Scary Stuff

Using one of the "most brilliant marketing strategies ever conceived for a film" (wink, wink), the 2006 version of The Omen opens across the country today, and in advance of that director John Moore has had a lot of interesting things to say. And after reading the stuff, I'm left scratching my head, wondering again why they even bothered to remake this at all

Take this blurb from Sci-fi Wire by Ian Spelling:

[Moore said that} he's as surprised as anyone that David Seltzer, who penned the 1976 original movie, ultimately received a sole screenwriting credit on the remake, though Seltzer didn't work with Moore and had no input into the updated horror movie. "Dan McDermott was a credited writer, but due to the machinations of the [Writers Guild of America], he lost his credit," Moore said here in an interview. But, he added: "We did use Mr. Seltzer's script extensively."...

...For the remake, the story is made more contemporary, and there's a good deal of new dialogue, but none of the changes were made by Seltzer. "He didn't work on the movie," Moore said. "I've never met the gentlemen, never even spoken with him. But when I was given the project, I was sent [the script] 'The Omen by David Seltzer, copyright 1975.' I didn't feel a great need to rush out and fix what wasn't broken. The story of the movie is extraordinarily good and extraordinarily tight. Especially by today's script standards, it's a damn good script. So I didn't feel the need to completely rework it."

Likewise, Moore elected to echo much of [original Omen director Richard] Donner's work, from the overall mood and tone to several specific shots. Still, Moore feels he's put his own touches on the material. "I think I did, by default," he said. "It's a different cast; it's a different movie; it's a different experience. The story is the same. I don't mean this in a flattering way to myself; I mean it in a flattering way to the text. It's a bit like a Shakespeare play. You very much want people to enjoy the experience of the play, but the text is so good, and the story tracks so well, that you feel inclined to stick with that. I asked Richard Donner to see the movie, which he did [recently]. He's happy with it."

Wow! So let me get this straight, the production team relied on "extensive" parts of Seltzer's '76 script, and Moore himself lifted several shots from Donner. I'm glad Donner is happy about the film and all but c'mon.

When I saw the the theatrical trailer back in April, I said at the time:

...from the looks of things, it seems like it almost matches the 1976 original, shot for shot--But all dressed up using modern tricks by director John Moore.

At least the teaser trailer for the flick was a little spooky...the new one is not.

And that was after just watching the trailer...I can just imagine what the whole film must be like.

Given all of the "lifting" that went on here, I'm not all that surprised that Seltzer got sole credit for the modern screenplay, however, I am kinda surprised that the film has received as many positive reviews as it has from critics. Heck even Ebert & Roeper liked it.

Don't worry though, there are plenty of folks who did not care for it--like Gene Seymour of Newsday who remarks that the new film "isn't a remake so much as a half-smudged, half-faded duplicate of the 1976 original."

I know I may be treating the film a bit unfairly, especially since I haven't seen it yet, but in my opinion, if all you are doing is ripping off the original (particularly with a classic) then why bother? Think the 1998 version of Psycho, made by director Gus Van Sant, and you might understand what I mean.

The next major film to roll off the assembly line--Cars