I must have missed a whole bunch of movies. Whats the OG to Carpenter's The Thing ? The black and white The Thing That Wouldn't die ? Dawn of the Dead remake was cool but no where near the OG. And when was Scarface remade twice ?? Also Bassie im curiuous what about the US version of the Ring hit home more for you? IT felt very flat to me compared to the Japanese version.
Also Bassie im curiuous what about the US version of the Ring hit home more for you? IT felt very flat to me compared to the Japanese version.
I'll have to chalk some of it up to expectations and my mood.
The original was so built up to me as being phenomenal...but it didn't do a damn thing for me. Flat is actually a great way to describe how it felt. I wasn't invested/interested in anyone enough to care about what happened to them and the money shot was a huge letdown.
I expected terrible and tacky from the US version. But it actually made an impression! The horses haunted me for days and the jittery movements worked way better for me in the remake.
Neither were scary, but I found the remake more atmospheric.
One theory of mine: I think they almost invariably suck insofar as you experienced the original while a child, teen or early adult. Those are like your formative years (for lack of a better term) and when someone comes along and remakes something you experienced at that time (this time for a younger audience that didn't see/remember the OG) I think your reaction is often hostile or at least critical. Unless the remake is a LOT better.
I think there's two reasons to remake a film.
The less common: a studio and/or filmmaker sees a film with a good premise but it's under the radar (read: foreign) or doesn't quite meet full potential so they decide to "improve" on it.
The more common: a studio and/or filmmaker sees a good brand that's not been fully exploited (or hasn't been in a while) and decides to throw enough money on it and hope it's still bankable just based on its name alone.
I mean, who in their right mind thought "Psycho" 1) needed to be remade or 2) could be improved upon? That was a weaksauce cash move, pure and simple. So are MOST of the remakes out there and it's less about trying to make a *better* movie (unlike the less common example) and more about just trying to exploit a brand.
The very fact that the brand has any name recognition is usually a sign that the original was pretty good to begin with (not always but often) and that's going to make any possible remake a tough proposition in terms of trying to improve on it.
One theory of mine: I think they almost invariably suck insofar as you experienced the original while a child, teen or early adult. Those are like your formative years (for lack of a better term) and when someone comes along and remakes something you experienced at that time (this time for a younger audience that didn't see/remember the OG) I think your reaction is often hostile or at least critical. Unless the remake is a LOT better.
I think there's two reasons to remake a film.
The less common: a studio and/or filmmaker sees a film with a good premise but it's under the radar (read: foreign) or doesn't quite meet full potential so they decide to "improve" on it.
The more common: a studio and/or filmmaker sees a good brand that's not been fully exploited (or hasn't been in a while) and decides to throw enough money on it and hope it's still bankable just based on its name alone.
I mean, who in their right mind thought "Psycho" 1) needed to be remade or 2) could be improved upon? That was a weaksauce cash move, pure and simple. So are MOST of the remakes out there and it's less about trying to make a *better* movie (unlike the less common example) and more about just trying to exploit a brand.
The very fact that the brand has any name recognition is usually a sign that the original was pretty good to begin with (not always but often) and that's going to make any possible remake a tough proposition in terms of trying to improve on it.
I think your #2 reason can be split into a #2a and #2b. There's movies that are remade in order to more fully exploit an existing brand[/b] for a new audience (#2a). Then there's movies that are remade in order to more fully exploit an old idea[/b] for a new audience (#2b).
Tweens and teens may have heard of Nightmare on Elm Street (maybe the new one is merely another sequel, not a remake - but bear with me). Lets pretend it's a straight up remake of the OG. Have they seen the original? Maybe not. But the idea of it as a scary movie is likely in their head somewhere. That's a "brand" that can be revived for a new generation to more fully exploit it/bank on existing name recognition.
Then there's merely old ideas that Hollywood execs think they can revive for a new audience that was never around for the first one. Think "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3." Lots of folks went to see this on the strength of Denzel/Travolta/explosions. I am sure many had never heard of the OG and had no idea it was a remake. There's no existing name recognition for the new target audience here, just an old idea recycled for a new generation.
Some real crazy talk in this thread so far. Wile I disagree, I can kind of see why some people might like the Departed more but cannot get my head round The Ring. I don't even want to discuss the Dawn Of The Dead remake.
Are we still talking about remakes that didn't suck rather than that were actually better?
If so:
The Beat My Heart Skipped The Stepfather (not a patch on the original but ok on its own merits) DOA
There are also loads of sequels that surpass the originals in the horror genre.
Coasihn on Bassie's "Ring" doe. Those horse skeletons are horrid. We dug one up in our back yard when we were kids and it freaked me then.
Thomas Crown... I enjoyed the remake but actually wanted her to put them boobies away after a while. They were not even attractive.
Anyone taking a pop at "Rosemary's Baby" will choke. The OG was plain disturbing. I think I saw this too young, I was about 11 or 12 and I switched it off after a bit. It played on my mind for a while. It was Polanski, no? The impregnation thing was... ugh.
Comments
yeah no ones gonna disagree with that one.
Yer, the OG Departed pretty much sons the remake.
With RZA cameos?
Dawn of the Dead remake is better than the Romero OG.
Didn't see the OG of The Crazies, but I liked the remake.
Yup.
yup...
The new Star Trek wasnt a "reboot". It kept connections to the OG universe.
Its wasnt a remake of the intelligent VGER(read Hal) 1979 OG movie.
I'll take the heat, but the US Ringu made way more of an impression on me than the original.
The 1941 version of Dr.Jeckyll and Mr.Hyde - it is the definitive one imo. Spencer Tracy is f*cking evil in it. Essential viewing.
It definitely didn't suck. Didn't have any crazy bikers, but it didn't suck.
Whats the OG to Carpenter's The Thing ? The black and white The Thing That Wouldn't die ?
Dawn of the Dead remake was cool but no where near the OG.
And when was Scarface remade twice ??
Also Bassie im curiuous what about the US version of the Ring hit home more for you?
IT felt very flat to me compared to the Japanese version.
What the F*ck?
Do i need to remind you about the zombie baby shootout scene? That movie was garbage.
- spidey
I'll have to chalk some of it up to expectations and my mood.
The original was so built up to me as being phenomenal...but it didn't do a damn thing for me. Flat is actually a great way to describe how it felt. I wasn't invested/interested in anyone enough to care about what happened to them and the money shot was a huge letdown.
I expected terrible and tacky from the US version. But it actually made an impression! The horses haunted me for days and the jittery movements worked way better for me in the remake.
Neither were scary, but I found the remake more atmospheric.
The WIZ is my shit x 1000. Its its own animal within Black Cinema.
Black Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Musical that hasnt been done ever again.
Pre-Off The Wall MJ.
Shit was crazy laced w/ "messages" thoughout the flick.
Taxi cabs wouldnt stop for them.
Be A Lion = quasi Rastafarian upliftment Power image.
Richard Pryor.
Brand New Day written by Luther Vandross.
Quincy Jones.
World Trade Center as OZ =
Dont get me started.
I think there's two reasons to remake a film.
The less common: a studio and/or filmmaker sees a film with a good premise but it's under the radar (read: foreign) or doesn't quite meet full potential so they decide to "improve" on it.
The more common: a studio and/or filmmaker sees a good brand that's not been fully exploited (or hasn't been in a while) and decides to throw enough money on it and hope it's still bankable just based on its name alone.
I mean, who in their right mind thought "Psycho" 1) needed to be remade or 2) could be improved upon? That was a weaksauce cash move, pure and simple. So are MOST of the remakes out there and it's less about trying to make a *better* movie (unlike the less common example) and more about just trying to exploit a brand.
The very fact that the brand has any name recognition is usually a sign that the original was pretty good to begin with (not always but often) and that's going to make any possible remake a tough proposition in terms of trying to improve on it.
I think your #2 reason can be split into a #2a and #2b. There's movies that are remade in order to more fully exploit an existing brand[/b] for a new audience (#2a). Then there's movies that are remade in order to more fully exploit an old idea[/b] for a new audience (#2b).
Tweens and teens may have heard of Nightmare on Elm Street (maybe the new one is merely another sequel, not a remake - but bear with me). Lets pretend it's a straight up remake of the OG. Have they seen the original? Maybe not. But the idea of it as a scary movie is likely in their head somewhere. That's a "brand" that can be revived for a new generation to more fully exploit it/bank on existing name recognition.
Then there's merely old ideas that Hollywood execs think they can revive for a new audience that was never around for the first one. Think "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3." Lots of folks went to see this on the strength of Denzel/Travolta/explosions. I am sure many had never heard of the OG and had no idea it was a remake. There's no existing name recognition for the new target audience here, just an old idea recycled for a new generation.
Are we still talking about remakes that didn't suck rather than that were actually better?
If so:
The Beat My Heart Skipped
The Stepfather (not a patch on the original but ok on its own merits)
DOA
There are also loads of sequels that surpass the originals in the horror genre.
BAN
Coasihn on Bassie's "Ring" doe. Those horse skeletons are horrid. We dug one up in our back yard when we were kids and it freaked me then.
Thomas Crown... I enjoyed the remake but actually wanted her to put them boobies away after a while. They were not even attractive.
Anyone taking a pop at "Rosemary's Baby" will choke. The OG was plain disturbing. I think I saw this too young, I was about 11 or 12 and I switched it off after a bit. It played on my mind for a while. It was Polanski, no? The impregnation thing was... ugh.
HAS A FEAR OF CHOCOLATE MOUSSE
Crazytalk.
Or so I heard.
I'm just saying man. You know it's going to happen.
The original Scarface was from 1932 and starred Paul Muni. For some reason, another remake rings a bell, but I can't put my finger on it.
Batmon: I was totally thinking of the 70s Spiderman TV show.
you outta your mind???
Wrong thread.
Paging Martin..........
i agree, the makeup is soooo bad in the og.
but there is nothing quite like this scene in the remake: