Fan Rant: Because Who Watches a Whole Movie Anyway?
Filed under: Horror, Thrillers, Sony, Movie Marketing, Remakes and Sequels, Fan Rant, Trailers and Clips
Anyone who watches a considerable amount of movies has a tendency to champion the occasional gem, a title bound - nay, fated - to be overlooked by the masses. As you may have noticed, we here at Cinematical are not immune to such behavior.
On other occasions, fans of films that are being remade will find themselves violently, vocally opposed to the idea of a tainted classic or fave, whereas cooler minds step in and point out that their precious original will exist no less in its wake.
With that said, I'm about to spout off on why I think American remake Quarantine is primed to squander the considerable merits of its source material, [REC].
(Now, what nitpicks I have are about to wander off into moderate spoiler territory, which is actually my greater concern. Ergo, any of you planning to catch either film in the near future might be best served by directing their browsers elsewhere, including away from the newly released trailer for Quarantine.)
As for the twelve of you who I know have either managed to see [REC] or who just plain don't care -- come on in, the water's whine...
Mind you, what qualms I have with Quarantine so far are specific to its marketing alone, as the film's first poster and teaser trailer each flaunt what are the final frames of the orignal film, which is presumably the same ending that this version will have. While the American film is apparently playing up a conspiracy angle that seems to seal the deal on an unhappy ending, the Spanish film jumps right into things and remains gloriously unpredictable down to its nerve-jangling, considerably less telegraphed climax.
Now, just a few days ago, myself and one of our fine readers were discussing this exceedingly narrow-minded marketing technique -- after all, if one film could've been sold without terribly much spoiled prior, why couldn't the other? Some would argue that these don't qualify as spoilers for those who haven't seen the film, but I for one would be let down if I did find myself waiting 99% of a film for a money shot I knew was coming.
Along these lines, we theoretically discussed how a campaign like this would be just as prone to ruin some of the more potent jolts. Sure enough, not a week after discussing what might become of one sublime scare beat in particular, along comes this new trailer (courtesy of Yahoo! Movies), which naturally manages to reveal it along with what appears to be every other critical plot point.
I admittedly could be wrong -- all of my expectations could be subverted by other significant changes that have yet to become apparent, and the remake could be better or worse off for it. But all hopes and (serious) doubts aside, my concern comes back to this: had I never heard of [REC] and had I eventually seen Quarantine after being lured in by a trailer like that, I would likely be disappointed by what little was left to be discovered for myself, the ticket-buying sucker.
What's worse is that, for all its visceral accomplishment, [REC] is ultimately a film that works around a gimmick, so once anyone gets back around to THAT film, what's to stop them from saying 'big whoop'? And better (worse?) yet, what's to stop any other marketing machine from being so numb that it sabotages its own product for the sake of the gross?
The horror, the horror, indeed...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-09-2008 @ 12:56PM
phez said...
blame the marketing teams? i'd like to know how much say the directors and producers have in trailers and other marketing materials alike.
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 1:00PM
William Goss said...
When I was interviewing Kimberly Peirce a couple of months back for another outlet, I asked her why so many scenes in the Stop-Loss trailer weren't in the final film. She said that they had to give the marketing department their entire footage to work with at the same point that they were just beginning to edit it into an actual film, so they had time to do the best job they could with marketing it in trailers.
Now, that's just one person, but it's something to consider.
7-09-2008 @ 1:01PM
Nick said...
I sought out [REC] because of the unbelievably positive reviews from Cinematical and other horror reviews. It took me a while to find a working torrent with subs (fuck you, Sony, I would have gladly paid for it if you'd made it available) but when I did, I was able to go into the film with only the knowlege that it was:
a) Purportedly good.
and
b) About zombies.
That's the way to see [REC]. The whole film is wonderfully intense and those last five or six minutes ramp that intensity up with wonderful abandon, and I completely agree with you: these marketing materials will significantly lessen the impact that scene has on its viewers.
Oh well. Stupid American studios.
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 1:02PM
Peter Hall said...
The new Quarantine trailer is unrelenting in its pursuit to prematurely ejaculate every note [REC] hits. It's one thing to have a trailer that runs a flick's plot through its paces, but at least montage up some asynchronous imagery. The Quarantine trailer not only opens with the opening shot of the film*, but it ends with the closer AND and all footage inbetween is a sequential highlight reel. Screen Gems may as well have hired Starz to do a 'Quarantine in 30 seconds as done by Bunnies' before it even came out.
Yes, people unfamiliar with the original will not realize these things just yet, but if it ends up getting the same inevitable persistent exposure every other trailer gets these days, much of it will be emblazoned upon their expectations when they finally do buy a ticket. If their memory is even half decent, they'll be looking for every plunging or lurching body.
*Technically I doubt her reporter introduction will open the film as I am sure Screen Gems - in their infinite wisdom - will demand a few title cards declaring this to be the discovered video tape, airing unclassified for the first time ever in the hope to convince some fucking idiot in the audience that this really happened. Or some such bull. Sadly, of course, this goes against one of the tremendous things the original did so well. Starting innocently without any portents of doom and leaving the audience on an ending note of sheer terror.
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 3:00PM
Premaximum said...
I don't have a problem with the way they're advertising for it, personally.
The problem I have with this film, is that the original came out LAST YEAR. What the hell are they remaking it for? Because most Americans can't be bothered to watch a film with subtitles? Because they think an American studio can do it better?
If I were attached to the original project, I would be absolutely pissed about this. Give the Spanish version a wide release. If you -really- have to, dub it for those idiots who can't be bothered to read. The original is an incredible movie. One of the best zombie flicks I've seen since 28 Days Later.
It annoys the hell out of me that we've got an infinite "Build it Better" complex here. Leave gold alone, you can't improve it, damn it.
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 9:12PM
Ray said...
No, apparently they can't be bothered to watch a movie with subtitles. And I hate them for their laziness. Because of people with that attitude, I can't see [REC] in a damned theater like I want to.
7-09-2008 @ 8:42PM
Seraphflux said...
Yeah, I don't mind so much the remake per se (even if I do agree with the WTF? on the marketing), it can be good or bad, I don't want to get into a "I hate remakes" rant even because I don't agree with it, but for a studio to buy the rights to reshoot a film, while no one, as in NO ONE, even thinks about buying the actual film for a release here, it's just despicable cultural laziness, for me.
And by the way, yeah, [REC] is brilliant, and the third act is fantastic.
For the record, one of the posters for Quarantine, actually feature that LAST shot.
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 4:01PM
Jason said...
I haven't seen the fact mentioned yet that the remake is directed by the same director - Jaume Balagueró - who did the original (if I missed it, sorry). I wonder what effect that will have, if any.
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 4:03PM
William Goss said...
John Erick Dowdle is directing the remake. As far as I know, Jaume Balagueró will be co-directing the sequel to the original.
7-09-2008 @ 4:08PM
Ryan Rotten said...
The remake is directed by John Dowdle. Not Balagueró who, incidentally, is prepping a sequel to [Rec] right now with Paco Plaza.
7-09-2008 @ 4:01PM
Ryan Rotten said...
Love you guys, love Cinematical and I'm right there with ya on all the key points you bring up. But as journalists, is it our duty to proclaim on every rant about the remake to point out the key scare gags, furthermore, that the ending is actually being revealed? There are those out there not familiar with the original [Rec] (one of my favorite horror films in the last five years) who wouldn't know this seeing any of the American advertising. If I was that person, completely in the dark about both films, I'd feel pretty sour about anyone who felt the need to point out "The ending is in the trailer!"
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 4:04PM
William Goss said...
Pretty sure that I included the following paragraph before the jump as a warning: "Now, what nitpicks I have are about to wander off into moderate spoiler territory, which is actually my greater concern. Ergo, any of you planning to catch either film in the near future might be best served by directing their browsers elsewhere, including away from the newly released trailer for Quarantine."
7-09-2008 @ 4:11PM
Ryan Rotten said...
Will, just opening the floor to discussion because I'm seeing rants similar to this elsewhere, sans the warning.
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 4:16PM
William Goss said...
Gotcha.
7-11-2008 @ 7:03AM
Jason said...
I dont mind remakes...sometimes movies like Prom Night I wonder why they call themseleves remakes when there is nothing the same between the orginal and the new version. but i dont like remakes 6 months after the orginal came out...I heard the oprhange is getting remade as well.....pfft!
REC was awesome one of the best of the year
Reply