Remakes that are superior to the original?

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 02 May 2009, 16:48

Following some comments from Romero in the review thread,that many remakes improve on the original,it set me trying to think of some

top of my head i can't think of too many, i can think of decent ones (Dawn Of The Dead,Quarantine,) but not many that are better. The Fly would be one,The Blob another,Hills Have Eyes, 3:10 To Yuma....opinions please

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 02 May 2009, 16:53

I haven't seen the original The Fly yet - but the Cronenberg version was very good and sounded a lot more interesting than the original, there are more themes in the remake.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 02 May 2009, 16:54

Lord of the Rings obviously.
The Bourne Identity is often stated as better than the 80's movie.
I can probably think of more but I have to rush back downstairs cause my girlfriend is cooking and probably moody as hell that I'm on the internet and eating candy upstairs.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 02 May 2009, 17:11

Yi-Long wrote:Lord of the Rings obviously.

Well the original was animated and told only part of the story before the money ran out...would you still class it as a remake? i wouldn't class Dracula,Frankenstein movies as remakes really as they are based on books not previous films with the same title.

Yi-Long wrote:The Bourne Identity is often stated as better than the 80's movie.

that was a tv movie but still counts i suppose,a bit like L.A.Takedown is inferior to it's remake Heat (apparently,still haven't seen Heat)

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 02 May 2009, 18:19

Quarantine and The Hills Have Eyes remake are technically better movies, but weakened by the fact that they are direct remakes. Hills for example is brilliant whenever it's not following the original storyline. There's no point in shooting the exact same storyline twice.

Bangkok Dangerous is a remake that differs enough from the original. And it's also a better film than the "cool and flashy original".

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 02 May 2009, 18:54

The Thing
Cape Fear

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 02 May 2009, 19:13

saltysam wrote:
Yi-Long wrote:Lord of the Rings obviously.
Well the original was animated and told only part of the story before the money ran out...would you still class it as a remake? i wouldn't class Dracula,Frankenstein movies as remakes really as they are based on books not previous films with the same title.
Yi-Long wrote:The Bourne Identity is often stated as better than the 80's movie.
that was a tv movie but still counts i suppose,a bit like L.A.Takedown is inferior to it's remake Heat (apparently,still haven't seen Heat)

Good points. Didn't know The Bourne Identity (80's) was a TV movie.

Ow Fist of Legend. I love that movie, my favourite martial arts movie of all time, and better than Fist of Fury.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 02 May 2009, 19:35

For a film to be a remake it has to be primarily based on another film. LOTR is not a remake because it is solely an adaptation of the novels and ignores Bakshi's films completely. However, if Jackson had based his film around the story Bakshi kept in his film, then it would be a remake - ie: The Ring can be classed as a remake of Ringu because it follows Nakata's film much more closelt than the original novel (and the sole purpose of the project was to remake the film, not re-adapt).

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 02 May 2009, 20:13

Yi-Long wrote:
Ow Fist of Legend. I love that movie, my favourite martial arts movie of all time, and better than Fist of Fury.

i love FOL but better than Fist Of Fury?never !

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 02 May 2009, 20:42

saltysam wrote:still haven't seen Heat

My votes go for The Bourne Identity and The Thing.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 02 May 2009, 21:06

saltysam wrote:
Yi-Long wrote:
Ow Fist of Legend. I love that movie, my favourite martial arts movie of all time, and better than Fist of Fury.
i love FOL but better than Fist Of Fury?never !

MUCH better.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 02 May 2009, 21:30

Fist of Legend is great but Fist of Fury edges it IMO

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 03 May 2009, 04:11

The Thing
The Fly

Both "A Fistful of Dollars" and "Last Man Standing" are better than Yojimbo.

diceman · Post by **diceman** » 03 May 2009, 09:11

Adrian Lyne's "Lolita", which actually stays pretty true to Nabokov's novel. The Stanley Kubrick-Version is one of the most overrated movies of all times, mainly because the storyline fell victim to censorship regulations of the time, so the result may not be the same Kubrick initially had in mind. Also the Lyne-Version is really well filmed, has a great soundtrack by Morricone, and all the subversity and satire-aspects of the original novel are included as well. And they work better, because they're more subtle and don't get into the way of the drama.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 03 May 2009, 10:25

I also think there are more iconic scenes in FoF than FoL. Is there anything in FoL to match Bruce kicking the "No dogs and Chinese allowed" sign, scrabbling at the earth at his teacher's grave, the nanchuku dojo fights?

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 03 May 2009, 20:20

I just feel Fist of Legend is alot more enjoyable, and has a much higher replay-value. The fights are among the very best in the genre, the pacing is good, and I know that if I had to choose between Fist of Fury or Fist of Legend if I had to go to a deserted island and could only take 1 of those 2, it would be FOL!

Yeah, FOF is a 'classic', yeah it has Bruce Lee and it has some great scenes. As a movie, it's probably Bruce's best... but I love FOL much MUCH more.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 03 May 2009, 20:36

Fair enough

In FoL I like they're more tolerant to the Japanese side, giving Jet a Japanese girlfriend etc. In FoF they are just nasty little assholes.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 03 May 2009, 21:38

Fist of Fury snaps Fist of Legend's neck in Round 2.

Anyways... does THE THING count as a remake then given that both films were based on the same short story?

Also the 1962 take on LOLITA changed the lead character from a paedophile to get round the censors. Kinda misses the point a bit, no?

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 04 May 2009, 09:16

Isn't her age increased to 15? Doesn't that make it paedophilia?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 04 May 2009, 17:30

Markgway wrote:Also the 1962 take on LOLITA changed the lead character from a paedophile to get round the censors. Kinda misses the point a bit, no?

What is he in the 1962 film? If she's underage, she's underage.

grim_tales wrote:Isn't her age increased to 15? Doesn't that make it paedophilia?

Technically I suspect it does but many police forces treat it differently if it's 15 instead of 14.

Personally I'd say paedophilia stops at 14, as in 14 is the last year.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 04 May 2009, 17:33

Tell that to the scum who go overseas to backwards inbred places for 14 and 15 year olds ass for cash

Scum is Scum.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 04 May 2009, 17:37

The line between 15 and 16 is so thin. Sure some of you are going to say you have very mature 14 year olds but given that you need an age to work by and 16 is often it, I'd say again 15 is so close to 16, it shouldn't be treated exactly the same.

Don't get me wrong, it's still illegal in The UK and I'm sure the Police wouldn't let you get off. I guess I'm saying I don't believe the Police classify it as paedophilia at that age.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 04 May 2009, 18:18

She would still be under age in 1962, at 15 I think.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 04 May 2009, 19:03

Ooops double post

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 04 May 2009, 19:37

grim_tales wrote:She would still be under age in 1962, at 15 I think.

And in 2009 too.