# Can remakes be better than the original? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 21, 2005, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184 "2005-06-21T12:04:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![parthenokinesis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/cc9497/32.png) [@parthenokinesis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/parthenokinesis)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/1 "2005-06-21T12:04:04Z")
Inspired this thread [King Kong (2005) trailer news](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=321968) There was some discussion about the need to remake the classic movie King Kong. I was reminded of a class discussion in intro to theater, where the Prof made the claim that a remake is never as good as the original, and my bulls\*\*t meter started airhorning in my ear, and I laughed at the Prof. He called me on it and I vehemently disagreed with his statement. He asked me to name one remake better than the original, and stuck on the spot I couldn’t think of one. In hind sight, I still disagree with the prof. With better technology, better understanding of the craft, better budgets, better actors, if you can come up with a good script, and a director with vision, theres no reason why remakes wouln’t regularly be better than the original. And now I have two examples one film, one song. The Thing Me and Bobby McGee Any other examples, thoughts? Jack ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/2 "2005-06-21T12:14:23Z")
Battlestar Galactica. ---
**Author:** ![Hey\_It\_s\_That\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Hey\_It\_s\_That\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hey_It_s_That_Guy)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/3 "2005-06-21T12:18:35Z")
The Maltese Falcon (the famous Humphrey Bogart movie wasn’t the original, if I remember correctly). ---
**Author:** ![Indyellen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/indyellen/32/4176_2.png) [@Indyellen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indyellen)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/4 "2005-06-21T12:23:46Z")
IMHO, the newer **Thomas Crown Affair** with Pierce Brosnan was better than the original one with Steve McQueen. I have seen both, and I thought that the newer version was a catchier film, with better plot & acting. I realize people will probably disagree with me, but there it is. 😉 I recently read an article somewhere about movie remakes…I’ll try to track it down. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/5 "2005-06-21T12:42:07Z")
> [@Big Bad Voodoo Lou](#): > > The Maltese Falcon (the famous Humphrey Bogart movie wasn’t the original, if I remember correctly). Well, we have two. Maybe. The first _Thing_ had a cold war period feel to it. The second had Kurt Russell and great special effects. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Hey\_It\_s\_That\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Hey\_It\_s\_That\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hey_It_s_That_Guy)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/6 "2005-06-21T12:47:46Z")
Also, the new Ocean’s 11 is far superior to the original, and I say that as a fan of the Rat Pack. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/7 "2005-06-21T12:54:09Z")
His Girl Friday was light-years beyond any of the thousands of versions of The Front Page that came before. Also any of the thousands of versions that came after. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/8 "2005-06-21T12:55:45Z")
Ocean’s Eleven and The Thing are both great examples. Lessee - personally, I prefer The Magnificent Seven to the Seven Samurai, but that’s just me… compare the original ‘The Longest Yard’ to … no, not the Adam Sandler film, but ‘Mean Machine’, the British remake. There are several different versions of ‘A Star Is Born’, but I’ve only seen one of them, so I can’t comment… Ah! The Mark of Zorro. The 1920 Silent with Doug Fairbanks is good - but the 1940 talkie with Tyrone Power is better. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/9 "2005-06-21T13:18:16Z")
> [@Big Bad Voodoo Lou](#): > > The Maltese Falcon (the famous Humphrey Bogart movie wasn’t the original, if I remember correctly). You [do](http://www.ejmd.mcmail.com/-1.htm#4b). It was the third version, in fact. I recently watched the Ricardo Cortez version, now called\* Dangerous Female\*. It’s a good movie, well worth watching as a curiosity, but nothing compared to the Bogart version. ---
**Author:** ![sewalk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@sewalk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sewalk)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/10 "2005-06-21T13:20:23Z")
Love Affair (1939) and An Affair to Remember (1957) both have their adherents. There are even a few people that prefer the Annette Benning/Warren Beatty 1994 version although I can’t imagine why, other than Katherine Hepburn’s cameo. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/11 "2005-06-21T13:38:07Z")
You can remake a movie that wasn’t particularly good. The earlier **Maltese Falcons** are an example – entertaining and forgettable (Warren Williams performance as Sam Spade is just plain weird). Then Huston comes along, sticks closely to the book, and makes a good film. However, the better the film, the less likely a remake succeeds (artistically, I mean – you can make big bux these days with crappy remakes). You’re going up against too much, with too big a chance for failure. Peter Jackson does have a better than usual chance of making **King Kong** succeed, but I suspect it will be more spectacular than the original, but not better (for one thing, you can’t get the same attitudes that made the original work). ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/12 "2005-06-21T13:38:14Z")
The 1939 **Wizard of Oz** was not the first one filmed, yet I reckon most folks would consider it superior to the versions that came before (according to IMDB, there were two silent movies, called “The Wizard of Oz” and “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz”, released before the 1939 version). ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/13 "2005-06-21T13:39:43Z")
I suspect that no one would put the 1910, 1921, or 1925 versions of THE WIZARD OF OZ as superior to the 1939 version. Plus, the obvious example is not from movies but from theatre: how many versions of HAMLET have there been? Are we to say they are all inferior to the earliest versions, because we don’t have boys playing the female roles? Because we use scenery? And, are we to say that Shakespeare’s version is inferior to the earlier version? Pfui. How about songs? I’ll put Gene Kelly’s “Singin’ in the Rain” ahead of most versions that came before. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/14 "2005-06-21T13:56:56Z")
\*The Thing \* has already been mentioned. Carpenter’s remake does a far better job of developing an atmosphere of dark paranoia, and the vastly superior special effects don’t hurt either. It sticks closer to the original story, too. The remake of \*Little Shop of Horrors \* is definitely much better than the original. Hitchcock remade _The Man Who Knew Too Much,_ and I much prefer the remake. The original is good, but I thought the direction on the remake was a lot more polished. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/15 "2005-06-21T14:21:16Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Carpenter’s remake does a far better job of developing an atmosphere of dark paranoia, and the vastly superior special effects don’t hurt either. It sticks closer to the original story, too. The '51 version has the Cold War threat going for it. There is no need to develop dark paranoia, it’s already there. Watch the skies! I agree about the special effects. “You’ve gotta be fuckin’ kidding.” 🙂 All I remember about the story _Who Goes There_ is that the alien had some kind of flying device the humans later back engineered. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/16 "2005-06-21T14:28:01Z")
I’ll also agree on **The Thing** , but it’s not even really a remake – the original lifted bits of the original Campbell story, but turned it into a wholly different film. The Carpenter film was pretty faithful to the story, except that the story effectively ended when they killed off the last Thing (the Wilford Brimley one in this), and they get the flying machine as a bonus. The film didn’t really need a dark and ambiguous ending. Agree also on **The Maltese Falcon**. a lot of films were better in their later incarnations than in the Silent versions: \*\*Moby Dick Dr. Jeckyll and Mister Hyde 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea Frankenstein The Ten Commandments The Wizard of Oz\*\* (already mentioned) The 1976 remake of **King Kong** was a joke that didn’t understand the original at all, and had much crappier special effects than it should have for so late a date. I’ll give Peter Jackson a chance, as he seems to know what he’s doing (and still better effects are now available). ---
**Author:** ![borschevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@borschevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borschevsky)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/17 "2005-06-21T14:31:30Z")
A few more suggestions: **Scarface The Fly Cape Fear** ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/18 "2005-06-21T15:57:42Z")
> [@borschevsky](#): > > A few more suggestions: > > **Scarface > The Fly > Cape Fear** Haven’t seen Scarface, and I’ll give you The Fly… but Cape Fear? Nu-unh. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/19 "2005-06-21T16:28:38Z")
An IMDB search says that there were at least 22 versions made of _The Three Musketeers_ before Richard Lester made the best one in 1973. ---
**Author:** ![borschevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@borschevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borschevsky)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184/20 "2005-06-21T17:04:53Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Haven’t seen Scarface, and I’ll give you The Fly… but Cape Fear? Nu-unh. 😉 Not even the Sideshow Bob version? 🙂 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-remakes-be-better-than-the-original/309184.md?page=2)