Remakes or not remake.

[RamesesII]

With all this new age technology and cinematic experiences and graphics and effects a lot of old and not so old movies have been getting a re-vamp or remake, I for one am pretty sold on a lot of them not all but it is good to see a come back on classics like Clash of the Titans etc I am so hanging for the new Astro boy to come to Australia plus I also found out that Nightmare on Elm Street is getting or had should I say a remake which I am kind of into.

I never really like the old originals because they were a bit after my time i guess and of course by the time I was old enough to watch them or even become interested in horror films we had all this new technology so I am pumped to see this new version.

Of course there are the classics that I will never want to see re done like Star Wars of course and others.

There would be one I would really like to a remake of The Never Ending Story piss the other three off and make one from detail off the book in one movie.

Anyway you liking these remakes or you reckon we should leave the classics alone and stop ruining them??

[Che]

I welcome creativity and new ideas.

I'd probably be okay with a remake here and there, but it seems like all we do is recycle ideas anymore.

As for the classics, I have to respect the originals more than any remake because that's the idea in it's truest form. Even if the remake looks 100% better visually.

[Dodie16]

Most movies that are remade, I don't get a chance to see the original, so in that sense when a movie gets remade it's so it can reach another generation of audiences, and hopefully add new life to the original as well.

Unfortunately, most of the remakes can be done in a way to where it the plot or meaning bears little resemblance to the original, and does it no justice whatsoever. One movie I can think of was The Wicker Man. The original is a cult classic, and is one of the most terrifyingly suspenseful movies I can think of. The remake was so bad that the film director from the original release wanted his name removed from anything that would promote this film. I, unfortunately, saw the remake first, and it almost turned me off from watching the original.

Not all remakes are bad, just as long as the director/screewriter/whoever remembers what the original film was about and keeps that message in the remake, then I'm okay with them.

[Polk]

There are times when a remake is appropriate or even good for a film/series. The Crazies comes to mind, what with the remake just coming out now. The original, as good a film as it is, doesn't really age as well as Romero's other films, and in order to stay relevant needs some sort of kick in the pants.

Then there are times that they decide to remake a fantastic little Swedish film that doesn't need any sort of remake because it's phenomenal just as it is.

[Block]

The original is always better. You cannot revisit art and recreate it to make it better. The imitation Mona Lisa done with nicer tools on sturdier material isn't better. It's a bastardization.

[Sinister]

^ This


They're remaking my favorite movie to release this October. It's remake is called "Let Me In."

They've changed all the names of the characters, the nation the movie was set in, one of the character's gender and some of the plot points.

The original movie, which you need to watch, is called "Let the Right One In." It is not the same as the bullshit "Twilight-wannabe" movie that that asshole that directed Cloverfield is making this year. Please don't buy a ticket.

[Jin]

The original is always better.

Not necessarily. It depends on how the remake is done and also on how the original has aged. Case and point: Battlestar Galactica. The original series is just plain campy by today's standards (and perhaps even by the standards in which it was made). The new series, on the other hand, is phenomenal. Granted, the new series greatly departed from the original, which no doubt ruffled the feathers of some fans of the original, but honestly I think it's better that it did.

Remakes are always hit and miss, but I think claiming in an absolute sense that originals are always better is just an excuse for elitism. "I was a fan before the remake" and other such elitist tropes. I'm guilty of these things, I'll readily admit, but really, in the end it comes down to the same things as making an original creation: is the directing/acting/writing/story good?

[charliepanayi]

More accurate to say that the original is usually (but not always) better. The trouble is remakes are often seen as an easy way to do a film, just revisit old territory, and it often winds up being lazy.

[smurphy]

There are just some films which arent supposed to be remade as regardless of the end result is will just be hugely inferior to the original. I personally am daunting the remakes of Akira and Battle Royale which both have this Japanese charm which completes these movies. They are some of my favourites (BR IS my favourite) and I just dont want some MickeyMouse American director( or German if we are talking about Uwe Boll) ruining them.

Though directors are starting to get original with remakes. Take the upcoming Karate Kid remake as a case in point.

[ZantetsukeN]

To be honest, I am yet to see a remake that is better than the original. I have seen tons of remakes of classics too.
One of my favourite horror flicks, Hellraiser, is being remade sometime this year. Personally, I think it will probably be the worst yet.

[Rydia Lover]

albeit alot of this is true, one excpetion i can think that comes to mind is little shop of horrors, i liked the original but the musical remake was far superior