for instance: the original Omen 1976 was far more excellent than its remake
2007-02-24 00:45:20 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
"The original Fog" from John Carpenter 1980 was far more excellent than its remake either
2007-02-24 00:47:50 · update #1
Well, the remake of Casino Royale wasn't too bad, but in most cases you are right they never live up to the original.
2007-02-24 00:57:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that it's often because they pick films that did well to remake. For example, (and this is hypothetical) Gus Van Sant saw Psycho and said to himself, "Wow, that was a really brilliant film. Hitchcock is a genius. It was popular too. Well, I shoudl remake it, cause if it was popular then it is sure to be popular now." I think they'd do better if they remade old films that weren't great. But instead they pick classics like 'The Flight of the Phoenix' and 'The Manchurian Candidate.' The only remake i've seen in the last number of years that was better than the origional is 'The Italian Job,' and no one has seen the origional!
2007-02-24 10:32:49 · answer #2 · answered by rasagathi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As you can see from the above answers, not all remakes/sequels are bad. Some of them are actually better than the original. What makes a film good is not an answer that can be formulated easily. There are a lot of factors involved, and not always can all those factors be successfully used...
2007-02-24 09:37:33 · answer #3 · answered by M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, there ARE exceptions. What about the Kenneth More version of "The 39 Steps"?
Though I think generally it's because a director who remakes a film puts his own slant on it, which usually detracts from the original story. Usually (I suggest), instead of trying to re-tell the story, he's trying to make a buck or two.
2007-02-24 09:02:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The motivation for making it is not there, and sometimes, it is mere mimicry (like the remake of Psycho) as well as a pale imitation.
There has to be a true reason for a remake, like it wasn't done right the first time (Black Cauldron comes to mind)
2007-02-24 10:43:54 · answer #5 · answered by Experto Credo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well i reckon it's all in the head such a hype built up on the first film or the "classics" which everyone is used to so when there is a sequal or remake to a film you expect it to be as good as the first 1 an naturally everyone is dissapointed when it's not what they compared it to!
2007-02-24 09:14:16 · answer #6 · answered by youngcouple_xx 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I hardly ever like a remake the original is always the better movie.The one remake I did like better was Cape Fear!Robert DeNiro was scary as heck in this movie!
2007-02-24 09:27:16 · answer #7 · answered by Pamela V 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Shining was another one Jack Nicholson Vs. Steven Webber? No contest Jack is much scarier. Steven is better in the role of a supportive family man not a psycho.
2007-02-24 09:21:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not always true. Heat was a remake of L.A. Takedown and was on par with the original if not better.
2007-02-24 08:49:05 · answer #9 · answered by R Stoofaloh 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Simple-movie writers can't think of anything new so they rewrite classics making them crapper.
2007-02-24 09:30:17 · answer #10 · answered by wasimgasim 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋