Funny where preferences lie. There's quite a few movies where I actually like the remake more than the original...as where more people like the original. I'm not ashamed of my enjoyment from "king Kong" '78, tho I do like the original too. Here are just a few movies, add some if you like. While there's TONS of remakes out there, I'm thinking along the lines or b or horror style, particularly where the original is a classic.
Original and their remake, which do you prefer?
Invasion of the Body Snatchers- 1956 or 1978?
Cat People - 1942 or 1982?
The Blob - 1958 or 1988?
The Fly - 1958 or 1986?
Villiage of the Damned - 1960 or 1995?
Night of the Living Dead - 1968 or 1990? (tho i suspect nobody wants to commit blasphamy in this case)
King Kong - 1922 or 1976?
The Thing - 1951 or 1982?
Kinda blank now. Was just thinking about how I'm sick of remakes overall since I like originality. However I always like to be reminded that sometimes it can be a good thing! Which is why i haven't mentioned "The Time Machine" or "Planet of the apes" which aren't. ;-)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers- 1956 or 1978?
-- 1956. It actually had some political undertones to it (though there is a debate whether it is anti-McCarthy[no dissent allowed] or anti-Communist [no dissent allowed). 1978 lacked that. Besides, black & white worked real well here.
Cat People - 1942 or 1982?
-- 1982. Two words: Nastasia Kinkski.
The Blob - 1958 or 1988?
-- haven't seen 1988. Why bother, no Steve McQueen.
The Fly - 1958 or 1986?
-- 1958, no Jeff Goldblume
Villiage of the Damned - 1960 or 1995?
-- 1960
Night of the Living Dead - 1968 or 1990? (tho i suspect nobody wants to commit blasphamy in this case)
-- haven't seen 1990. Should we get the stake and bonfire ready for the blasphemers?
King Kong - 1922 or 1976?
-- tough call. I like them both.
The Thing - 1951 or 1982?
-- I can't remember seeing either
Body Snatchers had a 1993 version as well
Yeah i didn't mention the Body Snatchers one, that one was sorta crazy. Tho I loved the line Meg Tilly had "Where you gonna run to? Where you gonna go?" I think I like the 56 sequel better than the original tho.
>>-- 1982. Two words: Nastasia Kinkski.<<
I LOVE that film. I even have the soundtrack. :)
I think because I grew up watching the 78' king kong over and over I grew really fond of it. I think at that time I felt the special effects of Kong and his facial expressions and presense was really scary and what made the film. And the end when he goes nuts throwing people and stepping on them. My favorite character in the film was Charles Grodin. I think there was a little more drama to the whole thing, including the death scene. In the end you felt sad for him, all he wanted was his hootchie mama!
I hate jeff goldblum too, man developed a tick in his movies after the fly with all the stuttering. But that movie did very well at the box office as I remember
I liked both versions of THE THING. Although Carpenter's version I've seen more of. It's great.
My friends tell me that the remake of NOTLD is really good. Even Joe Bob Briggs says so! So I'd like to see it. I've read that much of the dialog is the same.
The Fly remake was pretty cool too. Specially when he arm wrestles the dude and breaks (rips) his arm! The best is when he sheds his human skin and emerges as THE FLY!!!! Buzzzzzzzz
The original KING KONG is more violent with more fights between giant monsters which makes it much more enjoyable than the '76 one.
I liked the original fly better, the second had interesting ideas about telepods and stuff, they went overboard on special effects. I guess I get creeped out by the end of the original, caught in the web and about to be eaten by a spider unbeknownst to humans sitting nearby. oh my GOD! Of course anything with spiders, if that tarantula had eaten the guy in the incredible shrinking man i may have never recovered.
I don't care what some say, i've heard alot of carpenter bashing but I love "The Thing", the original frankly bored me.
I agree the original king knog was more violent, but I thought guys would like the remake since it's more sexual? ;-) Kong did fight off a giant snake in that one tho...brutal death. I can't remember if Kong in the early one killed people, the way he did in the remake was creepy. The slow stomping onto Charles Grodin..heh
>Yeah i didn't mention the Body Snatchers one, that one was sorta crazy. Tho I
>loved the line Meg Tilly had "Where you gonna run to? Where you gonna go?" I
>think I like the 56 sequel better than the original tho.
56 sequel?
>caught in the web and about to be eaten by a spider unbeknownst to humans
>sitting nearby.
The thing I never understood is if the scientist retained most of his intelligence with a few fly urges, where did the fly with the human head get the intelligence to know how to talk and ask for help?
Here's another one;
Day of the Triffids - 1962 or 1981?
Of all the films listed, of those that I have seen both the original and the remake, I don't think there is a remake better then the original.
>
The remake of "The Thing" probably comes closest to being better then the original (IMHO) Not better, but as good. I will credit the remake with one thing. It comes closer to the short story "Who Goes There?" by John W. Cambell, Jr., on which both films were based, then the original.
>
"What is that black stuff between King Kong's toes? A slow native." Actually, the original "KIng Kong," which was made in 1933 by the way, is probably more violent then the remake. Between the original release and re-releases, alot of the violence was edited out. The native that was stepped on and crushed by King Kong. The woman that was plucked out of the New York City building, then dropped to her death, when King Kong saw it was not Fay Wray.
Actually, the original was suppose to be more violent yet. There was a scene after the men fell off the log bridge and into the canyon, where they were supposedly attacked by spiders. But, when the first audience came out of the theater after having seen the film for the first time, all they could talk about was--not King Kong-- but the spiders. So, that scene was quickly cut from the original.
>
One remake that is supposedly superior to the original was 1941's "The Maltese Falcon." It was originally made in 1931, then remade in 1936 as "Satan Met a Lady." But, as I haven't seen the first two, I can't say much about it. Enjoy!
Susan wrote:
>
> Yeah i didn't mention the Body Snatchers one, that one was
> sorta crazy. Tho I loved the line Meg Tilly had "Where you
> gonna run to? Where you gonna go?" I think I like the 56
> sequel better than the original tho.
>
But I always saw The 94 film more of a sequel to IofBS then a remake. A continuation of the story so to say. The 56 and 78 versions followed a similar storyline, where as BS was something out of left field. But you would have needed to see the others to really grasp the story(Which wasn't very good in the 94 film IMHO)
NOTLD : Color does not realy add to the story. I saw the color version on Monstervision. Apples and oranges script wise. Loved the changed endings, and the way the leading lady used that Henry "Yellowboy" carbine in the remake.Take that, deadhead!
....day of theTriffids 1981? Did not know about that. Was it closer to the original story?
....Did not like the nilisim of the Thing remake, though it was indeed closer to the Campbell story. Still prefer the B&W version.
....Kong. The 78 flick was alright. Baker's ape suit was great, expressive and convincing. Like both films, but because of the differing takes. The change in story because of the time frame of the tale (1930s vs. 1970s) makes me want to see a remake of Kong, with modern film tech, but set in the 30's. Done as a period piece. Just leave out the 2000s referances and politics,please. Conciter that a challange to the screenwriter.
....The original Blob scared the crap out of me when a kid! The remake...just a gross killing spree. Not my cup of earl grey,hot.
....The Fly. Got to roll yer own MST that one someday. The original, that is. don't need the remake, though the explenation for how the guy became a fly makes much more sense! A dna twist up, and a growth into the fly, okey. But the first film...Huh? Any one got a good rationalisation for that one?
To vote on your list, the original movies that I enjoyed more than the remakes were:
NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD: of course. Anyone that choses otherwise has problems. Serious ones.
VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED
KING KONG
THe remakes that were better than the originals were: THE FLY, THE THING, and INVASION of the BODY SNATCHERS
>>I
>think I like the 56 sequel better than the original tho.
56 sequel?<<
brain fart
>>where did the fly with the human head get the intelligence to know how to talk and ask for help?<<
Maybe the fly retained most of the fly traits with a few human qualities..enough so that he may not be able to carry on a conversation about physics but upon the prospect of being a meal could give a shout out?
I think the original kong was supposed to be more sexual. I remember reading an article about how when it was released it had been edited and I think had 5 different versions. There was one scene which I think was removed and never found..tho the others I think were found and have been shown on a&e and stuff. 'd have to look it up. Bite your tongue on a Kong Remake, you don't want hollywoods modern version of that one. Starring Cameron Diaz i'm sure. Plus with the horrid kong sequels and mighty joe young and all thsoe monkey movies..i can't..i just can't! They'd CGI it and i think CGI is overdone
I think I never liked the original night of the living dead because slow moving zombies in general don't scare me? lol I dunno, I think it did well considering it's budget and it should be applauded for that. But not my personal cup of tea. I liked the remake ok, I think when it comes to zombies I prefer more of a campy kind of spoof. I get more creeped out over anything having to do with aliens or animals more-so than dead folks rising up to kill..particularly when I can skip faster than they can walk.
Loved that movie-- the original. I didn't know they remade it. Always liked the sten gun in it, just wonder how it is to shoot.
My kind of zombies come from comics.
"Long Live Lady Death & Evil Ernie! May their reign of terror last forever!"
>day of theTriffids 1981? Did not know about that. Was it closer to the original
>story?
I've never read the original story. The remake was a 6 hour British mini-series. I haven't seen it in a while, so my memories are a little hazy, but as I recall, the triffids are already fairly common when the story starts. They only become dangerous after the meteor shower blinds the majority of the people. It's fairly slow moving as the main star meets up with a girl, camps out in an apartment building, gets kidnapped and forced to act as a guide for a group of blind people, plus there's a whole subplot about some kind of plague killing people in the cities.
>Loved that movie-- the original. I didn't know they remade it. Always liked the
>sten gun in it, just wonder how it is to shoot.
Are you referring to Day of the Triffids too? The gun they used in the movie shot spinning triangular blades and was used to slice the stalks of the triffids. Seemed like kind of a poor idea for a weapon to me, since the stalks were so narrow.
> Are you referring to Day of the Triffids too? The gun they
> used in the movie shot spinning triangular blades and was
> used to slice the stalks of the triffids. Seemed like kind of
> a poor idea for a weapon to me, since the stalks were so
> narrow.
Triangular blades? You would think that they would use a scythe or maybe a grenade launcher filled with herbicide. Or, shades of the original movie: a flamethrower.
>
> Invasion of the Body Snatchers- 1956 or 1978?
1956, but the 1978 one is excellent in its own right. The 1994 version is pretty bad, though.
> Cat People - 1942 or 1982?
I don't care if there is full-frontal action on Kinski-1942
> The Blob - 1958 or 1988?
Torn between them both
> The Fly - 1958 or 1986?
1986
> Villiage of the Damned - 1960 or 1995?
1960
> Night of the Living Dead - 1968 or 1990? (tho i suspect
> nobody wants to commit blasphamy in this case)
1968
> King Kong - 1922 or 1976?
Yeesh, no contest-1932
> The Thing - 1951 or 1982?
1951
What about the peice of crap 30th Anniversary edition of night of the living dead where new footage was shot and added in? And the version where people dubbed over the soundtrack? Would those in any sense be considered remakes? I don't think so but thought I'd throw them in on the NOTLD side. Then there is the colorized version that makes the movie look like a live cartoon. God, there are a lot of different versions of NOTLD.
out here in colorado, our local pbs affiliate is rerunning the british tv series. defintely closer to the john wyndham book of the same name. really gets the dramatic tension going. the blade-shooting gun is actually quite a functional thing, though they have a wide variety of flame-weapons as well, including things that look like electrical tennis racquets-on-a-stick. sure do burn 'em up real good, though!
john wyndham also wrote "the midwich cuckoos", the book upon which all the children of the damned/village of the damned films were based. one hell of a goood read & scary as can be in that dry sort of british understated way that they can do so very well.
village of the damned, with george sanders, is one of my all-time favorite low-budget horror flicks. the scene where the kids deconstruct the brick wall in sanders' mind & then turn in unison to the hidden bomb is simply one of those great little cinematic moments that cost nothing to shoot, yet blows away multi-million dollar effects-laden scenes that are neither tense nor scary.
i did see the modern remake & was surprised that it wasn't worse than it was.
peter j.
>out here in colorado, our local pbs affiliate is rerunning the british tv series
I wish one of our PBS channels would show it. I think I originally saw it on A&E.
Triffids was a good read.
....The idea of a world gone blind was a chiller. And the Triffids were not the big, all devouring tree things in the early movie. They were poisonus, and the sting had to be contunualy clipped to keep it from growing back. They were man made plants, and the oils produced were profitable.
....The plants killed animals/people, and waited around till the body got nice and ripe. Ewwwww! It was the blinding of most of the worlds population that allowed them to become dangerious.
....Hope to see the remake someday.
>....The idea of a world gone blind was a chiller. And the Triffids were not the big,
>all devouring tree things in the early movie. They were poisonus, and the sting
>had to be contunualy clipped to keep it from growing back. They were man
>made plants, and the oils produced were profitable.
I forget if they were man made in the new version of not. I do remember a triffid 'farm', and I think the main character, Bill, missed the meteor shower because his eyes were bandaged from a triffid sting.