There has never been a movie remake better than the original

[anamnesis]

@Obligate Carnivore

Pretty sure I’m in the minority, but I greatly prefer Charlie and the Chocolate Factory over its 70s counterpart. I feel it was much closer to the original feel of the book and the music was better. Although I can’t deny the pure campiness of the original that appeals to many people.

I was just watching this Burton remake for the first time the other day, and I’m on the other end of the spectrum. I honestly couldn’t sit through it without developing a mild cranial hemorrhage. This says a lot, considering the amazing level of visual detail it was given. It’s that the dialog was so horrific I couldn’t watch it without the feeling that my brain was liquifying. Depp’s rendition of the titular character may have been a departure, and despite the fact that he was just way too random to even be a solid character, that wasn’t what ruined it for me.

The story lost its edge, its humor, its snappy whimsicality. I know Burton’s whole trademark is the flip side of the coin and it’s hard to argue with the brilliance of his stylized visions, but the narrative was just painfully dull, and the effects weren’t enough to make up for it. Anyone who’s seen the original would probably want to go into the remake expecting a surprise, something new, a twist … instead, the remake drags along and relies on flat punchlines and awkward pauses. I despise the recent film trend of the post-punchline awkward pause, as if the viewer is expected to keep laughing at a drawn out double-take. Lawlz, the characters are pausing and awkwardly staring at each other! Moar funnys!

All the money and set design talent in Hollywood can’t replace quality dialog. The original had such heart that it didn’t need million dollar sets. The remake sadly traded one for the other. I wouldn’t be surprised if Roald Dahl has probably joined Dr. Seuss in some counseling group in the afterlife for child authors whose material has been depraved and violated beyond reproach on the silver screen.

[Freudian_Slit]

@anamnesis

The story lost its edge, its humor, its snappy whimsicality. I know Burton’s whole trademark is the flip side of the coin and it’s hard to argue with the brilliance of his stylized visions, but the narrative was just painfully dull, and the effects weren’t enough to make up for it. Anyone who’s seen the original would probably want to go into the remake expecting a surprise, something new, a twist … instead, the remake drags along and relies on flat punchlines and awkward pauses. I despise the recent film trend of the post-punchline awkward pause, as if the viewer is expected to keep laughing at a drawn out double-take. Lawlz, the characters are pausing and awkwardly staring at each other! Moar funnys!

All the money and set design talent in Hollywood can’t replace quality dialog. The original had such heart that it didn’t need million dollar sets. The remake sadly traded one for the other. I wouldn’t be surprised if Roald Dahl has probably joined Dr. Seuss in some counseling group in the afterlife for child authors whose material has been depraved and violated beyond reproach on the silver screen.

I’m with you. It was trying way, way too hard. Everything was just too…perfect looking. I preferred the rougher looking but more realistic feeling 70s version. And Johnny Depp doing his best Michael Jackson impression did NOT help things.

Neither did the fact that the Oompa Loompas were obviously played by one guy through the magic of CGI made to look like many. It just made it all the more show offy.

[commasense]

@Hueur

I thought the remakes of The Thomas Crown Affair and La Femme Nikita were better than the originals.

It would be also be interesting to find out if anyone who thought the remake was better saw the original movie first. I saw the remakes of both of the above movies first, then saw the original. Perhaps I’m biased because I saw the remake first.

You thought Point of No Return was better than Nikita?!? I thought it took all the life, spark, and character out of the original and left a bland and boring mess. (FTR: I saw Nikita first.)

@anyrose

I’ve also been thinking about Bedazzled. Peter Cook/Dudley Moore is usually an unbeatable combination, and it might just be my crush on Brendan Fraser, but his Bedazzled (with Elizabeth Hurley) was much better. It had a tighter script, but YMMV.

No, no, no, no, no. Although I would give my right arm to sniff Elizabeth Hurley’s bicycle seat (is that TMI?), and although I enjoyed many aspects of the remake, it is not a better film. That’s because it surgically removed nearly all of the social satire of the original. Gone are Cook and Moore’s pokes at religion, social mores, and popular culture. While I admit that Ms. Hurley in a red bikini is much more enjoyable to look at than Peter Cook in a nun’s habit, the original is witty and funny, whereas the latter is merely funny.

As for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I was a fan of the book (and Dahl’s other works) long before the Gene Wilder movie, which I’ve never been able to sit through. I strongly suspect that most of Willy Wonka’s most ardent defenders saw it as relatively young children before they read the book (which by that time had already been bowdlerized to make the Oompa Loompa’s non-blacks). I’ve always thought the Gene Wilder version is cheesy and tacky, and the bits that I’ve seen included stuff that was not in the spirit of the book, IMHO. So I preferred the recent version, which I think is truer to the source, despite the unpleasant added subplot of Wonka’s father.

(However, since I haven’t seen the 1971 film from beginning to end, I’ve set my DVR to record it later this week, and if I have a change of heart, I’ll duly report it here.)

Finally, I suspect that many people prefer remakes because they find it easier to relate to a film set closer to the present day than the B&W past, before they were born. That, or the one they prefer was the first one they saw, it made a big impression, and the other couldn’t measure up in their estimation. I may be as subject to this as anyone, although I think Here Comes Mr. Jordan has more life and is less dated than Heaven Can Wait (1978), and although the new Sabrina is a very enjoyable film, but there’s something classic about the Bogart/Hepburn original that the later one lacks.

[Nzinga_Seated]

@jali

I HATED The Wiz! I saw Stephanie Mills on Broadway and the film version starring Ms. Ross really disappointed me. The music was great - I really disliked the settings and the general feeling of the film.

Even the “Brand New Day” scene? Heresy!

[ianzin]

Can I answer with a prediction? I think the forthcoming The Incredible Hulk (Louis Leterrier, 2008) will be at least ten times better than Hulk (Ang Lee, 2003).

I think this is a very safe prediction because, really, when you look at the 2003 effort, the only direction left to go is ‘better’.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Dead Badger

Right. A luscious, freshly picked apple floating in ice water in the middle of a desert, and a slightly manky orange with some of that green powdery mould growing on the bottom of it.

Okay, a luscious, freshly picked apple with some pacing and direction problems in the third bite, but still.

The original Battlestar Galactica was stupid even as a “movie.” The television series that got slapped together to follow was completely insipid (and I say that as a person who, as a late teen, gobbled up every episode simply because I was so starved for science fiction on TV that even really campy bad science fiction was better than nothing!) The special effects were really poor (which was an especial affront given that Star Wars had managed to show how good they could be!). The acting was atrocious as a rule (mostly, I suspect, because the writing was lame lame lame, making it hard to do a good acting job). The plots were generally silly, and filled with plenty of holes.

The new version, while darker in mood, is essentially the same show. The plot lines are fairly similar (though certainly not identical, given the fact that the cylons are now human in appearance); indeed, many of the shows have reworked versions of plots from the original show. The basics of the equipment are much the same (including essentially the same shape for the Vipers and the Galactica). It is, in short, different only in tone.

Now, for someone who liked the original show because of the fact it was “Bonanza” in space, liked its campy nature, liked the fact that they joked around a lot, the new show isn’t going to be as appealing. But you should admit that the new show is a better made show, even if you don’t like the imagining as well.

[CalMeacham]

The original Battlestar Galactica was stupid even as a “movie.” The television series that got slapped together to follow was completely insipid (and I say that as a person who, as a late teen, gobbled up every episode simply because I was so starved for science fiction on TV that even really campy bad science fiction was better than nothing!) The special effects were really poor (which was an especial affront given that Star Wars had managed to show how good they could be!). The acting was atrocious as a rule (mostly, I suspect, because the writing was lame lame lame, making it hard to do a good acting job). The plots were generally silly, and filled with plenty of holes.

It was even more stupid than you think – the TV series wasn’t “slapped together to follow” – it was TV series First.
Then they made the movie.
If that seems stupid to you (who would pay to see something they’d already seen for free on TV?), well, it was. They changed things for the movie release (Baltar died in the theatrical release, and I think there were other changes), but not enough to make it worthwhile.
A couple of years later, when Glen Larson made “Buck Rogers”, he learned his lesson, and released the movie first, then the TV show.

[Miller]

@DSYoungEsq

The special effects were really poor (which was an especial affront given that Star Wars had managed to show how good they could be!).

As I recall, one of the selling points of the series was that they had one of the guys who designed a lot of the effects for Star Wars working on the show. And you can see it in the space combat sequences, which were actually pretty good. Unfortunetly, the pricetag on these effects meant that they got endlessly recycled in virtually every damn episode. And the non-space combat effects were… well, the less said the better, I think.

[tdn]

I’ll probably get slapped silly for this, but I liked the remake of Lord of the Flies. The first was brilliant, to be sure, but I thought the remake was better. Better score, better Piggy, and I’m a big Balthazar Getty fan. Too bad he doesn’t get huge roles these days.

Ocean’s Eleven is one of my favorite all time movies. Ocean’s Eleven, on the other hand, was strident and irritating.

[Malthus]

@Der Trihs

Exactly what I popped in to say.

Also, live action The Return of the King > > > > the old cartoon version.

But the cartoon version had some great songs. Who could forget “where there’s a whip … there’s a way?”

[tdn]

@Malthus

But the cartoon version had some great songs. Who could forget “where there’s a whip … there’s a way?”

Not I. But it’s not for not trying.

[CalMeacham]

People seen to agree that the remake Mad Love is better than the original Hands of Orlac, or the 1960 remake.

Mad Love (1935) ⭐ 7.2 | Horror, Romance, Sci-Fi

The Hands of Orlac (1924) ⭐ 7.0 | Crime, Horror, Mystery

The Hands of Orlac (1960) ⭐ 5.6 | Crime, Horror, Sci-Fi

[well_he_s_back]

Jumping in to the debates:

I never enjoyed the Gene Wilder chocalate factory movie, but loved the Johnny Depp version (and I never got a Michael Jackson vibe from his portrayal).

The George Clooney “Ocean’s” was better than the Frank Sinatra “Ocean’s”.

Those are the remakes which are better - or at least which pop into my mind right now.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@CalMeacham

… A couple of years later, when Glen Larson made “Buck Rogers”, he learned his lesson, and released the movie first, then the TV show.

Which reminds me: Larson’s Buck Rogers was, for all its cheesiness, Star Wars ripoffs and bad '70s hair, a big improvement over the earlier B&W version.

I liked the Coen Brothers/Tom Hanks remake of The Ladykillers (gasp!) more than the Alec Guiness original. But not by much, and they really are very different movies.

[shamrock227]

@commasense

(However, since I haven’t seen the 1971 film from beginning to end, I’ve set my DVR to record it later this week, and if I have a change of heart, I’ll duly report it here.)

I am a big fan of the book and the original movie.

I like the remake. I especially appreciate that it stuck to the book for the most part. But Depp’s take on Wonka was grating to me and it sucks a lot of the enjoyment out of the movie. I don’t believe Depp’s Wonka has the intelligence and drive to run a lemonade stand much less the world’s most famous and successful chocolate factory. (and, FWIW, I got a bad Michael Jackson impression vibe from his portrayal).

Wilder on the other hand. I can just see it. A charming, witty, and intelligent gentleman who you can easily believe is clever enough to run the factory and invent all those wonderful sweets – who also happens to be able to turn completely batshit on a dime. That said, the movie is definitely dated, I’m sure much of my continued enjoyment of the movie (besides Wilder’s portrayal) is nostalgia.
My submission to the thread is A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The 1999 version with Kevin Klein and Rupert Everett. It was just pure fun. And I thought the casting of Stanley Tucci as Puck was brilliant.

[Hometownboy]

A short prelude: when I was a mere Hometownlad of perhaps 11 (circa 1960) my parents surprised me and my 9-year-old brother one evening with the startling knowledge that we would be allowed to stay up to watch the late movie ON A SCHOOL NIGHT.

The reason? The film being shown was the incomparable Beau Geste (1939), which had been a particular favorite of my parents. Gary Cooper, Ray Milland, Robert Preston, Brian Donlevy as the vilainous Sgt. Markov (his one and only Oscar nomination), Susan Hayward (in her film debut), J. Carol Naish and even Donald O’Conner playing Gary Cooper’s character as a boy. The French Foreign Legion! Fort Zinderneuf! The missing Blue Water sapphire! A Viking funeral, with a dog at his feet! Hoo Boy!

It is one of the coolest things my parents ever did for us.

Now, I haven’t seen the original 1926 silent version which seems to have been a very good version as well, but I would seriously avoid the 1966 version. Doug McClure and Guy Stockwell? Nah, though Telly Savalas makes a swell villain.

There apparently was also a 1982 British TV mini-series about which I know nothing.

And then there’s The Last Remake of Beau Geste (1977), which apparently really wasn’t the last, given the mini-series above.

Haven’t seen it, but this description: “Comedian Marty Feldman directed and starred in Universal’s parody The Last Remake of Beau Geste (1977), with cleverly-edited footage from the 1939 version spliced in,” is intriguing, as is the cast list which includes Spike Milligan, Terry-Thomas, James Earl Jones (!) Michael York, Henry Gibson and Avery Schreiber, along with Feldman, who directed. May have to hunt that one down sometime.