Are re-makes ever better?

[floppylobster]

Dawn of the Dead, while not perfect, was overall better. Peter Jackson's King Kong was better than the 70s remake but neither were better than the original.

I lot of people seem to like the Lion King over the Kimba the White Lion but since Disney won't admit it was a remake I guess it doesn't count.

But overwhelming remakes lack the spark of inspiration, and quite obviously the originality, that the original works have.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Remakes can be good... in certain situations.

Some remakes are legitimized by the fact that the original concept was excellent, but the product fell through for a variety of reasons, such as technical issues (Pre-CGI/Robotics/all those neat tricks we know), lack of funding, or poor scripting/acting (This is usually caused by poor funding). Movies like this are often remade when someone watches it, sees how good the core of the movie was, and decides to put the necessary funding and love into it so that that core shines bright.

And then you have money grabs, which also include poorly advised sequels (Predators comes to mind).

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.

Conan fell victim to this. I haven't seen the new one but in every review I read they always compare it to the Original.

Arnold punched out a CAMEL in the original. Of course a comparison is going to be made when the original portrayed a badass, ill-tempered, drunk hero with, lets be honest, no redeemable characteristics beyond 'might makes right.'

Simply put, it would be a crime not to do a remake and not keep that character. And while I never watched the new one, I hear that crime is what happened.

 

[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.

Conan fell victim to this. I haven't seen the new one but in every review I read they always compare it to the Original.

I haven't seen the new Conan yet, but I recently watched the original on Netflix and I didn't think it was all that good. Sure it was sort of amusing, in an MST3K kinda way.

 

[Squilookle]

Yeah I'll say Oceans 11 as well. I just wish they didn't do that horrible Italian Job remake, and even think about remaking Rififi.

I quite enjoyed the King Kong remake, and you could say some elements of A Night to Remember were borrowed for Titanic, so I'll say that one too.

And does The Mask of Zorro count? if it does then that one. In spades.

 

[chaosyoshimage]

Does Casino Royale count? I haven't seen many movie remakes, and the ones I have, I haven't seen the original.

Cartoonwise, most of the newer versions of old cartoons are better than the older ones. DC and Marvel cartoons, ThunderCats, Transformers, G.I. Joe, He-Man, etc.

Games, we see great remakes all the time.

The only the non-cartoon remakes I've seen are The Office and Battlestar Galactica. I think they're both better than the originals. Although, The Office is now a zombie...

 

[Hollock]

Yes, but it pisses me off a little.

 

[dessertmonkeyjk]

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.

Dude... don't be giving George Lucas any ideas.

 

[astrav1]

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?

Ever watch the new Thundercats? Kicks massive ass.

 

[Kingjackl]

The Producers remake was better than the original. Twelve Angry Men, Cheaper By the Dozen. Their are remakes which are better than the original.

 

[PAGEToap44]

I really, REALLY dig the remake of Dawn Of The Dead. I absolutely adore the end credits. That was what propelled it from a great remake to better than the original.

Yes...

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

...and yes.

Love this film. I used to think this was the one and only Dawn of the Dead film. The original just passed me by completely. I'd say this was the film that got me interested in the zombie genre.

 

[Brandiferous]

I thought the remake to Fright Night was actually really good. So much so that it didn't even really feel like a remake, it just happened to have the same storyline as the original.

 

[TheKramers]

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?

Wow, what a vague title. Of course some remakes are going to be good, and others aren't, therefore the question in the aforementioned title, can't be answered.

OT: War of the Worlds (2005) was better than the remake. However, that might be because in 1953 they didn't even have the technology required to make it believable in the least.

 

[Srkkl]

I liked the second Producers better than the original.

 

[ChupathingyX]

And does The Mask of Zorro count? if it does then that one. In spades.

As much as I love that film, no, it was not a remake.

Personally I can't really think of any, however, I did enjoy Peter Jackson's King Kong (it wasn't perfect but I enjoyed it) but I haven't seen the original so I can't really compare.

 

[Kae]

I really, REALLY dig the remake of Dawn Of The Dead. I absolutely adore the end credits. That was what propelled it from a great remake to better than the original.

Yes...

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

...and yes.

Love this film. I used to think this was the one and only Dawn of the Dead film. The original just passed me by completely. I'd say this was the film that got me interested in the zombie genre.

Well that is a really good movie, and I still like it, I watched the original after and although I like it I do think the remake is better but let's be honest here the single best zombie movie ever has to be Day of the Dead, seriously I watched that movie just because I had watched the Dawn of the Dead Remake and it is now one of my favorite movies of all time, it's a shame about the remake for that one though, I mean with the vegetarian zombie and all that.
Also I'm pretty sure Evil Dead 2 is a remake of the first one so I'm going to go with THAT.

 

[dave1004]

Does anime count? The remaking of Hellsing was brilliant and tactfully done.

 

[Quantum Star]

The Resident Evil REmake managed to turn RE 1 from a laughable, not-scary game into an utterly terrifying one. I'd call that a victory for remakes.

 

[rosemystica]

Rarely, but it is possible. John Carpenter's The Thing was a remake of an old 1950s movie, and it's one of the best horror movies of all time. I think it all just comes down to the amount of effort, attention, and thought put into it. If it's made just to cash in and not add much to the story or characters, then it sucks. I hate the remakes of Halloween and Halloween 2 for this reason; they added blood, gore, boobs, and a stupid backstory to one of the greatest slasher movies of all time, but not anything *worthwhile.*

The modern 80s-cartoon remake/reboot/updates are pretty damn great, too--My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is brilliant, and so are GI Joe: Renegade and Thundercats. These are quality remakes because fans made them with love, rather than solely looking towards cashing in on a trend. (Also: I would LOVE to see a modern reboot/remake of Bravestarr. A lot could be done with that series these days!)

 

[Snake Plissken]

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.

No. No. Bad. Wrong. No. Uh-Uh.

George A. Romero > Everything ever