Does anyone consider remakes better than originals?

Question

I think that the remakes of The Hills Have Eyes and When A Stranger Calls are better than the originals. Both versions of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre are really good.

Answer 1

The re-make of "The Fly" was good but I don't see any reason
to re-make "The Poseidan" because the original was super good
and Did you know? Shelly Winters actually did her own scene
in swimming to the next section.

Answer 2

Right now of all the horror remakes very few have anything new to offer other than better special effects.

For my money, the originals are way better since the terrifying part of the story was better.

I still think that Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of the creepiest films made because of the graininess of the film quality and the music. Same goes for the Hills Have Eyes and movies like The Wicker Man.

Today's remakes rely too heavily on more blood and Special EFX to force scares out of the audience. I get more creeped out by the originals than the remakes because in the remakes, every scary moment is over-punctuated by a piercing sound. That's not scary, that's annoying.

But to each his own. Enjoy. Try the original J-Horror films. They follow the traditional horror concepts of scaring audiences with the story and situations, not the gore and effects.

The Dude.

Answer 3

The only remake I can actually really say for sure that I think was better than the original is... "The Thomas Crown Affair"

The Original is fantastic, but the creative mind turns the re-make into quite a story, with tons of differences. Also, Faye Dunaway from the original has a cameo appearance in the re-make...

One other re-make I LOVE!!! Is Ocean's Eleven. The storyline is crazy and totally more detailed in the remake, making the original pretty boring... However, it was the Rat Pack - we are talking about Sinatra here so let's have a little respect...
BUT, we all also have to remember that the re-make was brought hard by the rat pack of our generation... all the best actors on the planet. And, it was a damn good movie!!!

I don't really get into horror movies but I would agree that any newer version of an old horror flick would be better because all the ppl who make them KNOW EXACTLY how to scare the hell out of you more than they used to!!!

Answer 4

i would say when it comes to horror movie the remakes are usually better. There is better technique and more modern special effects and stuff. thats why most remakes are horror movies. Not comedy like The Women or something like that. But they should remake the movie clue in a few years. that might be pretty sweet.

Answer 5

It just depends on the film. Films like When a Stranger calls and The Hills Have eyes are awful! I haven't seen the original of either and don't plan to, horrible plots. A very little amount of horror films actually have a goods plots. All in all it just depends on the film.

Answer 6

The recent version of King Kong was great but it seems that at least sometimes that remakes tend to be poorly done or the person(s) behind it were not up to the challenge.

The movie version of Dukes of Hazzard is an example of where it was a poorly done job; I enjoyed part of it but it wasn't up to the standards of the tv show (which is frightening when you think about it).

Answer 7

I prefer the original movies......the remakes are good but there is a certain something to the original. The house of wax was alright but the original was great~~classic.

Answer 8

I think they were better than the originals too. The remake to House of Wax is better than the original too. In my opinion anyways.

Answer 9

Maybe just as good, but never better. Generally remakes and sequels are horrible. There have been only a few that were actually enjoyable and not a pain in my behind.

Answer 10

sometimes but not usually the remake is better. i think the remake of war of the worlds is better than the original.