why the fuck was this even made?

to show pusy

Gus Van Sant was offered a shit load of money to remake it, so took the complete piss and did a shot for shot remake.

File: psycho-1998-remake-norman-dressed-as-mother-vince-vaughn-ending-review.jpg (69KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 600x400px

>>84344125
To see Vince Vaughn in drag, of course.

>>84344125
producers are not cinephiles and have no idea why something worked so they just throw money around

>>84344395

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI6CfKcMhjY

>>84344125
>whine that remakes stray too far from the original
>whine that remakes are too much like the original
You faggots will never be pleased.

>>84344158
Source? Was Van Sant really just fucking around? I just watched it recently so I'm interested, I thought he was being sincere and "artistic" by doing a shot for shot remake

the actress sucked everyones dick involved - - - - true story!

So we could see Anne Heche's butthole

>>84344641
>remake is never made
>nothing to whine about

...But it's not even a shot-for-shot remake (a suspect idea at best artistically anyway) -- it didn't even have that much of the courage of its convictions. (For example, the shower scene recreation has a shot of clouds moving across the sky added for some reason. -- there are other inane 'subliminal' shots peppered throughout the movie (e.g. a shot of Anne Heche in a negligee that's apparently from Norman's fantasy). And the final shot is totally new. Universal was going to remake it no matter what, since they were desperate for a color version of Psycho 1, so I'm sure Van Sant just figured "Fuck it, take the money." The 'shot-for-shot remake' angle was marketing fiction to make it sound more clever (?) than it is.
It's purely cynical, worthless shit.

>>84344125
$
same reason hollywood does anything. they aren't artists, they;re buisnessmen

>>84345856
This desu. Remake bad original films, not good original fims.>>84345856

File: Psycho-1998-William-H-Macy.png (582KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 853x480px

I watched the original and the remake one night, one after the other. The best part for me is William H Macy as the detective, he's really natural whilst also at the same time capturing the mannerisms and feel of the original actor to a T. William's a phenomenal actor 2bh

>>84345781
Even Julianne Moore's?

>>84345880
>a shot of clouds moving across the sky added for some reason
that's a signature van sant shot. in the context of the scene it's suppose to be the characters life flashing before their eyes, a sort of recollection of the passage of time every day experience of seeing clouds roll by. another way of looking at it is its the jaws of infinity, like people describing death as a tunnel with light at the end or bright open blue skies

It doesn't work in psycho but its a cool shot

>>84346095
especially

Thanks for the clarification: I don't know the rest of Van Sant's work that well (though I've generally liked what I've seen). Yeah, I agree it doesn't work, shoe-horned into one of the most famous sequences in film history: Too discordant, but not bold enough. That remake is worse than any of the sequels (except for the original Bates Motel TV show from the 80s, maybe).

>>84345723
Its my interpretation, in all honesty. He did the zoom in opening shot which obviously was a proper homage to Hitchcock

>>84344641
It's like remakes are terrible in every instance. Wow, really blew my mind there.