Times when the remake/reboot was better than the original

Post'em

...

That ending at the fountain is the ultimate man-kino.

and we are done
/thread

...

I would have liked to have seen more of the blonde girl nude

Saw this 3 times in theaters. good shit

I've been watching this about every six months without fail, why? please why what is it?

310 to Yuma
the fly
the thing

the little girl is sexy

nope not it pedo, I like the coens but not this much something about this film

looks better with one arm

...

You needed your Jeff Bridges fix. I'm exactly like you.

I think that might be it

seen this yet? Really good

then why not watch this modern masterpiece?

been meaning to get to it I have it, will watch now
I watched that in the cinema in 3d on really good acid, and a freind freaked out and we left about 1/2 way through, good times

which one was better?

yojimbo always, fist full is great though
yojimbo vs zatoichi best

Didn't see the original, but this was pretty dreadful.

Dollars. I find Kurosawa to be very overrated.

seriously opinion discarded, damn you suck

The book.

this imo

magnificent 7 (the 1960 one) is more enjoyable then 7 samurai

yes, and I always like kirosawa but yea magnificent 7 is better then 7 samurai

The Thing

If it used practical effects I probably would have liked it better than the original.

what? The thing is a remake of the thing from another world and did use practical effects

for a movie where basically nothing happens it's great

isn't the acting shitty in those old japan movies? like in jacki chan movies

>No based Kurt
>CGI fest
>Better

3/10 made me reply

I really like movies where nothing happens, ok i really need to watch this

no, its Mifune its kirosawa its about as close to perfect film making as you get, for fucks sake, i'm drunk and tired so I'm not getting into it but fuck,
7 samurai is awesome too I just watched a bunch of comparison stuff and I changed my mind I like 7 samurai better

wtf are you talking about? The 80's movie the thing is the remake!

you um you dumb, yes the kurt russel one is better

in no way shape or form

Old Boy

b8

that's not a remake, it's another adaptation of the book Who Goes There.

the only thing it shares with the 1950s version is the intro title effect that Carpenter's a fan of.

>that's not a remake, it's another adaptation of the book Who Goes There.
hmm

are you retarded?????

no its you, this is remakes better then the OG The Thing by carpenter is better then the 50s one, not even him your just really retarded

>pic unrelated.jpg

yes, you call those adaptations, the 1950s movie is about a big frankenstein monster-looking vegetable guy attacking people instead of a shapeshifting creature who can assimilate organisms and pose as them. it's less accurate to the source material than the disney pocahontas.

sly fgt

ok whatever, its all the same thing in the end its a rehash of something already done, call it whatever you like, john carpenters one is still better

The Producers comes to mind.
Also Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. And I agree with Dredd.

I don't know what a remake is if not a movie based on the same source material as a previous movie. Of course there are differences in how the material is adapted to the film, that doesn't disqualify it as a remake. I would say it's the very reason remakes exist.

Oh, and I guess if we're going the capeshit route then I like 1989's Batman more than the Adam West one, if that counts.

what????

huh?????

>Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
>remake of Marlon Brando film
I did not know this.

>capeshit
>dredd
your just really fucking salty about this movie eh? why user?

>I don't know what a remake is if not a movie based on the same source material as a previous movie
A movie remake is something that takes the previous movie as source material and adapts it to ''contemporary standards''. John Carpenter's The Thing did not take the previous movie as source material. Ergo it's not a remake, just another adaptation.

You're basically saying any greek mythology movie today must be a remake of Jason and the Argonauts because hey, they're both from the same source material.

Capeshit refers to anything related to hero comic books, good or bad. That's why people call Logan capeshit despite praising it.

Scarface (TM)
Way superior than it's 1930's counterpart

>A movie remake is something that takes the previous movie as source material and adapts it to ''contemporary standards''.
I guess we have a different understanding of the word then. I have always seen remakes as movies pulling from the same material as a movie that came out previously, not as movies that use the previous film as source material.

you are really hung up on what defines a remake, please take a deep breath take a whole bunch sit down or maybe stand up and take a walk, you need to stop being so autistic ok?

you still need to come to terms with your high sodium levels, why do you dislike Dredd?

Different user but I'd also call a second film based on the same story a remake.
I guess to be technical we'd call it a readaptation (or something similar), but that word isn't really part of film-studies or filmmaking terminology.
I think for the purposes of this thread it's reasonable for him to say that both The Thing films are based on the same story and therefore reasonable for him to say that he liked one more than the other.
Should the word "readaptation" start being used on Sup Forums? If not, what substitute could we use?

If it's based on a comic, it's capeshit. Doesn't stop it from being an awesome movie.

capeshit is NOT related to anything from comics, Dredd is an action movie, not capeshit

That wasn't the user who referred to Dredd as capeshit; I was. And I don't dislike it. I think it's the second-best capeshit film ever, second only to 1978's Superman. I think it's an excellent film.
All I've said about it is that it's better than Judge Dredd. Don't know what would make you think I disliked it. Is it my use of the word "capeshit"?
That's a genre, not a rating.

>its better then judge dredd
ok then i'll stop being butthurt, remakeanon will stop being so autistic, and if you could please stop referring to really anything dredd related as 'capeshit' see we can all get along

>That's a genre, not a rating.
>literally contains the word shit
hmm

I don't really see how Dredd isn't capeshit. He's got mechanical organs and limbs (depending on the version), has a motorcycle not at all indifferent from the batmobile, and was in a serialised strip where he'd take out bad guys each week.
He also had crossovers with Batman (not to mention Alien and Predator).
Have you actually read any of his stuff or are you just saying the film isn't capeshit because you liked it?

On this board, capeshit has never meant 0/10. It's just a catch-all phrase for superhero crap, regardless of its quality. "capekino" is a much more recent development.

That's the definition of remake, otherwise, as I said, every greek mythology movie today would be a remake of Jason of the Argonauts because it's based on the same source material. Every sequel to a remake would also be called a remake according to your definition even if it shares zero similarities to the original source anymore.
>pointing out that something isn't a remake means you're autistic
>Different user but I'd also call a second film based on the same story a remake.
But the original movie isn't being ''remade'', it's being tossed aside. Something like the new Total Recall is a remake because it does take the original movie as source material and remakes it.

It's capeshit whether you like it or not.

its not a catch-all-phrase at all that what your missing it defines the current wave of trash that we've had for about 8 years now, kids aside that what it actually refers to, e.g. the invisible man with Chevy chase is capeshit by your definition

>On this board, capeshit has never meant 0/10. It's just a catch-all phrase for superhero crap, regardless of its quality.
I have to disagree. Obviously not 0/10 but I have always considered "capeshit" to be a term for all the soulless blockbuster superhero movies that keep coming and keep making money. It's doesn't just refer to the genre but implies a certain attitude in its development, huge companies making shitty entertainment that will appeal to masses. Movies made purely because they're projected to make money. Movies where no one actually cares about the end product or even tries to make any statements, just trying to finish something that lasts 90 minutes and will make money thanks to marketing.

as I said, u really hung up on the word 'remake' get over it

>Something like the new Total Recall is a remake because it does take the original movie as source material and remakes it.
Well, hang on, in neither the 2012 version or the original story is it set on Mars, but in the 1990 film it is. Wouldn't the 2012 version be drawing more from the original story than the 1990 version?
Anyway, my point is that at this stage there doesn't seem to be a better term for this particular phenomenon. We can either coin a new term for it or refer to it as a remake. I don't think that either option is particularly wrong at this stage.

Every mythology movie is kind of a remake though.
> Every sequel to a remake would also be called a remake according to your definition even if it shares zero similarities to the original source anymore.
Most of the times sequels use another book from the series as their source material rather than the first book. Or they use a completely new script that only has the character in common. You know this, you're not autistic.

are you this dense? is not capeshit you fucking retard, is an action movie

Regardless of your opinion of it, capeshit has always been used to refer to comic book movies, including praised ones like Logan.

It's like thinking that the extremely common -fag suffix always means something negative even when it's often used neutrally or even positively like ''oldfag''.

>e.g. the invisible man with Chevy chase is capeshit by your definition
Well, that's not based on a comic book, nor does it feature a superhero, so I'm not really sure what definition you think I'm going by.

Right, and it's exactly this kind of conversation which led to threads like "What's TDK then? Is that capeshit?" and then the "capekino" meme was born to refer to capeshit that was of a higher quality. It's far too late for me to stop saying capeshit, but I haven't yet been able to bring myself to start saying capekino.

>It's like thinking that the extremely common -fag suffix always means something negative even when it's often used neutrally or even positively like ''oldfag''.
Yeah, that's a pretty decent analogy for it.

yes it does, the invisible man was a comic strip and a full blown comic before the film e.g. capeshit

One of the best cyberpunk movie ever make

does it really count as a remake or reboot when it's just another adaptation of something that's older than you

There doesn't need to be a new term, it's what it's always been: adaptation. Every greek mythology movie is an adaptation, some like the 2010 Clash of the Titans double as a remake because they are remaking a previous movie.
>kind of a remake
No, just an adaptation of the source material, which isn't a movie (most of the time).
>Most of the times sequels use another book from the series as their source material rather than the first book
We're talking sequels to movie remakes, which are usually original stories. I'm not talking about sequels to regular adaptations that aren't remakes.

No, Chevy Chase's film, which was called Memoirs of an Invisible Man, is based on a novel.

An unrelated character called The Invisible Man also began in another novel written by H.G. Wells (a hundred years earlier, believe it or not), and this character was eventually adapted for comic-strips once it reached the public domain.

see

Okay, so if user wants to discuss multiple adaptations of various stories across multiple media, how would he go about creating the thread? Writing an essay to explain what he means and what he feels is eligible?

sure and thats what not only inspired its what it was entirely based off, by your definition it is cape shit

but thats completely wrong

>Okay, so if user wants to discuss multiple adaptations of various stories across multiple media, how would he go about creating the thread?
You mean ''let's talk about movies based on x''?

>We're talking sequels to movie remakes, which are usually original stories. I'm not talking about sequels to regular adaptations that aren't remakes.
Please I ask you to re-read this quote than ask yourself, am I making this more difficult than it has to be?

I don't care what this guy put there, Dredd is not capeshit, capeshit is everything made by marvel and DC as a product to make money, if you don't like Dredd go fuck yourself and stop saying nonsense

well shit I can't refute this amazing post. I concede.

That'd work for one very specific example, but this user began the thread to talk about multiple stories, not just the one.

He said "Times when the remake/reboot was better than the original".
Maybe "Times when later adaptations were better than the original"?

cool

What don't you understand?

Sequel to remake = Wrath of the Titans

Sequel to adaptation = Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Sequels to adaptations tend to be adaptations themselves like the example above. Sequels to standalone movie remakes on the other hand tend to be original stories (''original'' with the biggest quotation marks possible).

It's not, though. My definition of capeshit (and the definition that was until this thread, I believe, the pretty well-accepted definition on Sup Forums) is any film featuring a superhero and/or based upon a comic-book.

Wells wrote a book in 1987.
In 1955, Wells' character was used in a comic-strip.
Saint, inspired by Wells, wrote a book in 1987.
In 1992, Chevy Chase did a film based on Saint's book.
In 1999, Alan Moore used Wells' character in his comic-strip.

Do you see why Chase's character was not based upon a comic-book character, now? He didn't begin in a comic-strip - that was a later adaptation.
Comics have also been made for Aliens, Predators, Buffy, and Angel. Alien: Covenant is not based on a comic-book, though, because Alien did not begin as a comic-book.

>Dredd is a good movie, "capeshit" doesn't necessarily imply that it's a bad movie.
>i don't care what you wrote, you just don't like Dredd

so the comic has to come before anything else? cause almost everything has a comic attached these days, so does that make everything capeshit? or is it only things that first appeared as drawn?

nigga you don't understand

No, it's not a chronological thing, it's about from where the story was adapted.

If you wrote a book, and then another user turned it into a comic-series, and then without reading that comic series I turned your book into a film, then that film wouldn't be based upon the other user's comic series, would it?

But if you wrote a book, and then another user turned it into a comic-series, and then I read that comic-series, loved it, and turned it into a film without ever reading your book, then it would be based upon the series and not the book.

Two entirely separate men (Alan Moore and Saint), without any involvement with each other, were inspired by the same piece of work and created new works around it. These new works, though, had nothing to do with each other but for the fact that they were based on the same original material.

It's also worth mentioning that (to my knowledge), Saint has never admitted or acknowledged that his work was derived from Wells'. Probably was, though.

No, you don't seem to understand. Literally nobody in this thread has said that they don't like Dredd, and at least two anons have definitively stated that they do like it, but you still seem to be certain that they dislike it.

think that was a joke post after he realized his mistake, that phrase in particular is always used non-seriously.