Are re-makes ever better?

[x-machina]

Have you ever sat through a re-make of a movie and thought that it was actually an improvement of the original? Or are they always just hollywood money grabs trying to pull a few of the older fans into a movie they would other-wise never see?

The only re-make that I ever liked more than the original was The Thing from the 80's. But, to be honest it pretty much has nothing to do with the original black and white version. Other than an being set in an arctic setting, it has no similarities. So, I really do not think it should have been called The Thing.


So what do you think, are re-makes ever a good idea?

 

[Draconalis]

Uuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I know there's 1 remake that I liked... but I can't put my finger on it...

Ocean 11 maybe? I seem to recall maybe seeing the original of that, and I LOVED the remake.

I don't know... I feel like there's a remake that I like more than the original, but nothing comes to mind other than, maybe, Oceans 11... and I'm not sure I saw that original.

No... I HAD to have seen the original, we watched it before we watched the remake in my film crit class. I just don't remember anything about it besides how it ended.

 

[Rawne1980]

I'm going to say 'sometimes'.

As you said, The Thing was a decent film but you also hit the point about the main reason some remakes don't work.

They change it.

If it was a popular film in it's time and it gets remade then fans of the original are likely to dislike it.

I'll take Nightmare on Elm Street. I loved the original. I was 11 when I saw it back in 91, watched it with my elder brother. Due to being that age and watching a film like that it stuck with me and i'll grant you I had a childs rose tinted goggles on when watching it and it became 'the best horror film ever'. Like I said, I was 11 and it's been the only film to creep me out to date.

Then I watched the remake.

Now I know I watched it through those same rose tinted goggles I had back when I was a child but it just didn't have anywhere near the impact the original did. The creepy moments were gone and replaced by what constitutes horror these days ..... a slasher fest.

When they remake films they change it so much so people who watched and loved the original sometimes fail to appreciate the newer one. Remakes of films I enjoyed tend to get overlooked by me as being a cheap copy. It doesn't matter whether that remake is good or not it's taken something I have a memory of and tried to change it and, for me at least, a remake will never hold the same appeal as the original did.

Thats by no means at all saying that remakes are bad. I couldn't possibly hope to speak for everyone I just know that if it's a film of which I enjoyed the original then i'm not going to like a remake.

 

[Vausch]

Scarface, The Thing, and Captain America: The First Avenger but pretty much in name only.

/thread.

 

[BonsaiK]

I thought the newer Dawn Of The Dead was way better that George A. Romero's one.

 

[Slimshad]

Scarface and The Thing

/thread.

Don't do that.

Anyways, remakes are generally better if the thing they're remaking was utter shit. I mean, the remake can be bad too, but usually they're better on some level than the original. Clash of the Titans was a terrible, terrible movie in almost every aspect. At least the remake had some acting in it (If minimal).

Again, remakes can be better from good movies as well but at a rarer rate, in my opinion at least. Ocean's Eleven is one, Red Dragon is another; it's sort of a hit or miss.

 

[Draconalis]

I just went through a list of Remakes, and either I've seen the remake and not the original, or I've seen the original, and not the remake...

Though, I'd have to say, True Grit was probably better than the John Wayne version... From what I understand, the John Wayne version didn't really have anything to do with the story, but John Wayne was in it, and so it was great. And since I'm not a John Wayne fan... I doubt his very presence is going to make the movie better than the remake in my mind.

 

[Vausch]

Scarface and The Thing

/thread.

Don't do that.

Anyways, remakes are generally better if the thing they're remaking was utter shit. I mean, the remake can be bad too, but usually they're better on some level than the original. Clash of the Titans was a terrible, terrible movie in almost every aspect. At least the remake had some acting in it (If minimal).

Again, remakes can be better from good movies as well but at a rarer rate, in my opinion at least. Ocean's Eleven is one, Red Dragon is another; it's sort of a hit or miss.

Sorry, I've never done that before and it was just a "what's it like". Not doing it again.

Also nobody mentioned Lord of the Rings. I know all 5 movies (Bakshi's, Rankin/Bass, and Jackson's) movies are adaptations of a book, but Jackson's could count as a remake. I loved Bakshi's version and thought he made a better Frodo, but in the end Jackson's versions just came out beautifully.

 

[Draconalis]

Also nobody mentioned Lord of the Rings. I know all 5 movies (Bakshi's, Rankin/Bass, and Jackson's) movies are adaptations of a book, but Jackson's could count as a remake. I loved Bakshi's version and thought he made a better Frodo, but in the end Jackson's versions just came out beautifully.

Didn't mention it because I liked the cartoons better than the boring ass movies.

I know my opinion isn't the general consensus... but I didn't like the movies.

 

[BlueMage]

No, but remakes of games occassionally get it right.

Case in point: Lufia and the Curse of the Sinistrals. It's a remake of Lufia 2 on the SNES. And goddammit, they changed things. For the better.

 

[Toriver]

EDIT: Apparently the first and second one are vastly different. Thank you for the information.

 

[LobsterFeng]

I don't know about remakes, but I've seen a lot of movies that I think are better than the source material that they're based on. For example, the movie Stardust was better than the book in pretty much every aspect. In fact when I read the book, I was like "wazubuzuh?" This is just me though, of course.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I thought Rob Zombie's take on Halloween was pretty good. Haven't seen his sequel yet.

Anyway, I think the problem remakes inevitably face is that they're always going to be compared to the originals instead of being judged on their own merits. And the originals are invariably always going to be viewed through rose-tinted glasses; so in that regard remakes are totally fucked before they've even made it to the gate.

 

[legendp]

Most remakes ARE better than the original. just some people prefer the original because of nostalga, however if a movie is good enough it does not need a remake, I mean you would not remake star wars V empire strikes back.
then again I suppose it is all down to preference, I much preferred the "peirce bronson"eg die another day james bond movie over the new one's.

 

[Slimshad]

Scarface and The Thing

/thread.

Don't do that.

Sorry, I've never done that before and it was just a "what's it like". Not doing it again.

Also nobody mentioned Lord of the Rings. I know all 5 movies (Bakshi's, Rankin/Bass, and Jackson's) movies are adaptations of a book, but Jackson's could count as a remake. I loved Bakshi's version and thought he made a better Frodo, but in the end Jackson's versions just came out beautifully.

Lol, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to tell you what to or what not to do. Everyone should/thread at some point in their life, and I did agree with your original choices.

And yeah, there are those animated lord of the rings that came first, but the don't compare to Jackson's.

 

[twistedmic]

I thought the newer Dawn Of The Dead was way better that George A. Romero's one.

I have to agree with you there. I enjoyed the 2004 version well enough to buy the dvd and watch it several times over. But I found the original very boring, so boring that I couldn't bring myself to finish watching it.

 

[awsome117]

It is a yes and no type of answer.

Old fans will almost always hate any remake as they feel it will/does "disgrace" the original, and make it publicly known how much it ruins the original and things like that.

New fans first coming into it will almost always love it, saying how awesome it is, then go to the original and enjoy that as well.

So I really don't understand why old fans hate remakes, as it gets new fans into it.

But then I remember people hate any type of change, and they also hate people.

So in reality, a remake should be a win-win, but it always turns out to be a lose-lose.