# The Remake is Better
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314
**Category:** Cafe Society
**Created:** [March 30, 2013, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314 "2013-03-30T00:34:14Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/1 "2013-03-30T00:34:14Z")
…in your humble opinion, of course 🙂
We’ve discussed the occasional cases where a movie adaptation is better than the source story/novel, but very little time talking about superior remakes. And by “remakes” I mean a. movies redone years later in the same language and b. movies remade any length of time later to present the concept to an audience that speaks a different language than the one the original was presented in (non-English to English, English to Bollywood etc).
What’s your nomination for superior remake(s)? Which appealed to you more is what I’m seeking to know, since “better” is very subjective.
IMHO **House on Haunted Hill** (1999) is vastly more entertaining than **House on Haunted Hill** (1959). It’s a lot more horrific, for one, and less campy than the Price version.
Likewise \*\*Thir13en Ghosts \*\*(2001) appealed to me much more than **13 Ghosts** (1960). When I finally saw the original I couldn’t believe how little actually happens in the movie.
You?
---
### Author:  [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/2 "2013-03-30T00:59:27Z")
Cecil B. deMille’s 1959 **The Ten Commandments** easily beats his silent original version, and not just because of sound and color.
Merian C. Cooper’s version of **She** is regarded as the definitive version, much better than the previous (silent) versions, but also better than the 1960s later remake.
A lot of films were based on the same story, and might not have had earlier film versions in mind, so I’m not sure how legit it is to call them “remakes”. That said, Rouben Mamoulian’s **dr. Jeckyll and Mister Hyde** trumps all previous (and later) versions. Given my druthers, I’d take the Per Oscarsson or Kenneth Branaugh versions of **Frankenstein** over earlier versions, and, despite its faults, the Francis Ford Coppola **Dracula** over most of the previous incarnations.
---
### Author:  [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/3 "2013-03-30T02:01:44Z")
I’ll take Richard Lester’s **The Three Musketeers** over any of the earlier (or later, for that matter) versions.
I’m also pretty partial to the most recent version of **King Kong.**
Peter Jackson’s **Lord of the Rings** certainly beats Ralph Bakshi’s.
---
### Author:  [@Barking\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barking_Dog)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/4 "2013-03-30T02:12:43Z")
I rather like **The Thomas Crowne Af** fair with Pierce Brosnan much more than the original. And not just because of Rene Russo topless. That’s just the cherry on the sundae.
---
### Author:  [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/5 "2013-03-30T02:39:20Z")
The Maltese Falcon (1941) vs.
Satan Met a Lady (1936) and
The Maltese Falcon (1931)
The Wizard of Oz (1939) vs.
The Wizard of Oz (1933) and
Wizard of Oz (1925) and
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1910)
Casino Royale (2006) vs.
Casino Royale (1967)
Granted, I haven’t seen many of these, and some may be not terrible. And I’m sure the Oz movies are based on different parts of Baum’s million books.
---
### Author:  [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/6 "2013-03-30T03:01:22Z")
_The Thing_, 1982 was far better than _The Thing From Another World_, 1951.
_Tombstone_ was far better than any film version (and they are legion) of Wyatt Earp and the events that transpired.
---
### Author:  [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/7 "2013-03-30T04:04:23Z")
I felt that the Ed Norton _Hulk_ was a better movie than the one with Eric Bana. It came closer to the true origin story of The Hulk, the true reason for the Hulk to have his powers (nanites? really?), and gave a nice tie-in to the Captain America origin story.
---
### Author:  [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/8 "2013-03-30T04:19:35Z")
I’m aware I’m in the minority here, but I enjoyed the Depp/Burton _Charlie and the Chocolate Factory_ more than the Gene Wilder one.
---
### Author:  [@Carmady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carmady)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/9 "2013-03-30T04:41:37Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#):
>
> I’m aware I’m in the minority here, but I enjoyed the Depp/Burton _Charlie and the Chocolate Factory_ more than the Gene Wilder one.
Can’t follow you there. The funny thing about the Burton version is that, in its own way, it is even less true to the book than the old movie was. It’s also not internally coherent in my view.
Not sure if I’m in the minority on this, but I liked the Coen brothers True Grit more than the original.
---
### Author:  [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/10 "2013-03-30T04:48:04Z")
If two movies are made of the same book, is one a “remake” of the other? I usually just use the word for cases where someone is redoing a previous film, not just a later film based on the same book or comic or whatever.
Seems weird to say, for example, that Coppola’s Dracula was a “remake” of the Bela Legosi movie, or for that matter: “Dracula: Dead and Loving it”
FWIW: [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remake) seems to agree with me.
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/11 "2013-03-30T04:57:58Z")
> [@Simplicio](#):
>
> If two movies are made of the same book, is one a “remake” of the other?
No.
Nor are two (or more) movies based on the same historical event, e.g. the gunfight at the O.K. corral.
---
### Author:  [@Enright3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enright3)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/12 "2013-03-30T05:00:32Z")
Oceans 11. The Frank Sinatra version… not so good if you ask me.
---
### Author:  [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/13 "2013-03-30T05:02:40Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#):
>
> I felt that the Ed Norton _Hulk_ was a better movie than the one with Eric Bana.
You are the first person in history to ever say that. :dubious:
> [@Simplicio](#):
>
> If two movies are made of the same book, is one a “remake” of the other? I usually just use the word for cases where someone is redoing a previous film, not just a later film based on the same book or comic or whatever.
I think one defining factor would be: if the first movie invents something or makes a unique interpretation, and the second movie continues it, then it’s more like the remake is primarily inspired by the first movie, not book/etc. Like the Bollywood Fight Club remake is probably more based on the movie, although the Wikipedia synopsis suggests it’s also in a way different direction. With dancing.
It seems that the three movie versions of _I Am Legend_ at times were inspired by their predecessor more than the novella.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/14 "2013-03-30T05:44:47Z")
I’ll admit I haven’t seen them. But the consensus seems to be that the Nolan _Batman_ movies are better than the Burton/Schumacher series.
---
### Author:  [@magnusblitz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magnusblitz)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/15 "2013-03-30T06:24:06Z")
_Total Recall_
hahah just kidding
---
### Author:  [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elmer_J.Fudd)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/16 "2013-03-30T06:36:45Z")
**The Last of the Mohicans** (1992) was better than the 1936 version it was based on.
---
### Author:  [@planetcory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/planetcory)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/17 "2013-03-30T06:54:23Z")
> [@magnusblitz](#):
>
> _Total Recall_
>
> hahah just kidding
I’m not. I enjoyed it more. ‘Better’? I don’t know, but I enjoyed it more.
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/18 "2013-03-30T07:02:46Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> I’ll admit I haven’t seen them. But the consensus seems to be that the Nolan _Batman_ movies are better than the Burton/Schumacher series.
> [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](#):
>
> **The Last of the Mohicans** (1992) was better than the 1936 version it was based on.
Once again, Batman doesn’t count as a remake, it’s a different movie based on the same source material. And was the 1992 Last Of The Mohicans really based on an earlier movie, or was it based on the novel?
---
### Author:  [@Snooooopy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snooooopy)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/19 "2013-03-30T07:15:36Z")
> [@elfkin477](#):
>
> Likewise \*\*Thir13en Ghosts \*\*(2001) appealed to me much more than **13 Ghosts** (1960). When I finally saw the original I couldn’t believe how little actually happens in the movie.
Boy, I can’t even begin to imagine how terrible the 1960 movie is if the remake represents a significant improvement. I tell you what, though, I was taking a look through the Wikipedia entry for the remake, which details the fairly extensive back stories that they came up with for all of the ghosts, and it occurred to me that if they’d actually gone into more of THAT stuff on the screen, the film might have really had something going for it.
---
### Author:  [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elmer_J.Fudd)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2013, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314/20 "2013-03-30T07:19:32Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#):
>
> Once again, Batman doesn’t count as a remake, it’s a different movie based on the same source material. And was the 1992 Last Of The Mohicans really based on an earlier movie, or was it based on the novel?
Philip Dunne’s 1936 screenplay is credited in the titles of the 1992 film.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-remake-is-better/654314.md?page=2)