Films where the remake is regarded better than the original

Films where the remake is regarded better than the original.

What do you guys think? Original or remake?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-5798-VRVYA
youtu.be/ZY0b8KNAZVg
twitter.com/AnonBabble

dawn of the dead

fite me irl if you disagree

I i unironically agree.

strong agree

i agree

True fact.

as much as a "meme" as they are now Gunn can write a solid screenplay and Snyder is a solid visual director.

inb4 plebs who have never seen the original Howard Hawks Thing say The Thing

The Thing

That was more of a prequel though, since it's about the original camp, iirc

Didn't care for the remake. Seemed just a slick duller version of the original.

The original wasn't high art either but the rape scenes are still hard to watch.

My ass, although the two floor corridor fight was pretty dope and brolin was damn good.
The antagonist was fucking pathetic

But you gotta give it to carpenter to making it so much better.
Props to hawk though with the electric floor trap

?

Fuck me harder Steve

Fuck no.

this guy

Correct answers coming through

my bad, i didn't even know there was a Thing before Carpenters. I just thought that user was being retarded.

but it turns out i'm retarded.

...

...

...

More like the defarted

good one

The only "correct" answers are:
The thing 1982
Scarface 1983
The fly 1986

The rest is you being a subtitle impaired pleb

Its not even a competition.

You can't seriously prefer Kubrick's Lolita to the 97 version.

Not a remake though

t. cunnyposter

The Thing wasn't a remake of that movie though.

I'm a cunnysier but I'm not the cunnyposter

I don't want a hard drive full of little girl pics

Carpenter's version was more faithful to the novel but they did pay homage to the 1950s movie with the title screen sequence.

Dont feel too bad user. They really are completely diff movies and Carpenters is not a remake.
They are both billed as being adapted from the book Who Goes There. But the Hawkes film has no similarities to the book except "spaceman found in frozen tundra"

yes. so much. The original was a stupid comedy. Jeremy Irons is the best.

Infernal Affairs is gross weeb.

Enjoy the sequels

Only Scarface is a remake. The others two are adaptations from short stories.

This.

>it's a Sup Forums doesn't understand what a word means episode

This^

Hawkes
>Alaska
>frozen 7 foot tall plant based alien
>Alien gives no fuck about humans only wants plants
>plant man fried everyone lives

Carpenter
>Antarctica
>Alien with no known visual can take over multiple lifeforms
>Alien gives fuck about humans so it can take them all over
>Everyone dies

Once again, not a remake. It's another adaptation of the novel.

this definition of yours is retarded

it doesn't matter if it's adapted, it's still a remake of the film. the same subject matter is covered.

or we could use your retarded logic and say the films are remakes of the novel, in a visual medium.

No it isn't. A remake means that the original film is the source material like Scarface. In the case of The Thing, there are multiple adaptations of the source material, which is a book.

No one thinks that

A notable exception being Gus Van Sant's Psycho which was a shot-for-shot remake of Hitchcock's adaptation of the book.

user, it really doesn't matter what the source is. all films start with a screenplay. which is basically an unpublished book to use a terrible analogy.

my point is you're trying to define "remake" as something that doesn't have a source in literature, which is silly.

It's not though. Calling John Carpenter's The Thing a remake of The Thing From Another World like this guy tried to do is very inaccurate. Carpenter's movie was a much more faithful adaptation of the source material.

If you actually think Infernal Affairs is better than The Departed you are a hipster or a HK weeb.

Departed isn't great or whatever, but it sure as shit is better than the shitty mess that is Infernal Affairs.

so by your logic the Disney Beauty and the Beast films are not remakes of the original French film, I'm guessing

No, because they're not. How is this hard to understand?

Best remake coming thru

youtube.com/watch?v=-5798-VRVYA

i just don't like your logic in this matter, sorry. i think it's a goofy definition.

GUESS WE JUST GOTTA AGREE TO DISAGREE user

>the same subject matter is covered

Nothing is the same except an alien in a frozen wasteland.
If we use your retarded logic than Aliens vs Predator, Alien Hunter, and XFiles movie are also remakes of Hawkes film becuz alien in frozen wasteland.
Please tell me ur not really that stupid

if you disagree you're wrong

HHHHHHHHHHH

I was talking about Lolita specifically, but my argument applies to anything adapted from a novel.

if they share a source they are remakes, it doesn't matter if the source is a film or a novel. it's all covering the same ground. all you need is one adaptation and then another adaptation of the same thing. boom, remake.

I'm just trying to make a distinction between the two. I wouldn't call that shitty TV miniseries version of The Shining a remake of Kubrick's version, ya know?

well. it is though. with a different format being made for TV.

but it's still a remake, it's the same damn thing remade. why is this so difficult to grasp?

maybe you're thinking of reBOOT which is a little different.

I agree

youtu.be/ZY0b8KNAZVg

No, I'm just saying adaptation would be the more correct word to use. Both Kubrick's version and the miniseries are adaptations of Stephen King's original novel. Kubrick's version was a lot more loose with the story as written though.

i'd say they're interchangeable, or more correctly, we seem to be arguing what the intent of the later film's creator is. who is to say 1997 Lolita is not a response to Kubrick's goofy version? likewise who is to say the the 2011 The Thing is not a remake of the 1982 The Thing?

They are both adaptations, AND remakes. Whereas perhaps something like is definitely a remake but not an adaptation, afaik.

Anyway, I still say they are remakes.

But ur argument really doesnt apply to Teh Thing.
Hawkes film is billed as "loosely adapted" from the novella. All he used was an alien found on one of the poles (movie uses north pole). Nothing else.
Carpenters film is "based" on the novella and he uses almost everything from it.

What about the 2011 The Thing then? Is that a remake or not?

Its a prequel to 1982 The Thing that shows the original group that found the spacecraft and dug up the alien. They get buttraped and the thing survives as a dog which is where the 1982 movie picks up.

Yet it copies many of the tropes from that movie. The weird head monster thing, flamethrower. Technically a prequel but in spirit a remake, otherwise it would be called The Thing: Awakening or something.

I feel like I'm just arguing semantics at this point though.

pr was absolute kino and the remake was great gore porn.

>but in spirit a remake
I could sorta buy that.

>The weird head monster thing
The 1982 crew finds the weird head monster inside the remains of the 2011 crew base. The 2011 crew actually find the spacecraft and blow it up which is what the 1982 crew discovers.

Both are not related to hawkes movie tho.

Also, who else saw 1982 The Thing and wondered why they never explored the spaceship? It was mostly intact and they could have landed the chopper on top of it without having to climb down.

>the theater scene was ad-libbed by both.

>oldboy remake
>better

While I don't think it's better, it's still bretty good.

YOU UTTER PLEBS

>rape is bad xDDD
>people should be tortured for rape XDDDD

FUCKING COME AT ME

god damn that looks like gross-out kino

which blob movie is this, idk how many there are

blob 1988
absolute kino

GTFO with ur abomination of a film.
Matt Damon can never compare to Glen Campbell!

Hunger Games > Battle Royale

I like the way you think

...

Where should we meet?

>Departed
.. was the correct answer

...

>If you actually think Infernal Affairs is better than The Departed
It is, and its a well known fact

Beyond the pale even for bait

What about the revenge scenes? The whole climax of the remake was pretty good I thought.

ez

I don't even know how people consider this a remake when it's more like a soft reboot that just used the same name. They hardly have anything in common

kinda ashamed this wasnt posted