‘The Howling’ Remake Looms Over the Horizon
The Howling Gets a Remake
Joe Dante’s The Howling is a fun and really flawed film. It has a boatload of fans, but I think they’d be hard pressed to say it’s not really weak in some areas, limited by budget and ultimately overshadowed by its big brother, An American Werewolf in London.
This sort of film — the one that has a lot of potential that wasn’t fully realized — is the variety that I’m okay with Hollywood remaking. According to Variety, that’s exactly what producers Joel Kastelberg and Moonstone Entertainment’s Etchie Stroh are doing with The Howling: Reborn. The film is scheduled to begin shooting in February, with a release in Halloween of next year.
Details about the plot are being kept under wraps, so it’s currently unknown whether the remake will follow the reporter-being-stalked-by-serial-killer-werewolf track of the original film or one of its six sequels. No director is attached to the film, and no writer has been revealed; if they’re aiming for February, they have their work cut out for them.
Kastelberg’s largest credit is probably Stranger Than Fiction, so who knows if these guys are cut out for it. The franchise has potential, though, so I’ll reserve my judgment until later.
What's wrong with Dante's THE HOWLING? Let's see: The well directed, well written story, with character driven twists and turn? (Character driven, oh, that's sure to weaken a film.) The extraordinary cast of actors? Wild, eye-popping special effects that don't look computer generated, because, well, they aren't? What? Your grand notion that THE HOWLING needs to be remade so it can finally be made right makes me think you know nothing about movies, or haven't seen any that were made before 1999. And while I'm at it, who says AMERICAN WEREWOLF is better than the other film? I don't. In fact, I think Landis' overt comic tone undermines everything about WEREWOLF. He sees the film as a lark, a kind of farce with gore. Since Landis condescends, we aren't asked to take the horror-fantasy seriously. Dante, on the other hand, has fun but plays it straight. If you're saying WEREWOLF is a better movie because it had a bigger budget, your critical criteria suffers from an arrested development. Is that some kind of film school mantra: bigger budgets alway mean better movies? Forgive me for being so IMDB message board blunt, but what you're saying here is just plain stupid.
Hey, now. I like The Howling quite a bit, just enjoy American Werewolf better. I don't expect it to have eye-popping CGI visuals and I love Dante's style. I just think a few sequences are executed a little haphazardly and could have benefited from a little more money (and I think Dante would agree with me here). That said, remakes in general tend to suck. But when one has the potential to be expanded upon, I always have hope. Take it easy.
John, perhaps I overstate my case. Be that as it may, your post opens an interesting can of creative worms. Even if Dante thinks a bigger budget would have helped (and what film maker doesn't), that doesn't mean the film he made on the budget he had needs apology. I would go so far to say that the limited resources contributed to his film's concentrated character development and visual style. "Haphazard" seems a terrifically subjective criticism. One that comes from your keyboard to my screen as an unspecified value judgement, and not a seriously considered evaluation. Am glad you responded to my thoughts, but I still think you're missing the point. First off, any movie made in the past could qualify under your criteria for a remake. THE BIRDS, for instance, had innovative special effects when it was released in the early 60s. Certainly, those effects could today be done better. But remaking THE BIRDS now, without Hitchcock, is, as we've seen, a weary, pointless endeavor. The special effects may be up to the minute, but so what? Tobe Hooper's CHAIN SAW was originally made on a low, low budget. Gore effects cost more than he had to spend, which in turn necessitated a creative solutions. Sans gore, Hopper, instead, creates a fetid, claustrophobic atmosphere of despair; the force of his violence, the result of brilliant editing and sound design. When you watch the original CHAIN SAW today, thirty-five years later, Hooper's inspired attempts to overcome his limited budget have not diminished one damn bit. The remake, on the other hand, made for something like fifteen million bucks, with an appropriate shooting schedule, doesn't effect us in any way like the original. It is, in fact, a fast food, disposable "item," and nothing more. For the life of me, I can't name one horror remake that seems even remotely noteworthy. Even Zombie, who wisely rethinks his HALLOWEEN movies to embrace the themes he has already claimed his own, suffer under the weight of comparison. Why champion remakes in any form? Why not, instead, use the internet to champion those who offer us something new and original? We're not talking plastic containers here. Recycling ideas and concepts that prove over time to be successful, merely to build a franchise or to capitalize on a well known title, is something Hollywood will do without your help. Instead, why not champion those who dare to be original? Even the regional groups who struggle to make movies with their video cameras offer more, or will eventually offer more. After all, these fledgling artists don't answer to studio yes-men, and, like those who emerged from the mist in the 70s, must innovate because they don't have lots of money.
I agree with you regarding all of those films. Thank you for clarifying at such length. I wouldn’t touch THE BIRDS to remake it, nor would I lay a hand on most films. However, on a totally subjective level, I tend to have more optimism for those remakes that set their sights on material that could be expanded upon, refined, re-engineered in a creative manner. To me, Dante’s film fits in this category. Another film of his, GREMLINS, also limited by budget and likely by time, I would be more unlikel to praise for being remade, simply because I personally feel he hit every bear and bit of potential just right with that film. My opinion regarding remakes fluctuates from film to film, case by case. Contrary to what you are saying, a great deal of innovation can (not often, but on occasion) stem from remakes and not simply in the area of special effects. THE FLY in 1986 restructured the original and lent it an immense amount of gravitas and depth, as did THE THING by Carpenter. They didn’t replace or simply enhance special effects, they built something new. This is what I hope for from THE HOWLING.