"Let Me In" (US remake of "Let the Right One In") trailer

I consider it an absolutely critical story point.

Why?

It's disturbing, its uncomfortable and you want to ignore it.

But you can't.

It proves this was not a human anymore. It wasn't a girl or boy anymore.
It was a vampire monster.

...and "it" is the word to use.

It used this illusion in many ways. To appear harmless, to appear as a first love, to appear as a object of sexual desire to perverts.

And then it would USE all those people to feed and exploit human beings for it's ends. Murdering many innocents.


It was a monster, a master of seduction that even seduces the audience into thinking the ending was almost sweet. We want them to be together! Awwwww, "she" saved him and now they are a loving couple! LOL


So for me, this was an extremely critical bit of information to leave out. It utterly kills the whole unique angle that made the film so impactful for me.

If it, becomes a she..... then so much is lost of the horror of it.

It's just freekin' Tweeny Twilight.

ItsThatGuy said:

Are they trying to make the vampire an actual chick this time?

Click to expand...

Sadly it appears so, and that in itself takes away from the whole story and background... It's no longer the same story without the background and history that made Eli...

Oh wait! It's no longer Eli and Oskar, they didn't even have the dignity and decency to maintain their names...
How Hollywood to Americanize the names to Abby and Owen

CessnaDriver said:

Well you have to sanitize such things for an American mainstream audience of course, or you will suffer at the box office.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of ways to creatively avoid not addressing the issue in detail or straight on, rather then the easy cop out of changing the story to appeal to the public and make it politically correct... The original movie did this VERY well IMO, there were many viewers that had no clue she was a he after watching the movie.. It was a very good execution of selective omission by the author, rather then some half baked lame attempt to change the story, to simply make it more socially acceptable...

But it appears Hollywood has lost the ability to actually 'write' a creative and mind invoking script in favor of churning out the generic boy meets girl 'Twilight' vampire stories... But hey we all knew this, it's nothing new...

I think I'll go re-read the book, just to get the bad taste out of my mouth that Hollywood has left behind...

CessnaDriver said:

I consider it an absolutely critical story point.

Why?

It's disturbing, its uncomfortable and you want to ignore it.

But you can't.

It proves this was not a human anymore. It wasn't a girl or boy anymore.
It was a vampire monster.

...and "it" is the word to use.

It used this illusion in many ways. To appear harmless, to appear as a first love, to appear as a object of sexual desire to perverts.

And then it would USE all those people to feed and exploit human beings for it's ends. Murdering many innocents.


It was a monster, a master of seduction that even seduces the audience into thinking the ending was almost sweet. We want them to be together! Awwwww, "she" saved him and now they are a loving couple! LOL


So for me, this was an extremely critical bit of information to leave out. It utterly kills the whole unique angle that made the film so impactful for me.

Click to expand...

Exactly "it" was the entire underlying 'untold' that made the entire story what it was, remove "it" and you destroy the entire story, literally from it's foundation...


BTW for anyone that considers going to see this movie that has not seen the original movie or read the book, do yourself some justice and GO SEE THE ORIGINAL MOVIE, AND THEN READ THE BOOK! Then if you want to attempt to stomach what Hollywood has done at least you have insight to weigh in on how horrible they destroyed the story...

CessnaDriver said:

I consider it an absolutely critical story point.

Why?

It's disturbing, its uncomfortable and you want to ignore it.

But you can't.

It proves this was not a human anymore. It wasn't a girl or boy anymore.
It was a vampire monster.

...and "it" is the word to use.

It used this illusion in many ways. To appear harmless, to appear as a first love, to appear as a object of sexual desire to perverts.

And then it would USE all those people to feed and exploit human beings for it's ends. Murdering many innocents.


It was a monster, a master of seduction that even seduces the audience into thinking the ending was almost sweet. We want them to be together! Awwwww, "she" saved him and now they are a loving couple! LOL


So for me, this was an extremely critical bit of information to leave out. It utterly kills the whole unique angle that made the film so impactful for me.

If it, becomes a she..... then so much is lost of the horror of it.

It's just freekin' Tweeny Twilight.

Click to expand...

That's a great post. I agree wholeheartedly.

I am torn, I am interested to see the American version so I can make a fair comparison, but I love the original, bought it on Blu-ray, bought the book and have loaned it to a half dozen people who all loved it. but I don't like supporting the remake mindset. It's a conundrum.

The thing is, it won't make the original go away, but when I love a movie, a remake is something of an insult to me almost, like a little kid getting a new stepdad he hates.

Click to expand...

The same thing happened to me when the new A Nightmare on Elm street came out, saw that it was rated R and I was actually excited, which hasn't happened in forever, I ignored my jaded emotions and hoped for the best.

But 1/4 of the way through the movie I was like...oh no...really?

When I left the theater I wasn't just dissatisfied, I was actually bummed out. :unsure

I don't get it, I thought it was supposed to be a re-make of the original with a massive budget and superior special effects....it should have made an excellent movie more awesome...I don't get it...

Saw it today and it wasn't bad. They did a very good job. An excellent remake. Worth seeing.

Thought it was a great Americanization. Stands up right next to the original very well. Actually got rid of some of the baggage from the first film that bugged me a little... although I'm not saying it's better, it stands on its own as remake.

After browsing this thread, I'm really bugged that someone would complain that they (gasp!) Americanized the names. WTF did you expect!? We all have sticklers about things here and there, but seems like a last straw to grasp at: "they changed the names." Wow, just wow...

JD said:

After browsing this thread, I'm really bugged that someone would complain that they (gasp!) Americanized the names. WTF did you expect!? We all have sticklers about things here and there, but seems like a last straw to grasp at: "they changed the names." Wow, just wow..

Click to expand...

I personally see no reason to change the names and yeah I find it kind of insulting, it serves absolutely no legit purpose, especially when the name "Eli" plays a underlying, but IMO significant role in the story itself... Try playing that story twist with with the name "Abby" let me guess his real name is ABBA :lol... It's clear it's not a remake it's a new re-imagined story, based on the original...

I place it up there on par with the West Side Story vs Romeo and Juliet, a total abomination of the original...

exoray said:

I personally see no reason to change the names and yeah I find it kind of insulting, it serves absolutely no legit purpose, especially when the name "Eli" plays a underlying, but IMO significant role in the story itself... Try playing that story twist with with the name "Abby" let me guess his real name is ABBA :lol... It's clear it's not a remake it's a new re-imagined story, based on the original...

I place it up there on par with the West Side Story vs Romeo and Juliet, a total abomination of the original...

Click to expand...

Wow. God forbid someone go by a different name. Why don't we start a thread about all the other American name changes in foreign imports. We can start with Gojira. You're taking a small part of the film and making it much larger than it needs to be.

Anyhow, the sex change thing is the thing that bugged me the most in the original, I'm kinda glad that removed that bit... but I did feel that the implied bits - perhaps a nod at the original worked well.


Plus, Abbey can be a boys name. Could be short for Abner, Abbot, etc. So, I think your point is moot, anyhow. Granted, it's traditional a female name - there are male versions of it.

JD said:

You're taking a small part of the film and making it much larger than it needs to be.

Click to expand...

Changing the entire story is hardly a small part, all the little details (including the name) are all tied together in an complex weave you can't simply remove them while keeping the story intact...

Plus, Abbey can be a boys name. Could be short for Abner, Abbot, etc. So, I think your point is moot, anyhow. Granted, it's traditional a female name - there are male versions of it.

Click to expand...

When you have to fabricate grasping at straws, hypothetical excuses to try and legitimatize the change it only emphasizes how stupid the change was in the first place...

On the topic of moot, toss your excuse in there as well since she is not a he in this abomination of the story...

Anyhow, the sex change thing is the thing that bugged me the most in the original, I'm kinda glad that removed that bit...

Click to expand...

Well then it's clear you simply don't like the original story as written but prefer the rewrites... That or you have not read the original and don't understand how significant this is to the entire story as a whole... The fact that Eli(as) is a eunuch is tied into the entire story in just about every aspect and at every turn, you simply can't removed that fact without destroying the entire base story at the foundation... CessnaDriver already pointed out above how significant Eli(as)'s eunuch gender plays out in the entire stories tone and plot... It's an integral part of the story at the core, remove it and you no longer have the same story, instead you have Let Twilight In...

CessnaDriver said:

I consider it an absolutely critical story point.

Why?

It's disturbing, its uncomfortable and you want to ignore it.

But you can't.

It proves this was not a human anymore. It wasn't a girl or boy anymore.
It was a vampire monster.

...and "it" is the word to use.

It used this illusion in many ways. To appear harmless, to appear as a first love, to appear as a object of sexual desire to perverts.

And then it would USE all those people to feed and exploit human beings for it's ends. Murdering many innocents.


It was a monster, a master of seduction that even seduces the audience into thinking the ending was almost sweet. We want them to be together! Awwwww, "she" saved him and now they are a loving couple! LOL


So for me, this was an extremely critical bit of information to leave out. It utterly kills the whole unique angle that made the film so impactful for me.

If it, becomes a she..... then so much is lost of the horror of it.

It's just freekin' Tweeny Twilight.

Click to expand...

Hey, I get your post, but to say that without this angle it's just "teeny Twilight" is ridiculously insulting. One could choose to view this as a monstrous, using relationship. Or not. That's part of the film's lovely ambiguity. But to say that, viewed as a tender, coming of age love story among two sorry outcasts is just Twilight schlok is really off the mark. I mean, is Casablanca just Twilight in WWII? Is Boys Don't Cry just Twilight with lesbians? There's a level of quality here that Twilight can't touch, and to suggest that LTROI could ever be associated with it based on a less cynical interpretation of Eli's motives is just...come on, you don't really believe that do you?

cayman shen said:

Hey, I get your post, but to say that without this angle it's just "teeny Twilight" is ridiculously insulting.

Click to expand...

Well I guess it might me insulting to to some, maybe...

Removing that entire angle simply leaves you with...

• Boy meets girl...
• One of them is a vampire one is human...
• Vampire and Human differences clash with the relationship...
• Vampire has an evil nature and an evil past...
• Vampire shows human compassion towards partner, even though it's against vampire nature...
• Vampire uses superior power/force to protect human partner...
• Vampire regardless of good intentions has lapses to it's evil nature...

Sorry but looking at what is left leaves you with is the generic teeny vampire love story nothing more :rolleyes Yes, likely a step up in quality from Twilight as it's just a train wreck in all aspects, but hardly anything that sets is apart on it's own account like the original story...

How significant is it to the story? I don't think so, I think you're making mountains out of molehills... it's a movie. It's a matter of opinion and taste. Not sure why you're so emotionally attached to this and taking it so strongly - I know it's leaving me feeling a little detached from the whole thing. ...and I really enjoyed both movies for what they are.

We're going to disagree. I think you're taking some of the aspects a little too seriously. You're entitled to that. I think you're not looking objectively enough at the overall scheme of things.

Lots of movies get remade/rethought/redone. Things are changed ESPECIALLY when going from one market to another... it's just the way things are, sometimes there are even reasons. There are plenty of movies that change names, that's just how it's done - if you don't like it, avoid it... it won't be easy.

If you can't accept the fact those facts and try to make it as if someone else is grasping at straws, well... there's the mirror, I'm sure those straws are just as far away on both sides, because mentioning Twilight in this thread is pretty damn lame.

And judging by the reviews Let Me In is pretty damned good movie.

JD said:

How significant is it to the story?

Click to expand...

Very as it's tied into every aspect of the story in some way, remove it and it's no longer the same story as without it the story simply doesn't fit together correctly...

As CessnaDriver stated, it's what makes the story disturbing and uncomfortable, it's what makes Eli a monster and not a little girl, it's what gives Eli her power of seduction and innocence to control her pedophile caretaker and other victims, it's what adds to the tension and awkwardness when Oskar wants to be her boyfriend, in all it's what prevents the movie from just being just another generic boy meets girl and they fall in love vampire movie like Twilight...

it's a movie. It's a matter of opinion and taste.

Click to expand...

It's a matter of a poor adaptation of a book, it's not about opinion or taste it's about not staying true to the main principles and ideas of story as written... But instead watering it down for the movie audience or to be politically correct... The complete omission of main underlying plots, themes and the complex weave of little details that come together to complete the story has nothing to do with opinion or taste, but everything to do with destroying the original story...

Lots of movies get remade/rethought/redone.

Click to expand...

Yeah, lots of books get made into movies as well, some good and some bad and some god awful... Some stay true to the original story others completely re-invent the story and turn it into an abomination...

because mentioning Twilight in this thread is pretty damn lame.

Click to expand...

From you that compared a completely unnecessary name change to Gojira? :lol Where does Gojira name dropping rate on the lame scale?

The Eli(as) name is significant to the story in two ways, the obvious is that it's easy to abbreviate and gender bend from Elias to Eli, second if you read the book and knew the story you would also know the name is significant in regards that it adds some specifically dropped subtle characterization to Eli, the change to Abby completely breaks that from developing at all...

and I really enjoyed both movies for what they are.

Click to expand...

And you probably support Gweedo shot first as well...

I'll close with a quote from you [highlight]it's lazy filmmaking or trying to be "creative" or "artsy"[/highlight] rather then staying true to the story...

cayman shen said:

Hey, I get your post, but to say that without this angle it's just "teeny Twilight" is ridiculously insulting. One could choose to view this as a monstrous, using relationship. Or not. That's part of the film's lovely ambiguity. But to say that, viewed as a tender, coming of age love story among two sorry outcasts is just Twilight schlok is really off the mark. I mean, is Casablanca just Twilight in WWII? Is Boys Don't Cry just Twilight with lesbians? There's a level of quality here that Twilight can't touch, and to suggest that LTROI could ever be associated with it based on a less cynical interpretation of Eli's motives is just...come on, you don't really believe that do you?

Click to expand...

Perhaps it's not good to compare to that bad of drivel, but when vampires have been done every which way but loose and it becomes a broken genre, along comes a tale that really sticks with you, I need it not monkeyed with on what made it work so well for me that set it apart.

Prior to this film, the last vamp movie that stayed with me was Shadow of the Vampire with Dafoe, granted lots of dark humor but also horror.

I guess I am not seeing a compelling reason to remake this film or retell this story so incredibly soon when the first film was so perfect.
I know the studios reasons of course, but as an audience member and film goer, what is it I am supposed to want to see that wasn't done right the first time such a short time ago?

Again, it's not worth it.

Sure, you can take a quote out of context (not that it's not weird at all you did all that searching to find that quote from me). You also fail to mention any of the times I say an adaption often needs changes to make it work.

I think you're too wrapped up in the original to be objective, and you're not being fair. It's a shame you can't open up a little to appreciate it. The fact that you can't accept something as trivial and as easily explainable as a simple name change is... well, I'm best off not saying here.

You still have the original.

I totally hear you Cessna, I do. And one thing the book and I hear the remake do IS make her more of a monster. But I'm a sucker for a dark/doomed love story, so I can totally appreciate this as simply a coming of age love story with a twist. The fact that Eli's really a dude only adds to her "otherness," it's not the ONLY aspect of her otherness. Let's not forget Oskar, who is very, very damaged in his own right. Is he less complex as a character for not being a eunuch?

I'm TOTALLY not trying to deny Eli's real nature/origins. All I'm saying is that while it adds another level to her/his tragedy, and makes Oskar's infatuation that much more complex (adding homosexual overtones to his already confused romantic feelings) I don't think that the whole story rides on it. At the end of the day, even if it's guy/guy, I still see this primarily as two very damaged and unhappy people who manage to find something to love in one another. I don't think she's using him as she used the pedophile, and frankly even her use of the pervert familiar was loving, humane, and understanding. She's not a bad person. That's part of the tragedy. In the book yeah, she led the pedo along, but she was never really cruel. Does she need a new familiar in Oskar? Yup. But that doesn't mean she didn't choose him out of love. I mean, I still love my wife even if she pays half the rent :lol

So, I don't think we're entirely in disagreement. Maybe I'm just saying I see room for interpretation of her motives. You may not agree, but I think the room IS there.

JD, yes, I still have my beloved original! And frankly I DO think they should change the names. How many American Eli and Oskars are there? But I'm still not feeling a need to see the movie. Like I said, I'm at least relieved that it was done well, and if the eunuch thing is gone, well the American version was bound to change things. The story can still work. Maybe just not for me.

I'll give the new one a chance, but removing that particular element of ambiguity/complexity was always going to be a disappointment. It may not cripple the dynamics of the original but it sure can't enhance them.

I say 'ambiguous' because one of the things I most liked about LTROI was that Eli's gender status was arguable. Him/her saying 'I'm not a girl' could easily be read as meaning 'I am a vampire', and people did make that argument; I did for months until I read the book and I think that was the author's intent for the film. Clearly Eli has been a victim of some kind of mutilation but that scar is kinda high. It leaves it up to the audience to decide what the hell that was all about.

Cayman, you make some good points about Eli's motives. Even so the ending is a tragedy and the relationship is monstrous. I love that.

I was a big fan of La Femme Nikita when it came out.
I went in to see the remake fat dumb and happy I guess.
And as far as remakes go, I guess the American version did it's job
for those in America to not have to deal with subs and dubs and the French. LOL
But I personally didn't need it remade.

How many Dracula films have been made of course telling nearly the same story over the years?

I can't say that retelling them wasn't unwarranted. I enjoy many of them.

Perhaps only because different actors portrayed Dracula and each version was unique and special and worth watching if only for the performance.


But I must ask?

Why not yet another remake next year? and the year after?

Or an American sequal showing their "adventures" together?


He's growing up, she isn't. Won't that be awkard for their roadshow?
It could be a helluva movie even. Maybe Tarantino is available.

Yes I do suffer from a bad case of remake-phobia. LOL

JD said:

not that it's not weird at all you did all that searching to find that quote from me

Click to expand...

Don't flatter yourself with self-gratified speculation, the thread that quote was from (although originally older) was front page here the other day, and I happened to read it, there wasn't any searching involved it was short term memory...

The fact that you can't accept something as trivial and as easily explainable as a simple name change is...

Click to expand...

If that was all it was then it might be different, but it's far from limited to just that, it's pretty much an entire re-write... I also see absolutely no reason for the name changes, none at all... Even the lame attempt at Americanization excuse falls flat...

How many American Eli and Oskars are there?

Click to expand...

Eli

ELI is the #534 most common male first name
0.016% of males in the US are named ELI.
Around 19600 US males are named ELI!

Click to expand...

Elias

ELIAS is the #452 most common male first name
0.022% of males in the US are named ELIAS.
Around 26950 US males are named ELIAS!

Click to expand...

Abby

ABBY is the #694 most common female first name
0.016% of females in the US are named ABBY.
Around 19600 US females are named ABBY!

Click to expand...

Oscar (American Spelling)

OSCAR is the #151 most common male first name
0.122% of males in the US are named OSCAR.
Around 149450 US males are named OSCAR!

Click to expand...

Owen

OWEN is the #410 most common male first name
0.026% of males in the US are named OWEN.
Around 31850 US males are named OWEN!

Click to expand...

Failed Hollywood attempts at Americanization...