The remake was better than the original...

[Warhammer]

- Ocean's Eleven
- The Fly
- 3:10 to Yuma
- The Nutty Professor
- The Thomas Crown Affair
- Insomnia
- The Manchurian Candidate
- Red Dragon
- War of the Worlds

 

[Poetic Chaos]

Dawn of the Dead

 

[Warhammer]

^Oh shiznit!

How did I forget that one?

 

[Doctor Baywatch]

Dawn of the Dead

LOL.

Same LOL goes for King Kong.

 

[cerealkiller182]

LOL.

Same LOL goes for King Kong.

agreed

 

[DieSmiling]

I can't believe so many people prefer the remake of Texas Chainsaw over the original.

I guess you like more stereotypical horror flash and cliches over Hooper's unique(at the time) vision of film and use of sound effects.

To me the key phrase in that sentence is "at the time." The original is interesting, but hasn't aged very well.

I actually think the Jessica Biel Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of the better horror movies of the last ten years (not that there's a ton of competition).

 

[DieSmiling]

LOL.

Same LOL goes for King Kong.

I think people who claim to like the original King Kong more than the newer one are just trying sound like expert film buffs. The remake is better in pretty much every way possible -- how can anyone born in the last 40 years really enjoy a movie from the thirties?

 

[cerealkiller182]

I think people who claim to like the original King Kong more than the newer one are just trying sound like expert film buffs. The remake is better in pretty much every way possible -- how can anyone born in the last 40 years really enjoy a movie from the thirties?

Its one of the first and best uses of music to setup thematic elements and tone.

The new one was just poorly crafted story wrapped up in pretty CGI.

 

[cryptic name]

I think people who claim to like the original King Kong more than the newer one are just trying sound like expert film buffs. The remake is better in pretty much every way possible -- how can anyone born in the last 40 years really enjoy a movie from the thirties?

cgi doesn't make a movie better.

 

[Doctor Baywatch]

I think people who claim to like the original King Kong more than the newer one are just trying sound like expert film buffs. The remake is better in pretty much every way possible -- how can anyone born in the last 40 years really enjoy a movie from the thirties?

No, they are not.

The original King Kong has still a great atmosphere and the stop motion effects look MUCH more realistic than those crappy video game cgi's..

And for Dawn of the Dead. THe original had meaning and all this stuff, the remake was just a movie for the video game generation and is more comparable to the Resident Evil movies.

Well, what do you expect from a world where Michael Bay movies are box office hits?

 

[DieSmiling]

Its one of the first and best uses of music to setup thematic elements and tone.

The new one was just poorly crafted story wrapped up in pretty CGI.

Being the first to do something is impressive, and makes something historically significant, but it certainly doesn't make it better.

And how is the 2005 King Kong a more "poorly crafted story" than the original? It's the same story only the characters actually have some depth.

 

[DieSmiling]

cgi doesn't make a movie better.

No, but character depth, incredible visuals, better acting, AND superior special effects (upon many other things) does make a better movie.

 

[DieSmiling]

No, they are not.

The original King Kong has still a great atmosphere and the stop motion effects look MUCH more realistic than those crappy video game cgi's..

Umm... No, you're wrong. The stop motion effects look ridiculous. Maybe they were better for their day (you know, 75 years ago) but certainly not better than Weta Digital's work.

If you hate CGI, yeah, you're going to hate Jackson's King Kong (and 95% of movies that come out these days). But that's just a personal opinion.

Well, what do you expect from a world where Michael Bay movies are box office hits?

Don't compare an Oscar winning director to Bay. Peter Jackson is an incredibly talented director.

 

[Crook]

First that came to my mind was "The Departed". Maybe it was just the style of filmmaking with the original, but Marty's remake just expanded on practically every point, and then some.

 

[Doctor Baywatch]

Umm... No, you're wrong. The stop motion effects look ridiculous. Maybe they were better for their day (you know, 75 years ago) but certainly not better than Weta Digital's work.

If you hate CGI, yeah, you're going to hate Jackson's King Kong (and 95% of movies that come out these days). But that's just a personal opinion.

THey do not look ridiculous. They are great.

Don't compare an Oscar winning director to Bay. Peter Jackson is an incredibly talented director.

Peter Jackson isn't that good. His "indie" movies rocked but LOTR and King Kong are weak. He didn't even understand LOTR.

 

[BatSpider]

The Incredible Huk in June if you can call it one

 

[cerealkiller182]

Being the first to do something is impressive, and makes something historically significant, but it certainly doesn't make it better.

And how is the 2005 King Kong a more "poorly crafted story" than the original? It's the same story only the characters actually have some depth.

I said They were the first and best. This incredible technique is why the most is even studied, its process is copied to this day,and why it is one of the greatest well-crafted films of all time.

The characters dont have depth. The characters and story were put into place around the CGI. The whole purpose of this movie was to make a cool looking gorilla. The story was boring and non-engaging (grammar?).

 

[Golgo-13]

Batman Begins
Hills Have Eyes
The Fly

 

[Darkfly]

Casino Royale

 

[cerealkiller182]

I think people who claim to like the original King Kong more than the newer one are just trying sound like expert film buffs. The remake is better in pretty much every way possible -- how can anyone born in the last 40 years really enjoy a movie from the thirties?

Someone trying to sound like an expert film buff would damn all remakes when Oceans 11, The Thing, and The Fly are all superior to the originals.

 

[The Guard]

The characters dont have depth. The characters and story were put into place around the CGI. The whole purpose of this movie was to make a cool looking gorilla. The story was boring and non-engaging (grammar?).

You just named everything that was wrong with the original, too.

The characters do have depth in Jackson's version, certainly as much or more as the original. The characters also had more relevant emotional interactions, and weren't all just running around screaming.

 

[cerealkiller182]

You just named everything that was wrong with the original, too.

The characters do have depth in Jackson's version, certainly as much or more as the original. The characters also had more relevant emotional interactions, and weren't all just running around screaming.

The only characters with depth didnt make it to the second half. The wide-eyed young kid who was looking for adventure was the most interesting.

Instead we get Naomi Watts worst performance, a money-grubbing bastard, and a writer who *****es the whole movie.

 

[BMM]

The Ring.

 

[Warhammer]

The Incredible Huk in June if you can call it one

Batman Begins
Hills Have Eyes
The Fly

I don't think these can count as remakes. They are reboots of franchises. They are completely different movies. The only similarities between Batman and Batman Begins is that it's the first Bat film of a new era. Same for The Incredible Hulk and Hulk. Nothing is being remade.

 

[Drizzle]

The original King Kong has still a great atmosphere and the stop motion effects look MUCH more realistic than those crappy video game cgi's..

How much crack did you smoke today? The original stop motion effects look like mere childrens' toys compared to the realistic Kong of the 2005 film.