Why are they remaking Helter Skelter?

CBS is broadcasting a new version of Helter Skelter this coming Sunday. Does anybody know why? The original, while it took a few liberties with fact (what BoaTS movie doesn’t?) was an exemplary TV crime movie that stopped me and millions of other Gen-Xers from getting a good night’s sleep for about 2 years, so I’m curious how they felt they can improve on it (especially with Bruno Kirby) or add to it.

Be cause originality in Hollywood was beaten to death years ago!

Why are they re-making it? Because Hollywood is unimaginative. It’s all about the money, and imagination doesn’t necessarily pay. It’s easier and a better bet to re-make a show that was already successful. I’ve found that, most of the time, the result is not as good as the original (however I did like the re-make of The Italian Job).

Another reason is that someone would say, “Hey, I really liked this show when I was a kid. It would be great to re-make it, and to make it better!.” Unfortunately, “better” is usually in the minds of the director and the producers; and it often seems not to make it to the screen.

But the big reason is money. If something was successful once, then they think it should be successful again. Filmmaking has gotten much more expensive over the years. In the late-1960s to the early-1970s, you could shoot a feature on 16mm (which is cheaper than 35mm) and have a fair shot at releasing it on the drive-in circuit. A lot of the films stunk. (Think, Manos: Hands of Fate.) But some of them were really good. Throw enough pasta against a wall, and some of it will stick. My friend’s first feature, Cut Up (1994) was shot for $28,000 on 16mm. By the time it was ready for distribution, it cost about $43,000. That’s like the catering bill for a Hollywood picture. El Mariachi was shot for about $7,500 – ready for distribution on 3/4" tape to Mexican television. (I think it ended up costing about $300,000 after Columbia made it ready for theatrical release.)

But these films were made by people who wanted to make films. Of course, they wanted to make money; but the investments were small. When you’re dealing with a $20 million, $50 million, or $100 million dollar budget, you need to be damned sure you can make your money back. It’s more of a risk to make something new and original that people might not like, than it is to re-make something that people have already liked.

It’s like McDonalds. It may not be great food, but at least you know what you’re getting.

Yeah, you’re gonna watch it. S As am I. Really tho, as great as the original was, there is lots of subplot about the backgrounds of Charlie & the girls and the Tate group which can be explored (I recall reading comments Dennis Hopper made before Manson & Co were arrested about theories that the Tate group was into enough weird stuff that the killings were done by someone they’d crossed paths with.)

I am curious about it being 3 hrs with commercials while the original was 4 hrs.

It’s one thing to remake a piece of literature or a film, but watching the promos, there’s something sleazily exploitational about remaking a movie on a subject that’s already been addressed quite satisfactorily in a variety of media. What more could they possibly add? What new insights do they have? I suspect none, which means that their wish to make another version hinges purely on the sensationalistic aspects of a truly tragic event. Ick.

Why are they remaking Helter Skelter?

Why are they remaking Manchurian Candidate, The Flight of the Phoenix, The House of Wax, The Stepford Wives, or Around the World in 80 Days?

Why are they making movies based on old TV series: The Partridge Family, or 21 Jump Street, Bewitched? (not to mention the ones that have already happened: Charlies Angels and Starsky and Hutch just to name two)

Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor said it:

I can only assume I’ve seen a different Helter Skelter from everyone else, because I thought it was borderline camp and completely un-frightening. (That’s not the case with the book, though.) My thought on the remake therefore is that, while it may not strictly be necessary, they at least have a shot at doing it better.

Lack of originality isn’t the only answer, although it’s convenient and quite often true. Many movies are remade after a generation has passed, thereby allowing a whole new audience to see the film. This remake isn’t aimed at people who were around in 1969 or who saw the subdequent movie; it’s aimed at that most coveted of Hollywood audiences - the younger set (say under 30).

Most people won’t bother renting the old one - new is where it’s at, after all; people don’t discuss at water coolers and such the old movie they saw on tape the previous night. They discuss the New Movie they saw in the Theater.

A remake of The Flight of the Phoenix with someone named “Sticky Fingaz” in the cast. :rolleyes: :eek:

Someone in Hollywood needs a size 12 Redwing cramed up his/her ass.


I got blisters on my fingers.

I’d love to see a version where Sharon, Jay, Abigail, Voytek and Stephen beat the living crap out of Tex and the Manson chicks, tie them up, and beat them to death.

Have to say, that trailer looks pretty decent. They seem to have changed some stuff around (Raymond being the politician, Marco being branded a nut), but it seems to be working a spooky vibe of its own- I was fearing something like a silly shot-for-shot remake a la Van Zant.

From what I understand, it is not really a remake. It focuses on Manson and his people leading up to and including the murders. Vincent Bugliosi doesn’t appear
in this version until the movie is half over and the movie ends before the case goes to trial.

Wanna know what’s really sick? The movie is being promoted on this Christian prison ministry’s web site in the upper left corner.

What’s so sick about a ministry advertising a CBS movie on the Manson murders, you ask?

The minister is Tex Watson. Apparently Bobby Beausoleil didn’t want to give ad-space.

If only that had been the way it really happened.

A remake of Helter Skelter is unnecessary. A remake of The Partridge Family is just sick, wrong and a poor excuse for terrifying another generation of kids. (Actually, it might be interesting if they make it an inner-city rap group: Queen Latifah and Lil’ Bow-wow could be the next Shirley Jones & David Cassidy, though I’d still have Dave “Reuben Kincaid” Madden as their manager.)

So who saw it?

I did. I thought it was quite good. It did explore more the background of the killers & the victims while only getting into the grand jury/motive establishing investigations. I’m kinda glad they didn’t do the trial as the original really had that aspect down quite well.

I’m really not sure who was closest to 1970 Charlie- it almost seemed like the new one was acting like modern-day Charlie. Was he that manic & disjointed back in the day?

House of Wax was itself a remake.

I have to admit that Watson’s review of the movie is fascinating.