Ideas have been done and redone in other artforms ever since the beginning. Is anyone angry at Michelangelo's David after Donatello came out with it first? No one seems to mind how many times Saint Sebastian has been painted, do they? Why should movies be different?
2006-10-07 20:51:14 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
It's not the fact that it's a remake. It's the fact that most of the time the remakes suck...
Why take a good thing and then destroy it? That's what makes me angry at them.
2006-10-07 20:54:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Superman was not a remake, but remakes get tedious. I mean really how many versions of the same movie can shown over and over? If movie studios cant find original material then they should nt be making movies.I have seen one remake that i liked as much as the original and that was King Kong, most remakes i dont bother ever watching and never will. lots of literary work that could be turned into movies but they from all around the world
2006-10-08 04:13:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they rarely equal or supass the original.
Ben Hur was better than the silent version for example. Batman was better than the Adam west version in the 1960's. However the new Superman was not better than Chris Reeves. And remake of the a Classic like Charlotte's Web is doomed to be bad...
Overall it shows a lack of orignal thought.
2006-10-07 21:16:18 · answer #3 · answered by lana_sands 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wasn't the first one good enough? Are they insulting the motion picture artists that created the original by trying to do one better? Why can't they have enough imagination to create something new.
I believe a good story is worth retelling. Special effects improve over time. Each artist interprets the subject differently, this is also true for movies. I like remakes. I also like it better when the time, energy and finances are applied to a new creation developed by a good imagination..
2006-10-07 21:12:33 · answer #4 · answered by J Z 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The remakes are normally crap. Even if the original was crap it was still original crap. If the original was good and the remake is crap then people get confused and never see the original because they heard the movie was crap (remake). It would be better to steal the story, change all the names and use a different title, but then they would not hook those who were told the movie was good(original)
2006-10-07 21:04:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
for the rec. i like the gone in 60 sec remake
sometimes there has to be a remake of the original, sometimes bad sometimes good, but i think remakes happen for a reason, and that is to reach the audience who hasn't seen the remake but don't wont to see the original, because in their mind they think it might be crap considering it was made a long time ago with crappy special effects. just like the original gone in 60 sec, it was alright but it wasn't great.
2006-10-08 10:20:42 · answer #6 · answered by triplet 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While it is true, there are only so many plots. As a rule, remakes in the movies are not as good as the originals. And that goes for sequels, as well.
2006-10-07 20:55:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like remakes. If they are really good and well done.
Imagine "Ladykillers" — I like the old one with
Sir Alec Guinness, Peter Sellers, Herbert Lom
and more...
But I do like the new one too with Tom Hanks.
Nothing wrong with a remake.
2006-10-07 23:04:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you ever watch Gremlins 2, it was much more entertaining than Gremlins 1, but it was an exception.
2006-10-07 21:01:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes the original is usually the best!!
2006-10-07 20:53:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋