There's just something about the first one that can't be recreated, so you love the first one and are expecting the same out of the second but don't get it usually.
2006-12-02 01:02:34 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
Most definitely the originals. It's like whey they do sequels they try and recapture what made the ogs. great and they end up stankin'.
2006-12-02 01:23:47 · answer #1 · answered by LaFemmeNakia 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The originals are usually better, even if they in black and white. Take Psycho, no one can play Norman Bates better than Anthony Perkins.
Prequels are also bad, as polished as the new Star Wars prequels are they are dead in the water when it comes to the personality of the originals. (Of course, I have to admit that Ewan McGregor as Obi Wan was out of this world, he pulled off a great younger version of Sir Alec Guinness).
Remakes in general attempt to create the same story but fit in modern sensibilities and therefore do not stay true to the original premise, this is the main failing, also they tend to use actors that do not have a unique personality so they become something that is unmemorable.
Sometimes it the actor that pulls off the trick and makes a movie wonderful. Take for example the movies based on Richard Matheson "I am Lengend", the first one, "Last Man on Earth" starting Vincent Price is IMO the best version, the second one, "Omega Man" while good, sucked because they went totally off base with the book, now we going to have another one staring Will Smith, and I fear what it might turn out to be.
2006-12-02 01:23:36 · answer #2 · answered by Dragonlord Warlock 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Peter Jackson's King Kong is the only decent remake I know. I've watched it in a theater twice. I too loved the original Kong but There's just something about the first one that can't be recreated, instead something new is created from the remake that is unique from the original.
2006-12-02 01:24:18 · answer #3 · answered by Samlovesjesea 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There has to be a real reason for the remake and not just because the technology is improved. If you do nothing to make the story better or the acting better, it's just a lame remake
2006-12-02 01:14:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most of the time, but sometimes the remakes can be amusing. Take 'Dawn of the Dead' for instance, I love the original and it's a classic, but for a light and fluffy zombie horror, the remake was worth seeing.
2006-12-02 04:30:57 · answer #5 · answered by Girl In IL 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. My example, The Pink Panther. Steve Martin is funny, but 1. The diamond was on a necklace, not the ring. 2. Clouseau did not fall for a black woman (Beyonce).
2006-12-02 01:11:10 · answer #6 · answered by #1denverfan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, Old movie its the Original, most the content gets lost after someone does there version
2006-12-02 01:15:35 · answer #7 · answered by Chauni 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just as in music, the sound of the original artist you can never quite duplicate. Due to technology the sound may be better, but the original remains best as in movies.
2006-12-02 03:38:09 · answer #8 · answered by Vintage Music 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes most times the originals are better, unless enough time as gone by and no one really remembers the original. Or if the original was so-so.
2006-12-02 01:12:10 · answer #9 · answered by Cristine D 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I DO! The original is always better. They always screw it up in the remake and it's nowhere near as good.
2006-12-02 01:07:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋