ITT: Remakes better than the original

ITT: Remakes better than the original

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=uVYs5Y_EqSc
youtube.com/watch?v=N8s5-fULQP0
youtube.com/watch?v=C5_Q3JKOM8w
youtube.com/watch?v=4YSAlGpGo34
youtu.be/aIUdssOAn0s?t=144
youtube.com/watch?v=gYJCd7UGhFI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Fuck off.

/thread.

The Crazies

Please stop watching movies amd find a new hobby

you first

...

The Thing
Scarface
The Fly
True Grit

Ghostbusters

Is this like a bizarro thread? If so then add The Thing prequel.

Both are true.

Dawn of the Dead

Eat shit

youtube.com/watch?v=uVYs5Y_EqSc

you need to be 18 to post here

Solaris (2002)

True.

Op here

GET.SOME.TASTE

I first watched Carpenter's Halloween 8 years ago, when I was 15 and have rewatched it multiple times over the years, each time telling me what a classic it is and how influential to modern horror films it was. So what the main characters are annoying teenagers? So what it's filled with bad jumpscares and fake-outs? So what everything that happens is a tired cliché? At least it invented those clichés! RIght? Truth is, it's a badly aged, worn-out cliché of a movie. It's not scary, it doesn't have any characters worth routing for, it's not even visually appealing. The theme is cool, I'll give it that, so is the design of Michael Myers but apart from that it has nothing going for it. The opening scene with Michael killing his sister is ridiculous, it's laughable. Zombie's version isn't much better but it at least has some nice visuals. Sure, every second word is Fuck but the dialogue in the original is not better, it's inane bullshit about dating cute boys and cringe-inducing child talk about the boogeyman. The acting isn't great either, at least the remake has Malcolm McDowell and he delivers as Loomis.

wew lad
I would say they're about equal. The remake has better acting and effects but the original has an oddball charm to it.
Best post in this thread.

This only plebbit will disagree

oh look
worst post ITT

>it's not even visually appealing.
>Zombie's version isn't much better but it at least has some nice visuals.

>bitches about the original being cliche even though when it came out it was pretty unique
>defends the Zombie version even though it's twice as cliche as the original and there's no excuse for the cliches
What an awful post. Besides the blood effects, every element of the Zombie version is inferior to the original.
>DUDE LET'S GIVE MICHAEL AN EXTREMELY CLICHE BACKSTORY THAT COMPLETELY RUINS HIS CHARACTER LMAO
>DUDE SWEARING LMAO
>DUDE GORE LMAO
>DUDE FUCK ATMOSPHERE AND SUSPENSE LMAO

...

Man, you aren't even trying.

I know this is an extremely unpopular opinion amongst filmfags, because it goes against Saint Tarkovsky, but I thought the Solaris remake was brilliant.

So yeah, this

That's rich coming from the retard who's defending Rob Zombie's raping of Halloween. There's literally nothing good about it. You can act like a dumb millennial and scream "THE ORIGINAL IS CLICHE" but the problem with that argument is Rob Zombie's abortion is even more cliche.

It really isn't.

Halloween is my favorite horror movie of all time and even I don't think the remake was that fucking bad. Chill out. It was a better remake than we were going to get from anyone else.

It really is. Michael's backstory is just a ton of white trash cliches, the kills aren't unique and every character is an unlikeable piece of shit who says "fuck" every sentence. There's nothing unique about Zombie's Halloween.

This.
Movie was brilliant. People only raz on it because Clooney was in it. Jeremy Davies and his character was brilliant. The story was better and tighter; much more reeled in.

> also, Casino Royale

Halloween remake it's alright, the best thing about it is Brad Dourif.

The only thing that creeped me out in this movie was the young Michael Meyers killing the other kid in the beginning. Something about that disturbed me... Other than that, I agree: crap on a crap cracker.

Some crazy guy going around killing people for no reason isn't any more original, the kills are for the most part the same in both movies. Characters and dialogue as I said aren't any better in the original, just some stupid teens the audience has no reason to care about talking inane shit, less swearing doesn't really make it any better. The only reason to care if Michael gets into the house in the end is that Laurie has the kids with her, which is about as cheap and cliché as having a pet or an old person be harmed. At least Zombie makes it clear that the kids are not in danger, which adds more mystique to the character than Carpenter's version ever had.

The only good thing from the original that I liked was that iconic musical theme. So simple. But when you hear it, you know EXACTLY what it is. Kind of like the Exorcist's...

What's visually appealing about Carpenter's glorified DTV slasher?

look at the plebs ITT

and look at them getting BTFO

Precisely.

I don't understand this post.
The original Solaris is sleep inducing, overlong and has too many ridiculous segments in it. Yeah, it's closer to the source material but the remake is leagues better. That's what OP was asking for; it was a re-write, after all. I remember people hated it when I went to see it in the theater because they were expecting Star Wars or some shit like that.

Invasion of the Body snatches
Dawn of the dead

Are we naming horror? Cause the fly already been mentioned and thats hard to top

Frankly, I'm dissapointed in al of you.

Here 'ya go.
>pic related

The Fly. Hard to top. You are correct, user.

The Exorcist with Timothy Dalton was pretty good. And closer to the original story. Though I think it was a TV film or straight to video thing.

Got a better suggestion?

He really gives it his all, even in B movies.
youtube.com/watch?v=N8s5-fULQP0

>Got a better suggestion?
Yeah, develop a better taste.

i was calling the people who didnt like the remake and their knee jerk reactions plebs

i like the remake better and agree

My favorite actor. incredibly underrated

Holy shit, fuck off with your shit taste.

already have, dude-Bro: The Maltese Falcon.

And we're looking for re-makes that are better than the original films. So, any suggestions? I think we'd all be glad to check them out.

You literally can't prove me wrong.

This. Og Hills Have Eyes suck. Craven was not a very good director.

...

Dawn of the Dead? You people can't be serious, that one actually deserves its place as a horror classic, the remake is just some run-off-the-mill zombie flick.

t. guy who bashes Carpenter's Halloween

Huh.
I actually like the original better than the remake.
I dunno... maybe it's a nostalgia thing.
Just seemed better all 'round.

>ANDY

youtube.com/watch?v=C5_Q3JKOM8w

exactly why I never bothered to waste my time on this shite

just a stupid waste of time

the first Chucky film is surprisingly good horror desu

You stupid bitch! You filthy slut! I'll teach you to fuck with me!

youtube.com/watch?v=4YSAlGpGo34

All right, I'll check it out when it comes on the television, but I am not gonna search it out. The premise just seemed retarded to begin with. I mean, Stephan King ran that whole "possessed [enter random objet, animal, person here]" into the ground, already. Although, like I said, based on your endorsement I'll check it out. It does seem like there's some good comedy there...

I know there's one with Jennifer Tilly in it and I'd like to see her get it on with a doll. Fell in love with her watching those late night poker shows. Yeah, I'm pathetic (not for watching her, but watching late-night poker shows).

OK. I'll take your opinion to heart. This has possibilities.

literally how.

It's almost the same, except a lot more obvious and consequentially not as interesting.

Oh fuck off you faggot

>>DUDE GORE LMAO

Why are you watching slasher movies then?

Yeah, that's what I thought before watching. Actually had the dvd for years and always put off watching it because it seemed so silly. Later films are the silly splatter comedies you'd expect but the first one is a straight horror film. There is no comedy there.

If you don't like the Child's Play series you can get the fuck out.

it has suspense
and better cinematography
and soundtrack
and script play (adapted, of course)

They are entirely different movies, altogether.
The first one is good.
But compared to the re-make, it's a snore-fest.
And just silly.

The re-make gets into subjects like love and regrets and existentialism and all that rot.

And dreams. Which is what attracted me to it in the first place. It delivered. I'm happy with that. So was my girlfriend and we both agreed: "Better than the original."

They are entirely different.
But the 2nd is better.

Bride of Chucky is great strictly as a comedy horror movie. It has some genuinely funny moments. Seed of Chucky is not as good, but continues the comedy theme. It's worthwhile if you wanna see John Waters get murdered with chemicals or Britney Spears killed in a car wreck.

Have you seen Curse of Chucky yet?

Child's Play is pretty good, but it's kind of undermined by the fact that you see Chucky get possessed in the very first scene. It tries to build up this mystery over whether or not Andy is really the killer and just had a psychotic break, but you already know the answer. It's still handled pretty well, and Brad Dourif is fucking great. Plus, the puppetry and effects are genuinely impressive, even if you can sometimes point out where they just stuffed a midget in a costume.

Child's Play 2 is not anywhere near as good, it's more of a bog standard slasher, but Dourif carries the show and the effects work remains pretty top notch. The final chase in the factory is a good climax.

Child Play 3's pretty forgettable. Best kill is Chucky tries to stab some old/fat army instructor, but accidentally just gives him a heart attack instead.

Bride of Chucky is good fun. 2 and especially 3 kind of wavered between trying to be serious horror movies and joking about the premise, and this one just runs with the self-mockery. That said, it's great in that light, and Jennifer Tilly is hot as fuck when she's in it.

Seed of Chucky took the self-mockery too far, but there's a couple funny moments/gags. More Jennifer Tilly, who is actually playing Jennifer Tilly.

I haven't seen Curse of Chucky yet but I've heard good things. Apparently takes things back to the horror roots, which sounds cool.

/autism

You made me laugh out loud with that (John Waters & Britney Spears). I hope that's for real...

OK. OK. Ok. I'll check it out. Thanks.

I was gonna say this has gone far off of OP's original sentiment but the notion of possessed anything isn't anything new, sooooo...

OK, thanks. I had no idea there were those kinds of cameos.

Like I said, haven't seen them yet, they just looked stupid. But this user corrected me.

talking about Chucky

>scarface
>TCM 2003
>the mummy
>oceans 11
>dawn of the dead

The Force Awakens

...

Agreed, original is laughable horror.

Obvious one

>Some crazy guy going around killing people for no reason isn't any more original
It wasn't a cliche back in 1978 though. Name one pre-1978 killer who came from a good home and snapped for no known reason. When Rob Zombie turned Michael Myers into a hick in 2007 there had already been a billion hick killers.
> The only reason to care if Michael gets into the house in the end is that Laurie has the kids with her, which is about as cheap and cliché as having a pet or an old person be harmed.
What? I've seen Halloween a billion times and I never though "OH SHIT IS HE GONNA GET THE KIDS?!" The main focus of the end of the film is Laurie, not the kids.
>At least Zombie makes it clear that the kids are not in danger, which adds more mystique to the character than Carpenter's version ever had.
Oh come on, that isn't unique. There have been tons of slasher villains who won't kill children. Also, I would argue that Michael panicking when Laurie pulls his mask off is more interesting than anything Zombie did with Michael.

Even carpenter liked Halloween remakes.

Funfact: technically even the first Die Hard is a remake, John Mclane was a character invented during the '40s, and was first portrayed by Frank Sinatra.

The Thing and The Fly are still freaky to watch even now. Halloween is fucking lame even when you make the excuse that it was another time.

Rob Zombie's Halloween is fucking lame.

There's nothing unique, disgusting or scary about the gore in the Zombie's Halloween. I like gore when it isn't completely mindless and dull.

I guess we're both suckers for bad horror movies then. At least I and the other guy arguing against you don't act like the remake is some great achievement. I am aware that it sucks, you still act like Carpenter's Halloween is a good movie, which it really isn't.

It's far better than the Rob Zombie remake.

Rob Zombie just keeps trying to shovel in the climax to Texas Chainsaw Massacre in every one of his movies and it's embarrassing.

>Even carpenter liked Halloween remakes.
No he didn't.
youtube.com/watch?v=uVYs5Y_EqSc

I got in a HUGE argument back in highschool when me and my girlfriend watched this movie
She was going on and on about how this one was better than the original and I don't know what happened but my inner Cred Forums came out and started calling her retard and a bunch of other names for having such god awful taste
I stand by my decision to this day and I say the same thing to you OP
Go fuck yourself you retard and get some actual taste in movies before you throw your opinion around

Evil Dead II

Let's agree to disagree then, I'm tired. It is shit and the remake is not quite as bad.

The original Halloween was a very unique film when it came out and I would argue holds up well because it's better executed than most of its contemporaries. The original is great, remake is shit. However, I'll agree to disagree because otherwise this argument will never end.

Just because the character had already existed in the past doesn't make the movie a remake.

>Brad Dourif
>Gríma Wormtongue

OK, I'm in.

>also, you saying Jennifer Tilly is hot as fuck
I'M IN.

>also, you're pic... Andy. Freddy in Andy Warhol style? on purpose?

>*your

>very unique

Are you sure it wasn't slightly unique? Or mostly unique?

I'll agree, OP.

I watched Halloween (1978) first and, honestly, I didn't like it. Same thing with Friday The 13th movies after the first one. The first Friday The 13th was alright, it was cool, but the others had the same meme-so-powerful-cliché monster that "WON'T STAY DEAD!" that bothers me in horror movies.
The bad guy just being an unstoppable killing machine who is barely human isn't horror, it isn't horrifying, it is lame, lazy. Same with the retarded "jumpscares" in Halloween 1978.

At least Rob Zombie made Michael Meyers humane instead of Generic Bad Guy #13513851. And I did enjoy a lot the part where Michael's backstory was being told because, honestly, the blonde kid did a great job playing the part.

Plus, the 1978 movie didn't age well at all. Same goes for most "cult horror" movies people praise like Carpenter's The Thing.

What?

Ocean's 11? Really?
Explain.... Serious, here.

>At least Rob Zombie made Michael Meyers humane instead of Generic Bad Guy #13513851.
>Same goes for most "cult horror" movies people praise like Carpenter's The Thing.

Hmmm... Interesting.
This... is... debatable.

For reals.

Oh wow.
I think you just blew my mind.

Aw, shucks...

I... I... I have to go, now.

>The original Halloween was a very unique film when it came out
Blah blah, my fucking point exactly. It's a novelty product, the only reason people remember it so favourably is because it was novel at the time.Nosferatu still holds up, Dracula still holds up, Spalovac Mrtvol still holds up, Dawn of the Dead still holds up, Phantasm still holds up, all of those are still effective horror films that still manage to create a haunting atmosphere and make you care about the protagonists. Halloween is a bad, gimmicky flick and faggots like you should stop putting it on a pedestal.

I think he means that unique isn't really a gradual thing, either something is unique or it is not.

The original movie came out in 1960 and starred the rat pack. Look it up.

remake of what?

>>>DUDE LET'S GIVE MICHAEL AN EXTREMELY CLICHE BACKSTORY THAT COMPLETELY RUINS HIS CHARACTER LMAO
>>DUDE SWEARING LMAO
this and the fact that zombies disgusting wife was in it are the only gripes i have with the movie. After you got past the first act i found the movie very enjoyable

2nd movies was pure dogshit though

I thought we agreed to disagree? Anyway, Halloween is still good. The first two acts do a great job of building suspense, all of the Michael stalking scenes are great. The score is great, the acting is decent, Michael was a unique character in 1978 and is still unique since the vast majority of slasher villains have some kind of tragic backstory whereas Michael snapped for no reason. It was rightfully put up on a pedestal back in the 70s and deserves to stay there.

OOOOOH!

'Dems fightin' words.

>except you're right

Not him, but
>nosferatu
>dracula
>dawn of the dead

God, no. Horror movies barely hold up and those definitely don't. Nowadays they just look plain silly, mostly because of make-up and "scare techniques". Psycho also doesn't hold up, for example. Alien is barely holding up. The Thing doesn't hold up. Scream, Elm Street, Rosemary's Baby, Exorcist, Jaws... They don't hold up. I grew up watching horror movies, I always loved them.
Nowadays they look silly, the animatronics are garbage, the makeup is bad, the acting is mechanic.

I know Cred Forums has that need to hype old "cult" shit that didn't age well.

Rio Bravo

>The Thing
That's a 10/10 horror film that has aged almost flawlessly. Only a small handful of the effects don't hold up by modern standards.

>what if... listen, what if we just made a guy who... IS EVIL, PLAIN EVIL! AND CAN'T BE KILLED!
>GENIUS! PUT IT IN A PEDESTAL! GREATEST MOVIE! ORIGINALITY!

>The Fly
I liked the original more overall, the remake only had Jeff Goldblum and special effects that stood out to me.

Jesus Christ, this is the worst post in this thread. Congratulations on outdoing OP's faggotry.

Ayy, nice strawman.

Nah man, YOU don't hold up.

Nope. The acting is mostly bad except for Childs and Mc, I'd say, but I don't know if it was the acting or just the bad dialogue, really.

No effect holds up. Compare those garbage animatronic to the animatronics made for the 2011 The Thing (that weren't used, sadly). Just compare them. The old ones didn't age well, they don't hold up.

You just shit all over some of the greatest horror films of all time. Name 10 good horror films.

...

based

One of the top five worst posts I've ever read on Cred Forums and this board is fucking terrible. Kill yourself immediately.

Dawn of the Dead
Night of the Living Dead

Saying that the effects don't hold up really doesn't mean that the film doesn't. You're just saying that you're bad at suspension of disbelief.

lol, now this is good bait

Yeah, I know, I've seen both, but the only part that made it OK for me to walk out of the room in the original was the car ballet in the middle of the film. That got to be a bit much.

It's like the "Raindrops Keep Falling on my Head" by Burt Bahcarach in Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid on the bicycles scene. I was like, "What the fuck is this gay bullshit?" But that was the movies back then, I guess. Andy also where we get the 'Sundance Festival' name from...

OK. I think I just typed myself into agreeing with you. But I love the original BECAUSE it was the Rat-Pack and the tongue-in-cheek they brought to the story.

>remake better than the original?
> probably. [mini coopers]

Amazing acting.

youtu.be/aIUdssOAn0s?t=144

Hey, I'm and I'm still waiting for you to name 10 good horror films. Don't leave me hanging, faggot. I know you're still in this thread.

You have to be 18 to post on this site

There's literally nothing wrong with any of that acting. Hell, it's Oscar worthy compared to 99% of horror movies.

What terrible nitpicking. Not even the critics who trashed the movie back in the 80s complained about the acting.

...

Grazie!

Grazie!

Just the fact that you assumed that post was an indictment of the acting shows what your real feelings about it are.

Just an edit someone made from The Dream Master, I think.

youtube.com/watch?v=gYJCd7UGhFI

not this guy, but I always felt the Exorcist was one of scariest movies of all time. EXCEPT the parts where he head spins around and projectile vomits. Yeah, they are the most memorable scenes in the public conscious but they detract from the film, nowadays. Dude's got a point. You don't need all those stupid "special effects" to make a great creepy movie. That seems to be the downfall for a lot of directors' movies holding up over time.

test

Love this movie. I've seen the play one or two times, but the puppetry/animatronics for this movie are just fucking top tier.

Hey!
That's not fair!

That's a play!

>I thought we were talking movies.

>You're correct, though.

One of the best action movies ever made.

>and better cinematography
>and soundtrack
Get the fuck out

That it's good?

Nigger, it's the movie, it came out in theaters.
I own it on DVD.

Kill yourshelf

Both movies are bad tho

Hey look finally some good answers

Die-uh-beat-us.

>If you disagree with me you are from le r*ddit
Fuck off

The post said "Amazing acting" and then the link.
This was not part of an argument nor were there any indicators of sarcasm.
But both of you assumed he was criticizing the acting.
I wonder why...

>I wonder why...
Because this thread is filled with fags

>I'm chuckling, here.
Reminds me of a reverse Duran Duran video from the 80s. I love when he puts the shades on.

Still laughing for some reason. Probably 'cuz I'm drunk.

Even if you're baiting the remake is still just as good, not better but on the same level

Haven't seen the 30s or other versions, but how can they be better than the Mann version?

>triggered

Nigger, we're talking remakes.
The one you're talking about was Frank Oz's adaptation of the PLAY.

If we're talking remakes of all media, then OK.

I thought we were talking film remakes of the same medium.

>nigger

Maybe you're just spoiled and desensitized because of all the shitty movies you've seen, but Halloween is great and comfy and it will always be.
A random guy stalking and killing babysitters on Halloween is a creepy premise and the look of the movie only adds to the realism. Many teenagers are annoying fucks. Michael doesn't need an explanation or a backstory, he was handled perfectly in the first movie.

>What if.. Guys just fucking hold on a second. We make Michael Myers a hick okay, they're the craziest motherfuckers I know... And get this? He is actually a sympathetic character! Then for some reason he gets fucking ripped in a small psych cell.. Also Laurie is a whore because my target audience is white trash
>Absolute genius Mr. Zombie

You're aware that there was a goddamn Little Shop of Horrors movie that spawned the play in the first place, right?

true

See, the problem are not the characters, it's your perception. Laurie and the other teens are perfectly normal people. They don't deserve to die, even if they are annoying. They are the everyday teenager. Nothing too interesting, no heroes, just some unassuming kids.
That you don't care for them isn't the movie's fault.

Holy fucking shit you are cancer. I bet you think Insidious is the second coming of horror.
Kill yourself you Gen Z faggot FUKC YEA I MAD

It's a classic and it's objectively good. You don't like it, okay, doesn't make it a bad movie.

>Phantasm still holds up
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

pleb

It was literally fanfiction

>Alien is barely holding up

Go fuck yourself, Alien is still a masterpiece.

I'm not saying it's bad, but it does not hold up as well as other films from that era.

ses

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Thread over guys, time to go home.

there's a scarface remake?

Scarface (De Palma) its a remake son, lurk moar and go back to plebbit plz

the 80s version is the remake.

>having no taste

interdasting, thanks

Nope.
I should've checked a goddamned search engine before. I thought it went went play to movie and that was it. My bad. I stand corrected. Now, I've gotta find the original.

>so, thanks

you can't /thread your own post, newfag

I know "High Noon" is gonna get the better vote here because.... yeah. Classic.

But this is actually a decent remake. I can't decide if it's better, though....

Outland.

>being serious

>t. guy who bashes Carpenter's Halloween
You wrote that so we know not to pay attention to your shit opinion?

nice pasta

This is one of the worst posts in Cred Forums history.

This.

Effects not holding up =/= film not holding up

You are a massive faggot, rob zombies films suck ass

Is the original Halloween good

If it helps I'm a huge sucker for atmosphere, lighting, and music use

Cred Forumstards want me to believe that THIS, THIS SHIT HERE, THIS RUBBERY PLASTIC PATHETIC PIECE OF ANIMATRONIC "HOLDS UP!"
NOTHING SILLY IN THIS RUBBER DOG WITH CROOKED MOUTH THAT LOOKS LIKE A TEENAGER'S SCHOOL PROJECT! IT HOLDS UP AND IT'S SCUUUUUUUUUURRY!

Fuck Cred Forums, you are all cattle.

>TCM 2003
I will shit down your throat my man that's too far for even bait
>I'm a huge sucker for atmosphere, lighting, and music use
You will enjoy it then

Halloween is one of the greatest horror movies of all time.

I will find you and shoot you in the fucking head.

Take it back now, you fucking punk.

You do know that shit doesn't have to make you jump out of your seat or hide behind your hands to be scary.
The point of that dog animatronic is to make you uncomfortable/disturbed and it sure as shit accomplishes that for me at least.

idk why I'm replying to a pleb/bait

Lol no. The original Halloween is objectively a great movie and deserves the praise it gets

Yes. It's fucking great, especially since you're into atmosphere and suspense


But it does hold up. It looks bizarre and unsettling to this day, therefore accomplishing its goal and standing the test of time. At least imo, of course

>Told my dad that dadkino horror isn't scary
>Mfw he showed me The Thing for the first time
I regret everything

...

It was better in every way. In fact it probably Japanese horror better than the Japanese. Shame about the sequels and the grudge remakes though.

I have a feeling thats why the sequel failed. It just couldnt live up to the first in any possible way.

>uncomfortable/disturbed

It honestly made me laugh when I first watched The Thing.

the original was surprisingly way more brutal than the remake

i agree with this

I dont agree with OP.

I'll say texas chainsaw remake was just as good as the original, the sequel was really good. that 3d one was dogshit

Friday 13th nailed the remake and was very under rated.

Death at a funeral remake was better in my opinon.

Technically it's correct since the 1982 movie is a remake of an old TV show.