movies).

It's like Catch-22. If they remake a good film, they get instant
recognition and backing, even though they know going in that it
probably won't be a good as the original; but if they try to
remake a bad film, no one is going to have enough awareness of it
or interest in it to finance it.

[wiz]

I have heard that there are plans to remake ''The TINGLER'.

[Franklin Hummel]

My question is: why not remake a bad movie with a good cast, crew, and budget? Some of
William Castle's stuff has a great premise, but falls apart in execution (ignoring his
gimmicks, they aren't terrible movies).

*cough* THIRTEEN GHOSTS. *cough* HOUSE OF HAUNTED HILL. *cough*

Aaron Vanek
Buy my movies at: http://www.lurkerfilms.com

-- Franklin Hummel

* Show Your Miskatonic University Gay Pride! *
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Buy T-Shirts, Sweatshirts, Buttons & Postcards at:
http://www.cafepress.com/gay_miskatonic

[Franklin Hummel]

Post by Franklin Hummel
*cough* THIRTEEN GHOSTS. *cough* HOUSE OF HAUNTED HILL. *cough*

HOUSE *ON* HAUNTED HILL. *cough*


-- Franklin Hummel in Boston, Massachusetts

[Matt]

Post by Franklin Hummel

Post by Franklin Hummel
*cough* THIRTEEN GHOSTS. *cough* HOUSE OF HAUNTED HILL. *cough*

HOUSE *ON* HAUNTED HILL. *cough*
-- Franklin Hummel in Boston, Massachusetts
--

Thats a nasty cough u got there

[Varizo]

wiz says

Post by wiz
With all the great horror an sci-fi stories that have been
published,you would think someone would do something orginial instead
of remaking a film that has already been done.I have yet seen a remake
that was better than its orginial.

The old silent Nosferatu and the newer colour one were both quite good.
I liked the newer one better than the orriginal , the vampire in the
old one was realy awful and frightning, but they were both good, i
would like to see the old one if there realy are some of it with the
night time scenes with the blue, ive only seen the black and white one.
I like the original version of The Fog, it dont sound like the new
one will be better than that.
V.

[Benoît Meulle-Stef]

Funny you mensioned this movie: HOUSE
OF WAX, it's acualy already a remake from a 1930's movie...
Ben

[JK Arswell]

Post by Benoît Meulle-Stef
Funny you mensioned this movie: HOUSE
OF WAX, it's acualy already a remake from a 1930's movie...
Ben

... Hollywood has always remade films over and over. Mind you, back then
at least they had the excuse of sound and colour as to why they might
legitimately update them. ... Remakes aren't necessarily a bad thing, but
only if they bring something new to the table. Unfortunately, from the sound
of THE FOG update whatever has been brought to the table stinks to high
heaven!
--
JK Arswell

"There's a plane waiting to whisk me to the fleshpots of Munich!"

I'M THE GIRL HE WANTS TO KILL (1974)

HYSTERIA LIVES!: http://www.hysteria-lives.co.uk

7 years of slasher trash with panache!

[Benoît Meulle-Stef]

Dont get me wroung, I think that THE FOG will be as bad as the new HOUSE OF
WAX :-(
Ben

Post by JK Arswell

Post by Benoît Meulle-Stef
Funny you mensioned this movie: HOUSE
OF WAX, it's acualy already a remake from a 1930's movie...
Ben

... Hollywood has always remade films over and over. Mind you, back then
at least they had the excuse of sound and colour as to why they might
legitimately update them. ... Remakes aren't necessarily a bad thing, but
only if they bring something new to the table. Unfortunately, from the
sound of THE FOG update whatever has been brought to the table stinks to
high heaven!
--
JK Arswell
"There's a plane waiting to whisk me to the fleshpots of Munich!"
I'M THE GIRL HE WANTS TO KILL (1974)
HYSTERIA LIVES!: http://www.hysteria-lives.co.uk
7 years of slasher trash with panache!

[Bonestructure]

Post by Benoît Meulle-Stef
Funny you mensioned this movie: HOUSE
OF WAX, it's acualy already a remake from a 1930's movie...
Ben

Actually, this is the third or fourth remake of HOUSE OF WAX. You have
the original MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM made in 1933 starring Lionel
Atwill and Fay Wray. Then you have the 1953 version starring Vincent
Price, then a film made in 1969 called NIGHTMARE IN WAX that has the same
basic plot. Starred the inimitable Cameron Mitchell. 1973's TERROR IN THE
WAX MUSEUM, a horrible movie starring Ray Milland, may be considered one.