re-makes that change key aspect(s) of the original

[zombie no.one]

just watching MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3D again (one of my favourite 80s horror remakes... by that I mean I actually don't hate it).

It's a while since I saw the original, but the storyline in the remake (mainly concerning the killer's past) is altered quite significantly. and for the good I think. makes it more interesting

any other re-makes which change key aspects of the original, for better or worse?

[Skull]

Originally I hated all the remakes because they seemed to lose a sense of creativity in story making... but I gave that up when I decided to write movie scripts and books. 

I think the remake version of Halloween started really good (I do like how they centered more on Michael Myers) but I lost all respect for the story with the 'Great Rape Escape' I don't mind rape scenes but two orderlies gabs a mental patient and savagely rape her in Michael Myers cell while they ridicule him to assist - seemed too unrealistic for a story that tried to make itself serious.

My wife still wants to punch Rob Zombie in the balls (or kick him in the balls)...

[zombie no.one]

I know I rented that Rob Zombie remake of Halloween from blockbuster but I'm struggling to remember much about it tbh...

[Trevor]

The 2004 remake of Walking Tall with The Rock and Johnny Knoxville changed pretty much everything about the original. Good film though.  

[Chainsawmidget]

The remake of Total Recall didn't have Arnold Schwarzenegger in it, and that was the whole point of watching a movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger in it. 

Not that I watched the remake of Total Recall. 

Nor did anyone else. 

In fact, I bet you forgot that it existed until I reminded you. 




Also, the remake of Psycho changed the total lacks of cows in the original by adding cows.  ... That might not be what we're talking about though. 

[chimpyglassman]

Apparently they did a twist on the remake of Manic that was quite good.

By all accounts a worthy remake. Not sure myself though as I've only seen the original.

[zombie no.one]

Apparently they did a twist on the remake of Manic that was quite good.

By all accounts a worthy remake. Not sure myself though as I've only seen the original.

yeah the remake of maniac was shot entirely in first person view iirc. or at least mostly?

I didn't think it was anywhere near as good as the original though. Elijah Wood just was not convincing at all as a deranged killer. also I thought the film was pretty bland in comparison to the orig.

[WingedSerpent]

Admittedly, I haven't seen either movie. but it seems that in the found footage movie Quarantine the viral outbreak is just a mutant strain of rabies, where in the original movie REC, it demonic possession. 

[Skull]

The remake of Total Recall didn't have Arnold Schwarzenegger in it, and that was the whole point of watching a movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger in it. 

Not that I watched the remake of Total Recall. 

Nor did anyone else. 


In fact, I bet you forgot that it existed until I reminded you.  

I keep forgetting they remade Total Recall. You are so right... :)

Also, the remake of Psycho changed the total lacks of cows in the original by adding cows.  ... That might not be what we're talking about though. 

The only interesting thing about the Psycho remake was how sexually open the story was. Norman was jerking off while peeking at girl in the shower. Which you sort of thought the original Norman was doing in the original movie - but there was no suggestive hints so it was up to the viewer to assume it was happening.

[crackers]

I thought the remake of The Town That Dreaded Sundown was quite interesting. In the way they used the original movie in the plot.

[Ted C]

Night of the Living Dead (1990) changed Barbara from a completely useless catatonic who eventually gets killed by zombies to a mostly useless catatonic who takes a level in badass and survives. Good change, in my opinion.

[RCMerchant]

.the THING (1981) and the THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD (1951).
In the original the Thing was a big humaniod vegetable that drank blood. In the remake it's a shape-shifting monster that imitates it's victims. I like the remake better!
.the PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925) and the PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1941)-In the Chaney version Erik is a deformed mystery charecter-you have now idea who he is or why.In the Claude Rains remake-he's some shmuck who gets acid in the face-and you know his back story.
.GODZILLA (1954) and GODZILLA (1998)-need I go into this? NY-and the eggs-and he don't breath radioactive fire! UGH!!!

[Skull]

I've been noticing a flood of movies for almost 10 years that seemed to be made from a video camera (and I won't be surprised from a cellphone) but does anybody think any of those are worthy for a remake?

[RCMerchant]

I've been noticing a flood of movies for almost 10 years that seemed to be made from a video camera (and I won't be surprised from a cellphone) but does anybody think any of those are worthy for a remake?

No-mainly because they suck (of course that didn't stop them from remaking CAT WOMEN OF THE MOON as  MISSILE TO THE MOON!).
The remake of the HAUNTING (1963) was gawd awful-wherin in the original most of the horror was psychological-the remake was overblown FX.
And the HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL (1958) remake has REAL ghosts-the original was based on Price trying to kill his wife.