Once again, horned-up college students flee from civility to their cabin in the woods. A problematic ratio that brings us right back to my first question, “Why?” Zariwny’s iteration of Cabin Fever ain’t all that different from Roth’s. Roth is quoted citing “significant changes” supposedly after he screened Zariwny’s first cut, but that’s a mouthful of toxic reservoir runoff. That means the remake’s approach is quite simple: reshoot a mirror image replica. Roth agreed, attached himself as an executive producer, and thus Zariwny’s experiment in challenging remake culture was underway.Įli Roth and co-writer Randy Pearlstein retain sole scripting credits on Zariwny’s renovation. Their catch? Roth’s original script would be used once again. Are you modernizing a decades-old antique? Swapping gender perspectives? Americanizing a foreign powerhouse? Countless revisionist reasons prevail as to why filmmakers would attach themselves to yet another remake, but Travis Zariwny’s Cabin Fever (2016) will forever remain a most peculiar outlier.Īs the story goes, Eli Roth was approached by Zariwny and others with the prospect of remaking Cabin Fever. With the announcement of any remake, horror or not, follows one critical question: “Why?” I’ll never gripe a film isn’t “necessary” – no film, by definition, is “necessary” – but intentions behind remakes are massively fundamental. The good, the bad, the unnecessary – Matt’s recounting them all. We all complain about Hollywood’s lack of originality whenever studios announce new remakes, reboots, and reimaginings, but the reality? Far more positive examples of refurbished classics and updated legacies exist than you’re willing to remember (or admit). Welcome to Revenge of the Remakes, where columnist Matt Donato takes us on a journey through the world of horror remakes.
0 kommentar(er)
