Anybody think Movie remakes match up to the original?
2006-07-05 03:53:05 · 24 answers · asked by Sua 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
Please give examples of remakes that you think are better than the original
2006-07-05 03:59:26 · update #1
Generally I prefer originals to remakes. In many cases, the only reason for a remake seems to be to add more violence and gore (example being "Planet of the Apes.") I also read somewhere that studios go with remakes because the original movie is a proven success. Sometimes this works, as with King Kong (better effects actually helped this one) but if you are a real fan, the remake is often a letdown because you keep comparing things to the original instead of just getting into the movie.
Me, I prefer originals. Sure, classic films have a different style and less adrenaline rush. But in many cases, the storylines are more in-depth -- an example being "The Day The Earth Stood Still," which has very little in the way of effects. The flying saucer looks fakey and the robot is obviously a guy in a rubber suit -- but if you can get over that, the script is excellent and still very relevant today -- and the B&W lighting effects are fantastic. There could never be a remake of this classic without totally ruining it!
2006-07-05 04:12:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 5⤋
The only remake that I think is better than the original is Sabrina. The original was boring and it wasn't clear that the characters even liked each other, let alone wanted to marry! The remake with Harrison Ford was better.
2006-07-05 10:57:37 · answer #2 · answered by moviegirl 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's rare that a remake is better than the original, but I think John Carpenter's The Thing was better than the original (The Thing From Another World).
2006-07-05 17:34:12 · answer #3 · answered by oapboba 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't think of any film remakes that were better than the originals, I quite liked the remake of Ocean's Eleven, but it wasn't better than the original, otherwise remakes tend to be a lot worse than the original films.
2006-07-05 15:37:31 · answer #4 · answered by Rotifer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think you should mess with perfection. If the movie was good the first time, then there is no need to remake it so younger generations can experience it. That's why we have Netflix and Blockbuster. Example...The Omen.....scared the holy crap out of me the first time I saw it. Was it really necessary to do a newer version this year when the first one was great? Except for the advantage of special effects and other advancements in CGI, I say work on new movies and let the classics stay the way they were intended to be with all of their cheesy graphics and effects!
2006-07-05 11:08:08 · answer #5 · answered by oreoprincess24 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Storyline of originals are better than remakes because you know how the remakes gonna end, however the only remake which i think is better than the original was godzilla and purely on special effects.
2006-07-05 11:02:22 · answer #6 · answered by JARLAB 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends. Tecnology has come along ways. Some remakes are really good.
Although the originals still can't be beat.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre- Original
Amityville Horror-Well the remake scared me to death.
There are alot of remakes.
2006-07-05 11:01:10 · answer #7 · answered by ♫♪♥mï®♥♫♪ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
With some movies I not only think they match up to the original but surpass them. And then others there is no comparison and they should have never made a remake.
2006-07-05 10:56:54 · answer #8 · answered by foolnomore2games 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think no remake can really compare to the originals. Nowadays, everyone uses computer generated images to make movies but in the originals one just had to be a genius to come up with something like KingKong (man in a gorilla suit) and make it almost believable by the camera angles.
2006-07-05 13:41:22 · answer #9 · answered by twinkledrops 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some remakes are good only because the special effects have gotten better through the years.
2006-07-05 13:21:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋