In general, do you prefer original/older versions of movies, or the latest remakes?

OK, forgive me, it's too general of a question, but even so I think it has some merit for a reasonable discussion.

Overall I'm not big on the latest, greatest remakes from the last several years or so, especially the more recent offerings.

My blu ray purchases have fallen drastically the last few years, 98% of my purchases have been new, finally issued blu rays of older movies, and very few recent releases. There are few new movies I care to spend any money on. And that goes for going to the theater too.

I just get an overall ho hum vibe when I'm seeing most new stuff, for me a lot of my disillusionment is the excessive amount of leaning on computer graphics, even the obvious digitally touching up of actors faces and such to make them look better. The general direction of more is better results in an assault on my senses that has me turned off to the bulk of new releases. Sometimes I get the feeling I'm watching a cartoon with all that fluff they are using.

Sure, I love a visually crisp, clean looking flick. But for me overall with few exceptions they are bringing nothing new to the table to make me want to spend any money on them.

Now one may cry crotchety old man at me, but I don't think that's the case.

Sure, many of these new remakes/spin offs have hauled in amazing amounts of money, but surely that is not the yardstick for what a great movie is, is it?
I guess time will sort and sift the wheat from the chaff.

Opinions?

 

As a general rule prefer the original.
But ..prefer True Grit remake.

 

I tend to credit or blame the director. Some go for a safe bet that the film will get big box office, and putting it together any old way will do. Others seem genuinely interested in lending another perspective to existing work, and those are very worthwhile when they crop up. I think John Carpenter did a superb job with his remake of The Thing, and although I prefer the ending of Ringu, I do like the more polished, less scattershot interpretation that The Ring offers.

I was kind of disappointed that, when it came to Stephen King, they chose "It" to remake. We've had a fair version of The Shining with the miniseries, and a bad version of The Stand in miniseries also... I would have much preferred either of those be given an appropriate treatment instead. I just think they're better stories. Then again, nobody's really captured the spirit of King's writing aside from Rob Reiner with Stand By Me. It's a tricky thing to catch, and obviously the remake of Carrie didn't fare very well... Might have been more interesting, although kind of depressing, to have it play like the novel.

So, it's a mixed bag. I've sat through quite a few, and mostly I'm disappointed with the remake, but don't consider it wasted time because it helps me appreciate the original more. I guess the studios count on suckering people in like that. Finally, to address a point you've raised, I'm still not a fan of CGI unless it's used sparingly, like Polanski did in The Ninth Gate. Less is more with the cartooney stuff IMO.

 

Usually I prefer the original ;however, there are exceptions.

 

"I think John Carpenter did a superb job with his remake of The Thing"

I totally agree. I have a ton of respect for Carpenter's "remake" titled The Thing.

What makes it work for me is although the core, original premise is still there, it's a strong fresh take compared to the 1951 The Thing From Another World. I respect both equally.

 

It depends on which is better, every time.

 

But, what really is "better"? Big sales, a ton of gee wow thrills, the oft time modern overly massaged?

Many times it takes a long time to recognize what is better, stands the test of time. Can it hold up to future generations?

 

Original, usually.
As with others, there are exceptions.

But here's one that is no exception:

The In-Laws. Peter Falk, Alan Arkin. Circa 1979.
Weirdly hilarious.

In 2005 a remake with Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks did what I consider a significant disservice to the oddball original.

 

Many times it also depends on which one you saw first. That's the one that becomes the benchmark that you compare all other versions to and I think you tend to have a natural bias toward that one.

 

If it's a remake of an older film, where the filmakers have attempted something different,then maybe. US remakes of contemporary foreign films absolutely not.

 

The vast majority of the time, the original. One exception: Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

 

Sleuth (1972) by Joseph L. Mankiewicz and Sleuth (2007) by Kenneth Branagh. Both versions are great.

 

I prefer the originals about 90% of the time and about 50% of the time i think the remakes suck. But there are also many cases where i actually like and enjoy both the original and the remakes. "I Spit on Your Grave" is a good example of where I enjoy both.

 

10 Movie Remakes That Are Much Better Than the Originals

 

I don't agree with True Grit or Body Snatchers being better. I'd say the remakes are as good but not better.

 

The Carpenter version realizes the original source material (the short story "Who Goes There?" by J.W. Campbell) more closely.
The Coen Brothers' "True Grit" re-make does the same kinda thing...making it in many ways more interesting than the 1960s version.

 

In general, I prefer originals, but there are exceptions, such as:

Little Shop of Horrors - the '86 musical was more enjoyable than the '60 film, aside from Jack Nicholson, of course
Casino Royale - I like the Daniel Craig "reboot" better than the '54 TV adaptation or that silly '67 spoof
The Man Who Knew Too Much - this 50's remake seems more fleshed out than the 30's original
A Star is Born - similarly, Judy Garland should've won an Oscar for her '54 performance (the 70's Streisand flick, OTOH...)
Ben-Hur - the old silent flick looks impressive, but perhaps I'm simply more used to the flashy Charlton Heston epic
The Wizard of Oz - dunno whether movies from novels count, but this had been filmed before the '39 classic, which is definitive
A Christmas Carol - likewise, I'd say the '51 "Scrooge" with Alastair Sim beats all prior and subsequent remakes:
POLL: Favorite Scrooge / adaptation of A Christmas Carol

 

9/10 Times The Original .. something just seems missing a lot if the time.. like Soul or summat..mind this remake was excellent imho.

 

I'm sure my thinking on the subject is counter-intuitive from the movie studio point of view. I say, if a film had potential but missed the mark the first time around, that might be worth another shot. Re-doing a classic, Ben-Hur for instance, is probably pointless. So: Remake the lousy movies; leave the good ones alone!

I'll give a remake a bit more credit if it's retitled (Here Comes Mr. Jordan / Heaven Can Wait) so as not to seem like it's shamelessly banking on name recognition.

 

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER...almost. I give The Maltese Falcon a pass.

 

For me it depends on the specific movie, I don't have a hard and fast rule about it. A factor that works against a remake for me is if it is just a rehash of the original (where it doesn't improve upon the original or at least gives us a different take). In the same way, if the original is iconic (The Godfather comes to mind) then a remake will likely be found very lacking.

An example of this is the movie D. O. A. Although I've seen the original, I enjoyed the remake starring Dennis Quaid and Meg Ryan much more. While the premise of the original and the remake are the same (a dead man seeks out his own killer), each goes in its own direction that leaves you guessing until the end even if you've already seen one of them.

 

I would say usually the original, but there are a few exceptions.

 

I like the original and all of the remakes of Body Snatchers - each one brings something different to the table.

 

I loathe and despise all remakes with a seething white-hot passion.

But that's just me.

 

I cannot recall liking a remake better than the original.