Are re-makes ever better?
- Thread starter x-machina
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I like the reboots of the old slasher films. Why? Because they might have been horror/slasher back in the day, but now they are really, really bad. At least the latest Elm Street has actors closer to their characters age, not a late twenty something playing a thirteen year-old.
Back on track, I thought Dawn was a really good movie. I was surprised that I was somewhat attached to more characters than just Ving Rahmes because he is awesome and has a shotgun. The soundtrack was brilliant, the pacing was spot on...only thing that ruined it for me was running zombies.
The only problem I had with the remake of Dawn was the running zombies. They only belong in 28 Later movies, because those are angry people, not the walking/running dead. Actual zombies do not run, it is impossible.BonsaiK said:
Back on track, I thought Dawn was a really good movie. I was surprised that I was somewhat attached to more characters than just Ving Rahmes because he is awesome and has a shotgun. The soundtrack was brilliant, the pacing was spot on...only thing that ruined it for me was running zombies.
Lolita, as much as I love Kubrick's work Adrian Lyne's version is just better and more faithful to the original text.
The Thing, Dawn of the Dead, were really really good. I can't say I've seen too many remakes but it is really sad when they butcher them.
I mean really can you really say the original Dawn of the Dead was anywhere near as good as the new one? The old one was just hilariously bad, in my opinion anyway, had a hangout where we were mostly laughing at it, or our own stupidity.
I mean really can you really say the original Dawn of the Dead was anywhere near as good as the new one? The old one was just hilariously bad, in my opinion anyway, had a hangout where we were mostly laughing at it, or our own stupidity.
Yes, definitely. Plus it added the best sub-plot in the Resident Evil series, one that doesn't look like it was written by a 8 year old. This time by a 14 year old. But still, a slight improvement!Quantum Star said:
Apart from that, I hesitate to say True Grit is a remake as it's more another adaptation of the book. It's not like they remade the John Wayne version, they did the book.
Ghost in the Shell 2.0 I suppose. Only thing it changed was the visuals and some minor voice actors.
It's rare, because there are several things that need to come together for a remake to be any good (for the purposes of this answer, "reboots" are a type of creator-sponsored remake).
For starters, the original. The better the original is, the harder it's going to be to make a decent remake, because something that stands on its own doesn't really need to be remade. Contrastingly, remaking something bad sets the bar low, so making a remake that's better isn't that much of a strain (yet people still fuck it up). Someone earlier in the thread mentioned My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. Frankly, that franchise set the bar pretty low, so it's not saying much that it's better than previous incarnations (I won't get into a debate over whether or not it's actually good. Those topics have gotten really, really old and even I'm sick of egging you people on when they roll around). Let's contrast Red Dwarf, which was a fantastic show; like many British shows that get brought across the pond, rather than just playing the show as-is, jingoistic American networks feel the need to remake it for an American audience. The Red Dwarf remake was ''terrible'', no one liked it and I'm not even sure if you can actually find it anywhere anymore.
For another is the creator. A lot of remakes that get made and then suck, suck because what gets made is "I'll just make this movie over again, only this time I get credit for making it." If the creator doesn't have something unique to bring to the table, the remake is going to fall flat no matter what kind of cred they've got. Take, again, My Little Pony. When they gave it to Lauren Faust, she offered a fresh take on the franchise, which has contributed massively to its popularity. Take a look at that A Christmas Carol movie with Jim Carrey, though; sure, it was animated mo-cap, which no one had ever done to A Christmas Carol before, and Jim Carrey was in it, but they didn't actually do anything new with the story (and doing that mo-cap animation thing didn't work for Polar Express or Mars Needs Moms either).
Then there's timing. I'm not even going to give you examples for this one. Just keep this in mind: If the actors from the original could still believably play their roles today (barring children), it's too soon for a remake.
tl;dr Yes, and My Little Pony is a good example of how to do it right, but it's not often that people DO do it right.
For starters, the original. The better the original is, the harder it's going to be to make a decent remake, because something that stands on its own doesn't really need to be remade. Contrastingly, remaking something bad sets the bar low, so making a remake that's better isn't that much of a strain (yet people still fuck it up). Someone earlier in the thread mentioned My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. Frankly, that franchise set the bar pretty low, so it's not saying much that it's better than previous incarnations (I won't get into a debate over whether or not it's actually good. Those topics have gotten really, really old and even I'm sick of egging you people on when they roll around). Let's contrast Red Dwarf, which was a fantastic show; like many British shows that get brought across the pond, rather than just playing the show as-is, jingoistic American networks feel the need to remake it for an American audience. The Red Dwarf remake was ''terrible'', no one liked it and I'm not even sure if you can actually find it anywhere anymore.
For another is the creator. A lot of remakes that get made and then suck, suck because what gets made is "I'll just make this movie over again, only this time I get credit for making it." If the creator doesn't have something unique to bring to the table, the remake is going to fall flat no matter what kind of cred they've got. Take, again, My Little Pony. When they gave it to Lauren Faust, she offered a fresh take on the franchise, which has contributed massively to its popularity. Take a look at that A Christmas Carol movie with Jim Carrey, though; sure, it was animated mo-cap, which no one had ever done to A Christmas Carol before, and Jim Carrey was in it, but they didn't actually do anything new with the story (and doing that mo-cap animation thing didn't work for Polar Express or Mars Needs Moms either).
Then there's timing. I'm not even going to give you examples for this one. Just keep this in mind: If the actors from the original could still believably play their roles today (barring children), it's too soon for a remake.
tl;dr Yes, and My Little Pony is a good example of how to do it right, but it's not often that people DO do it right.
Depends on how old the original film was or how bad it was. Example Ang Lee Hulk was a total boredfeast while the Incredible Hulk was so much better!
Remakes I Feel are superior:
The Thing
The Fly
The Blob
Red Dragon
Invasion of the Body Snatchers - 1978 one
Scarface
Titanic
Little Shop of Horrors
Payback
The Ring - I like it better than Ringu
Man on Fire
Talented Mr. Ripley
Ocean's 11
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
His Girl Friday
Dracula - 1992 Coppala one
You've got Mail - I'm not a fan but the original movie is crap. Plus it's really just another adaptation of a musical called She Loves Me, which is the best of them all.
Tombstone - Some will say Wyatt Earp, but either is better than My Darling Clementine or Gunfight at the OK Corral
Remakes that aren't as good as the original but still good.
Cape Fear
A Fistful of Dollars
The Magnificent Seven
King Kong
The Departed
The Grudge
Dawn of the Dead
Last Man Standing
The Thing
The Fly
The Blob
Red Dragon
Invasion of the Body Snatchers - 1978 one
Scarface
Titanic
Little Shop of Horrors
Payback
The Ring - I like it better than Ringu
Man on Fire
Talented Mr. Ripley
Ocean's 11
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
His Girl Friday
Dracula - 1992 Coppala one
You've got Mail - I'm not a fan but the original movie is crap. Plus it's really just another adaptation of a musical called She Loves Me, which is the best of them all.
Tombstone - Some will say Wyatt Earp, but either is better than My Darling Clementine or Gunfight at the OK Corral
Remakes that aren't as good as the original but still good.
Cape Fear
A Fistful of Dollars
The Magnificent Seven
King Kong
The Departed
The Grudge
Dawn of the Dead
Last Man Standing
Damn straight. Dawn of the Dead remake far eclipsed the original. However, the remake of Night of the Living Dead (they're coming to get you Bar-ba-raaaa!!) was God awful. Also, the sheer audacity of the original - a black man? The HERO?! Trail-blazing film making at its best.kman123 said:
"Some random movie"...? I think you meant to say "the very-successful-and-extremely-awesome movie."sivlin said:I looked up some good remakes and found that The Departed was actually a remake of some random movie called Infernal Affairs. Can't imagine Infernal Affairs was anywhere near as good as The Departed... but I could be wrong as I haven't seen it
Both are very good in their own way. Comparing them is understandable but ultimately kind of apples and oranges.
In terms of gaming, my only examples are the Pokemon games which were remakes.
They were better, if only through graphics and only comparing on terms of modern technology.
Thing is though I instantly hold points against it if it's a remake. It's not creative, it's just taking an old idea and trying it again when it already succeeded.
On that merit I think that if a remake is to be judged against what it did differently and how that affected the game.
On this again Pokemon makes remakes better than the original because the add more to storylines and bonus stuff. Upcoming remakes like Halo Anniversary is simply a graphical update and the addition of multiplayer. I'm not sure if it's worth getting it again for a higher price and only to see it looking better and the option to face the ranting, camping groups that make up matchmaking.
TLR
I just don't like the ideas of remakes but sometimes they do work with Pokemon being a decent example.
Films I like even less. If the original was good then just leave it alone. I'm looking at you George Lucas.
They were better, if only through graphics and only comparing on terms of modern technology.
Thing is though I instantly hold points against it if it's a remake. It's not creative, it's just taking an old idea and trying it again when it already succeeded.
On that merit I think that if a remake is to be judged against what it did differently and how that affected the game.
On this again Pokemon makes remakes better than the original because the add more to storylines and bonus stuff. Upcoming remakes like Halo Anniversary is simply a graphical update and the addition of multiplayer. I'm not sure if it's worth getting it again for a higher price and only to see it looking better and the option to face the ranting, camping groups that make up matchmaking.
TL
RI just don't like the ideas of remakes but sometimes they do work with Pokemon being a decent example.
Films I like even less. If the original was good then just leave it alone. I'm looking at you George Lucas.
rob zombies Halloween remake is the best halloween movie.
there still not that great but what slasher movie is.
there still not that great but what slasher movie is.
