Remake vs Original

[InformationGeek]

+ King Kong (2005) over the original King Kong.

Blasphemer!!!!!!!!

The horror! The horror!

Easy there!  Just because I like the newest verison of the original, doesn't mean I hate it!  I like both equally and enjoy them.  I just slightly like the newest one more.

[JaseSF]

The Blob (1958) > The Blob (1988)
The Fly (1986) > The Fly (1958)
The Thing From Another World (1951) > The Thing (1982)
War of the Worlds (1953) > War of the Worlds (2005)
The Time Machine (1960) > The Time Machine (2002)
King Kong (1933) > King Kong (2005) > King Kong (1976)
Island of Lost Souls (1933) > Island of Dr. Moreau (1977)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) > Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) > Body Snatchers (1993)
Attack of the 50 Foot Woman (1958) > Attack of the 50 Foot Woman (1993)
Invaders From Mars (1953) > Invaders From Mars (1986)
Donovan's Brain (1953) > The Brain (1962)
Gojira (1954) > Gojira (1984) > Godzilla 2000 (1999) > Godzilla (1998)
The Lodger (1944) > Man in the Attic (1953)
Nosferatu (1922) > Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)
Night of the Living Dead (1968) > Night of the Living Dead (1990)
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1932) > Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920) > Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)
Phantom of the Opera (1925) > Phantom of the Opera (1943)
Rear Window (1954) > Rear Window (1998)
Mystery in the Wax Museum (1933) > House of Wax (1953)
Ju-on: The Grudge (2002) > The Grudge (2004)
The Man WHo Knew Too Much (1934) > The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
The Mummy (1932) > The Mummy (1959) > The Mummy (1999)
The Parent Trap (1961) > The Parent Trap (1998)
Zatôichi kenka-tabi (1963) > Zatôichi (2003)
Halloween (1978) > Halloween (2007)

Aside from Zombie's Halloween, I like all those films to some extent. I have yet to watch the remakes of Planet of the Apes, Manchurian Candidate, Friday the 13th, House of Wax (2005), Amityville Horror and several others.

[Mofo Rising]

I think very few remakes are worth your time, unless they take the original story idea and attack it from their own angle. Examples of this are THE THING and THE FLY, which are qualitatively different than the original. When they try to tell the same story again, just updated for "modern" audiences they are usually just pointless (and rarely done better). Even then, most of them are not done well. Tim Burton's PLANET OF THE APES is a great example.

I liked Savini's update of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, but other than better special effects, the original is still much more powerful.

I'm not saying they are all bad. Just that most of them are.

Also, for those who decry the remake of FRIDAY THE 13TH: Yes, it was bad, but the nudity level in that movie was leagues and away better than any movie previous. Shallow, I know, but it's the truth.

[WilliamWeird1313]

+ King Kong (2005) over the original King Kong.

Blasphemer!!!!!!!!

Well, SOMEBODY had to like it.

[Leah]

Frankenstein (1910) than the 1932
phantom of the Opera 1925 than the 1943

[The Burgomaster]

phantom of the Opera 1925 than the 1943

Good call . . . and both are better than the Herbert Lom version from the 1960s.

[Jim H]

+ King Kong (2005) over the original King Kong.

Blasphemer!!!!!!!!

The horror! The horror!

I actually agree.  I really like both (the original was one of my favorite films growing up, and was what inspired my continuing love of stop motion), but I do like the remake more.  In fact, King Kong was my favorite film of 2005. 

Sorta related, but I keep hearing people online talk about Jackson's King Kong as if it were hated by virtually everyone, ala Gigli or Catwoman or something.  Well, on the IMDB it has a 7.6, Metacritic has it at an 8.1, and on Rotten Tomatoes it's at 83%.  So, that's obviously not true. 

On another note, Godzilla, Godzilla 1984, and Godzilla 2000 are part of a series.  The only remake is the American version.

There are several versions of The Chinese Connection.  Fist of Legend is probably the most famous.  I'm not really a big fan of either film, honestly, but I feel Fist of Legend is the most overrated kung fu film in history - it's only decent.  Overall, I like the original film better.

[SPazzo]

The Man WHo Knew Too Much (1934) > The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

The remake was way better, even Hitchcock himself said it was.

Rear Window (1954) > Rear Window (1998) > Disturbia (2007)

I didn't like it as much as the original though.

[Flick James]

Good topic.

The remake of the The Hitcher was terrible. Nothing can outdo Rutger Hauer's performance in the original.

A less obvious one. City of Angels (1998) with Nicholas Cage and Meg Ryan was a godawful ripoff of a sublime German film by Wim Wenders, Wings of Desire (1987). I wholeheartedly believe Hollywood wanted to pass it off to the gullible general public that this was an original idea.

Possible upcoming remake. Arthur, starring Russell Brand. I like Russell Brand, but please I hope this project falls through. Who the hell could possibly pull off the character of Hobson like John Gielgud?

[Jim H]

A less obvious one. City of Angels (1998) with Nicholas Cage and Meg Ryan was a godawful ripoff of a sublime German film by Wim Wenders, Wings of Desire (1987). I wholeheartedly believe Hollywood wanted to pass it off to the gullible general public that this was an original idea.

Heh, forgot about that one.  I thought the Nic Cage film was bland as hell with a real cop-out of an ending, but I still liked it more than Wings of Desire, which I found to be one of the most boring films I've ever seen, despite its gorgeous cinematography and Peter Falk (the best thing about the film).  So, City of Angels wins by a hair. 

It's a perfect example of Hollywoodization at work though.

[BUREINPARESU]

The Wicker Man < Remake

Yes, I am being dead serious, the original's hokey atmosphere completely pales to the edgier Nic Cage version.

...Kidding.

[JaseSF]

Yes I do prefer the original The Man Who Knew Too Much...granted it's mostly because of Peter Lorre.

[WilliamWeird1313]

The Wicker Man < Remake

Yes, I am being dead serious, the original's hokey atmosphere completely pales to the edgier Nic Cage version.

...Kidding.

I almost cried. DON'T DO THAT!!!

::gasp::

[zombie no.one]

Black Christmas - the original is one of my faves, but the remake was putrid.

oh my god that remake was CRAP. maybe even the worst film I've ever seen, haha.

Dawn Of The Dead - love the original, but the remake was kinda meh.
I have absolutely no desire to see the Friday The 13th remake, the My Bloody Valentine remake, NOES 2010, etc., etc. It's kind of a cliche thing to say, but to me, remakes just taint the greatness of the originals.

I liked the remake of MBV. didn't get to see it in '3D' just on DVD on normal tv screen, thought it was better than the original. very good gore.

[BoyScoutKevin]

+ King Kong (2005) over the original King Kong.

Blasphemer!!!!!!!!

The horror! The horror!

I actually agree.  I really like both (the original was one of my favorite films growing up, and was what inspired my continuing love of stop motion), but I do like the remake more.  In fact, King Kong was my favorite film of 2005. 

Sorta related, but I keep hearing people online talk about Jackson's King Kong as if it were hated by virtually everyone, ala Gigli or Catwoman or something.  Well, on the IMDB it has a 7.6, Metacritic has it at an 8.1, and on Rotten Tomatoes it's at 83%.  So, that's obviously not true. 

On another note, Godzilla, Godzilla 1984, and Godzilla 2000 are part of a series.  The only remake is the American version.

There are several versions of The Chinese Connection.  Fist of Legend is probably the most famous.  I'm not really a big fan of either film, honestly, but I feel Fist of Legend is the most overrated kung fu film in history - it's only decent.  Overall, I like the original film better.

High ratings for Peter Jackson's "King Kong?" Then read "Monster Rally" by Edward Robinson, as there is an essay in it  by S. Michael Wilson called "A Giant Fall: a Critical Look at Peter Jackson's 'King Kong.'" A big fan of Jackson's earlier films, he points out, that this version of the film is too long. Too bloated. Spends too much time on minor characters. Has too much speechifying. Spends too much time one pointless foreshadowing. Has too many scenes that just slow down the pace of the film. All because Jackson, after "Lord of the Rings," stopped being a "filmmaker" and became an "epic filmmaker." Maybe it should have been hated by everyone.

And as in this case, looking at the critical reaction to the film versus that of the audience, (IMHO) audiences are better able to pick out a "good" film than the critics.