Some i can think of are True Grit, 3:10 to Yuma and the Hellsing OAV. I do prefer the original Producers though.
Are re-makes ever better?
- Thread starter x-machina
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
Scarface. Some film snobs might scoff at the 1983 version in favor of the original "Scarface: Shame of a Nation" from 1932, but there's no denying that the remake is a hell of a movie, if only because Al Pacino as Tony Montana is one of the most culturally pervasive movie roles since it came out nearly 30 years ago. Everybody and their niece knows "SAY HELLO TO MY LITTLE FRIEND!" Also, as I have admitted on a few occasions, I'm a huge sucker for a good monologue, and Al Pacino's "bad guy" speech struck that chord pretty hard.
Metropolis. Originally a 1927 German expressionist film, it was roughly adapted into a manga in 1949, then into an anime in 2001. I'll admit, I never saw the original film (don't intend to, ever) and I barely remember the anime, as I only saw it once maybe 7-8 years ago. HOWEVER, the impression it left on my young teenage mind will remain until the end of days, like the first time you see Akira. Again, film snobs, yada original is artsy yada remakes suck every time yada. The anime was awesome.
According to the Nostalgia Critic, the remake of The Karate Kid was, taken as a whole, a superior film to the original, and I agree. Was it better in every way? Of course not, but some of the key points are just better done. In particular, Jackie Chan as Mr. Miyagi is a more believable person, with real emotional moments and a more fleshed out back-story. Also, it's Jackie fuck-mothering Chan.
King Kong. Was the re-make at least a half-hour too long? Probably. Was it even close to as ground-breaking as the original? No way. Was it still a great film? Absolutely. Was the re-make better? I think it was. Can I make a film snob joke one last time? Sure, but it's too obvious for this one.
Metropolis. Originally a 1927 German expressionist film, it was roughly adapted into a manga in 1949, then into an anime in 2001. I'll admit, I never saw the original film (don't intend to, ever) and I barely remember the anime, as I only saw it once maybe 7-8 years ago. HOWEVER, the impression it left on my young teenage mind will remain until the end of days, like the first time you see Akira. Again, film snobs, yada original is artsy yada remakes suck every time yada. The anime was awesome.
According to the Nostalgia Critic, the remake of The Karate Kid was, taken as a whole, a superior film to the original, and I agree. Was it better in every way? Of course not, but some of the key points are just better done. In particular, Jackie Chan as Mr. Miyagi is a more believable person, with real emotional moments and a more fleshed out back-story. Also, it's Jackie fuck-mothering Chan.
King Kong. Was the re-make at least a half-hour too long? Probably. Was it even close to as ground-breaking as the original? No way. Was it still a great film? Absolutely. Was the re-make better? I think it was. Can I make a film snob joke one last time? Sure, but it's too obvious for this one.
There have been more than a few really good or at least pretty decent remakes out there.
An Affair to Remember, The Blob, Nosferatu, The Birdcage, Little Shop of Horrors, Dawn of the Dead, The Ring, The Fly, The Producers.
I'm sure there are others but you get my drift I think.
The problem with a lot of the most recent remakes have been made with little to no intention of making a good movie to begin with, let alone bothering to do good remake.
Let's take the good folks over at Platinum Dunes for example. Their entire reason for existing is to pump out contemporary remakes of older horror or suspense movies. In and of itself I don't have a problem with that premise, the idea of updated reboots of The Ammityville Horror, or Friday the 13th seem like a good thing on paper.
Unfortunately everything they've released so far has been painfully boring, uninspired, mass market produced cack.
An Affair to Remember, The Blob, Nosferatu, The Birdcage, Little Shop of Horrors, Dawn of the Dead, The Ring, The Fly, The Producers.
I'm sure there are others but you get my drift I think.
The problem with a lot of the most recent remakes have been made with little to no intention of making a good movie to begin with, let alone bothering to do good remake.
Let's take the good folks over at Platinum Dunes for example. Their entire reason for existing is to pump out contemporary remakes of older horror or suspense movies. In and of itself I don't have a problem with that premise, the idea of updated reboots of The Ammityville Horror, or Friday the 13th seem like a good thing on paper.
Unfortunately everything they've released so far has been painfully boring, uninspired, mass market produced cack.
I preferred the remake of Fright Night to the original Fright Night for numerous reasons.
First it's because the best friend character:
Actually comes across as funny and likeable and even sympathetic, whereas in the original the best friend was annoying, obnoxious and his voice just made me want to punch him.
Second the girlfriend actually comes off as strong and capable this time rather then helpless and weak and in the redoing of the 'night club scene:
She actually looks like she's struggling against it and trying her best to resist it which in turn actually gives the scene some 'menace' to it. Plus it makes her look less like a floozy because in the original version of the movie the actress looked a little too into it for me to believe that she was being hypnotized.
At least here, there was some strength and active attempts to resist rather then just immediatley becoming compliant.
Third was that Peter Vincent in this movie was just freaking hilarious.
Plus the movie actually hurries up and gets to the point rather then spending hours on the 'nobody believes me' plot.
Also while I'm here, the Thing, the Fly, the Blob and even the Rob Zombie Halloween movies I actually quite liked.
First it's because the best friend character:
The one who gets turned into a Vampire
Second the girlfriend actually comes off as strong and capable this time rather then helpless and weak and in the redoing of the 'night club scene:
Where Jerry the Vampire hypnotizes and ultimatley seduces and infects her.
At least here, there was some strength and active attempts to resist rather then just immediatley becoming compliant.
Third was that Peter Vincent in this movie was just freaking hilarious.
Plus the movie actually hurries up and gets to the point rather then spending hours on the 'nobody believes me' plot.
Also while I'm here, the Thing, the Fly, the Blob and even the Rob Zombie Halloween movies I actually quite liked.
I think the original Casino Royale was a spy comedy, but don't take my word for it, I only remember seeing very little from it, so I may be wrongToriver said:
as for games, one that comes to mind is Tomb Raider Anniversary
that one was fun and I thought it improved on the original one
if anything, on the controls
Here's betting this won't be a popular opinion, but I loved The Mummy (which I think was a remake one of the old horror movies with Boris Karloff in it). It sure was good fun.
Of course, I thought the remake of The Hills Have Eyes was better than the original.x-machina said:
I would say yes, because if you're a fanboy of said remake, deep down, you know you loved it just to see that your fandom was reevaluated, and important enough for that reevaluation. Personal Note: The Dark Knight.
Query to answer this question. Is the New series' of Doctor Who better than the ones from the sixties and seventies?
Here's some amusing remakes for you.
A fisful of dollars
The Magnificent Seven
Star wars (A New Hope)
All remakes of films by Akira Kurosawa, I'd say Star Wars it the only one I prefer to it's original "Hidden Fortress"
But remakes back then were more for the sake fo crossing a cultural gap ie the Japanese audience to the western audience whereas now most remakes are made in the mind of a stagnant Hollywood system with no originality trying to cash in once again on once great films with sub par flashy remakes such as Halloween
Oh and one videogame remake: Resident Evil, in my mind the only remake that has completely blown the original away.
A fisful of dollars
The Magnificent Seven
Star wars (A New Hope)
All remakes of films by Akira Kurosawa, I'd say Star Wars it the only one I prefer to it's original "Hidden Fortress"
But remakes back then were more for the sake fo crossing a cultural gap ie the Japanese audience to the western audience whereas now most remakes are made in the mind of a stagnant Hollywood system with no originality trying to cash in once again on once great films with sub par flashy remakes such as Halloween
Oh and one videogame remake: Resident Evil, in my mind the only remake that has completely blown the original away.