The reason the Carpenter version of the Thing is considered better than the original is both are based on the book but Carpenter's version is far closer to the book. So rather than being a remake it's more of a better adaption of the novel.
Are re-makes ever better?
- Thread starter x-machina
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's difficult to say, I've seen films that are remakes and enjoyed them, but mostly I never saw the original, so I can't compare... The same goes for games really.
I've seen plenty of terrible remakes, that is, most of the 80's horror films remade with all the good bits sucked out of them, like nightmare on elm street.
What really bothers me though is the unecessary remakes, like Quarantine, which pretty much the exact same film as REC, only in English! I would like to think that this is the film industry underestimating their audience, thinking the average english speaker couldnt bear to see a decent film that isnt in their native language! Just like how the rights to remake Troll Hunter in english have already been bought....
I've seen plenty of terrible remakes, that is, most of the 80's horror films remade with all the good bits sucked out of them, like nightmare on elm street.
What really bothers me though is the unecessary remakes, like Quarantine, which pretty much the exact same film as REC, only in English! I would like to think that this is the film industry underestimating their audience, thinking the average english speaker couldnt bear to see a decent film that isnt in their native language! Just like how the rights to remake Troll Hunter in english have already been bought....
Liono annoys the hell out of me, but aside from him I think all of the characters have been improved. It's really growing on me.astrav1 said:
Back on topic, I'm going to add myself to the list of folks who loved the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead.
I would also like to throw out the 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma starring Russell Crowe and Christian Bale.
There are a tremendous number of remakes that are better than the original. Generally, this happens when the original is relatively unknown and/or terrible. And that's why they don't get the same recognition as all of the really bad remakes - because often a lot of people don't even know they're remakes. And it's not really hard to see how this would happen: someone in a position to remake something sees a movie that completely failed to live up to an interesting premise and realizes that they could do a much better job.
For my contribution: Dune.
For my contribution: Dune.
just saying.
I've never enjoyed a remake of Kurosawa.
not even the Sergio Leone ones.
Kurosawa has done some great eastern enterpretations of shakespseare (throne of blood,Ran(which were Macbeth and King Lear))
I've never enjoyed a remake of Kurosawa.
not even the Sergio Leone ones.
Kurosawa has done some great eastern enterpretations of shakespseare (throne of blood,Ran(which were Macbeth and King Lear))
Since zombies are (more or less) fictional, they can be whatever the creator of the fiction tale wants them to be. They could even sparkle and romance the leading female character and technically they're still zombies if the screenwriter says so. Yes, I said that.Reaper195 said:
Running zombies was the best thing about the Dawn remake, they actually made the film scary, something that most zombie films are not. Slow zombies are silly and comical because they're not a threat - anyone in a traditional zombie scenario who can keep up a reasonable jogging pace and isn't too clumsy to trip or daft enough to lock themselves in a room with only one exit has about a 100% chance of survival. By making the zombies more powerful and quicker, there's a good reason to fear them.
The other thing the remake got righ that the original didin't is that the remake launched straight into the action - the world is crumbling by about the titme the opening credits. In other words there wasn't that obligatory 45 minutes of boring exposition and character-building that all horror movies seem to have.
Some i can think of are True Grit, 3:10 to Yuma and the Hellsing OAV. I do prefer the original Producers though.
There are a few, like True Grit, 3:10 To Yuma and Ocean's Eleven, but it's a rare thing. I suppose you could make a good case for Fright Night too, but it's very different. Things have to change enough so it's not pointless, but not so much it's unrecognisable.
Devilman. This is what the original looked like:
This is the remake version from the 80's/90's
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand my favorite incarnation is the 00's movie version (2006 I think)
This is the remake version from the 80's/90's
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand my favorite incarnation is the 00's movie version (2006 I think)
I see that Dawn of the Dead is already mentioned, so I'd say that I really liked The Fly, Bad News Bears, Halloween, and if foreign-to-english transitions count, it's Let Me In.
Seconded.kman123 said:
While im not sure I'd say that it's completely superior to the original (the movies might have the same premises, but the cast of characters are of different size and the first Dawn of the Dead had a different social commentary than the remake) it's probably the best zombie flick to come out in recent years. In my opinion it's far better than Romero's Land of the Dead (which I found to be kind of boring).
So im not going to say that the remake of dawn of the dead is "better" than the original, but I'll definetly say that it's an awesome film worthy of the name, and far from a redundant remake.
The original Casino Royale film was a parody of the spy genre, and is quite silly. It only takes a few elements of the original Ian Fleming story and the rest is a spoof.Toriver said:
The Daniel Craig film is a much closer adaptation, actually adapting the book's tale for a contemporary audience.
Slow zombies can be scary too.BonsaiK said:
The thing is they have to be portrayed as being in very large numbers, tireless and incredibly hard to kill/injure.
Kind of like how the intro-sequences and cut-scenes of some parts of the Resident Evil franchise portrays them (thinking of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis specifically). Despite the fact that armed police officers and swat teams try to form a perimiter and halt the advancing undead, no matter how many bullets they pump into the zombies they just won't go down completely and there are far too many of them so they eventually break through the firing-lanes and gang up on the police, devouring them mercilessly and relentlessly.
It's all go that "creeping, relentless death" about it. Yes, they might be slow, and you might be able to outrun them for some time, but you'll trip or get exhausted but the slow zombies never have to rest and they could pretty much cross oceans to find you (walking on the ocean floor) and eat you no matter how much you try to run or hide.
The thing is, not all movie directors are very adept at portraying zombies like that. Most of the time they just make the living main characters seem incredibly clumsy because they actually get out-witted/out-manouevred by a bunch of slow stiffs.
