How often does a remake (It is absolutely a remake) come out where it's just unanimously agreed upon as the superior...

How often does a remake (It is absolutely a remake) come out where it's just unanimously agreed upon as the superior version?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=iFMJFFRyqKE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Well, there's:

John Carpenter's The Thing
David Cronenberg's The Fly

Pretty rare
>Inb4 nostalgia fags say the miniseries is superior because it scared them as a kid

Scarface

The only thing I'd say that was better in the original was that Pennywise was really a clown. I can't imagine Scarsgard (Whatever) doing the Prince Albert in a Can scene

Dude there's no way of quantifying if the movie is better than the predecessor. They're two different types of media. It's like saying fire walk with me is better than the rest of twin peaks. Some aspects and scenes may adapt better towards a movie but at the same time it's hard to compare a miniseries / limited run to a movie

Pennywise isn't supposed to be a clown though. Bill's potrayal really felt like a monster hiding behind a clown facade

It happened a lot in the 50s-80s but ever since the 90s most remakes have been fucking terrible.

I understand, but I still feel like it's better if we're to believe that IT's pretty good at making the disguises. The new one felt like this was his first time scaring.

It's not the superior version though. All the scares are too forced and there's no actual moments where you legitimately feel unnerved

It's not really a remake at all though, it's an adaptation that draws nothing from the original miniseries other than what's in the book.

I agree but the original doesn't have any of fthat either. It's all Goosebumps level scares.
Real unnerving horror is just matter-of-fact hard as shit to do in a two hour movie.

>It is absolutely a remake
if you're a dipshit then yes it is remake

This pissing contest is the most pathetic I've seen on Sup Forums thus far. Yeah, the new movie is better. Congratulations, it's better than dogshit.

It is.
So is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
When the remake references the original movie it's a fucking remake.

But most of the scares in the 1990 IT feel cheap and cheesy. The 2017 version of IT is flawed but I would say it's better than the 1990 version.

>It's not the superior version though.
Yes it is
>no actual moments where you legitimately feel unnerved
A couple scenes were pretty creepy, like this

I would say this is the best one of those

If you plan on defending your position while posting garbage like that I feel sorry for you

Literally a choreography error

it relentlessly happens relentlessly often

Not an argument
Where?

They just didn't give her anything to do in that scene so she just stood there

the 1990s mini series is literally garbage, it aged like milk. though i can't see it being good 30 years ago either considering how low budget and completely not scary it is. it didn't have a single "unnerving" moment, as you put it.

Nice defense trash pusher. New IT looks like a Down syndrome child and talks like the same

>True Grit

Fight me.

>They just didn't give her anything to do in that scene so she just stood there
I don't think you understand the scene itself

Everyone agrees with this

So if someone had an amygdalic disorder where they couldn't experience fear, could Pennywise do anything at all to them?

Why do people keep claiming that the actor is attractive? He looks ugly like the mom smoked when pregnant or something.

Attractiveness comes in many different forms. Same way that you sometimes like chocolate vs bubblegum

He's undeniably a good looking dude

Listen to me here, op.

Everyone always acknowledged that the miniseries was bad, but that was mostly due to the adult portion. If the miniseries had ONLY had Part 1 with the kids, it would have held up much better.

CASINO ROYALE
OCEAN'S ELEVEN

It generally only happens when the original is some literally who canadian TV production which is only remembered because clown scary :(

This, the mini series and the movie share the same source material.

>The kid portion with bullies, romance, and abusive parents
The only good thing was Pennywise. In both movies.

Are you retarded?

The old one was considered shit by most people that had given it a rewatch as adults, so it wasn't hard to make something better, just shit out a mediocre movie and it's instantly the definitve version.

Never. I can only think of Maniac off the top of my head.

Its funny because while those are "remakes" they follow in the vein of being a reimagining. There is no way the new It creators were unaware of the original. I think they were painfully aware of Tim Curry and of course the source material. While The Thing and the Fly I bet very few involved knew of the prior films and they are not very relevant to the "remade" projects. They took the core concepts and ideas and went an entirely different route. "It" is following the same novel. I think Tim Burtons planet of the apes deserves a lot more credit. I hate when movies "remake" the same story. Im not going to try to bash on "it". I didn't want to see the heston planet of the apes again with mark walberg. Im glad they went an entirely different route. It was imaginative and exploitative in its narrative and world building. Though Hollywood learned the lesson. Don't do that, tell the same story again. It's really too bad.

Most modern remakes are superior to the original but nostalgia fags won't admit it, case in point, Robocop and Total Recall. Even Ghostbusters was better than the original despite what fanboys claim.

Are you a fucking retard?
The reason The Thing was even made was because John Carpenter loved and respected the original movie.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers ('77)

1998 Godzilla was an objectively better film than the dreary navel gazing pity party that was the original.

I don't get the hype, it wasn't scary.

>The reason The Thing was even made was because John Carpenter loved and respected the original movie
Yeah but he agreed to do The Thing because the script was completely different from the original film. He didn't want to retread the original film.

The original Godzilla is objectively better, you fucking pleb. The original has interesting themes and well written characters, the 1998 remake is poorly written schlock. Kill yourself.

Doesn't have to be. Even if you take out the horror elements it's still a good coming of age film

who says it isn't a remake?

The miniseries was only a miniseries because of budget constraints and shit, you dingdong

If it was TV show vs movie, yeah, that's different. But made-for-TV movies are still movies- large, contained storylines on a set runtime and have a definitive endpoint developed before it even began filming.

That being said, I'm kinda surprised they didn't go with the GoT route of 10 episodes limited series event kinda deal.

This movie looks like shit. I'll probably only give it a chance if I can watch it for free.

Tim Curry is great, that's a pretty shared opinion. However, the production abilities, costume design, and the writing for the 1990s movie didn't allow for him to create a truly unsettling Pennywise. He looks like a typical circus clown. Hell, that library scene with adult Richie cracked my shit up. That smoker's rasp lol.

The 2017 Pennywise seems a lot more true to what you should expect from a dimensional being older than time itself disguising itself as a clown to prey on frightened children.
>tfw the balloon pyramid scene outside the burnt house

Source?

I got the feeling that it was typical Derry-is-creepy shenanigans, not just "lol they forgot about this actor woops"

>Ghostbusters

Oh fuck you.

The Thing (1982)

The Wizard Of Oz (1939)

Heat (1995)

Scarface (1983)*

True Lies (199...4?)*

A Fistful Of Dollars*

The Talented Mr. Ripley*

The Departed*

* I guess these ones are pretty debatable about which is better.

Why was Bev such a fucking slut in the first movie

>While The Thing and the Fly I bet very few involved knew of the prior films and they are not very relevant to the "remade" projects.

This is completely and utterly incorrect.

Those involved were very familiar with the originals.

Audiences however, though probably "aware", were not exactly familiar or enamored with the originals (they were considered bad B movies for kids, generally). They also, as you said, "reimagined" them in the sense that they used the originals as jumping off points to make films with vastly different tones and levels of expertise. The Thing, arguably, isn't even a remake since it sticks closer to the short story, ditches most of the material from the original film, bar the titles and some material present in both the book and the original film.

Then there are things like Total Recall - A great original short story and script that was vastly altered to become a great Arnie movie - Rather than going back to the source and making a good movie, the idiots decided to make a really shitty remake of the movie.

This is probably the most annoying - We saw this with Let Me In/Let The Right One In (great source material that's quite different from the film, could have made a good movie adaptation on it's own).

I hope when they inevitably remake The Running Man they learn from this and return to the source material.

Then, of course we have those really weird remakes - Gus Van Sants Psycho or Michael Mann's Heat.

At least in the case of Heat Mann was going back and basically making the polished, big budget, "correct" version of his original vision.

Except it was shit.
Literally just a series of jumpscares. I always knew Sup Forums had no taste.

Prettt much this. No substance, just jumpscares like every other shitty horror movie made now.

>He looked like a typical circus clown

I thought that was the point. The new It looked retarded. Like he fell out of a Slipknot video.

I thought Pennywise in the original mini-series was pretty much perfect, and I thought the kid half was pretty decent, like a (really) poor man's Stand By Me. The TV production values were just...tolerable. Where it completely fell apart was with the adult stuff, which is bad in the books anyway, BUT was especially bad in the mini-series. At least the adult half in the new one will be decent. They'll have more than enough resources to film it properly.

>The 2017 Pennywise seems a lot more true to what you should expect from a dimensional being older than time itself disguising itself as a clown to prey on frightened children.

I don't think so. Especially in the book you got the impression that Pennywise or the Werewolf or whatever just looks like what kids imagine them to look like. The new Pennywise looks like something a kid working at hot topic might imagine an evil clown to look like I guess.

It had as much substance as the book which is all it needs

The Blob

Has a post ever been more wrong than this one?

>Muh jumpscares
>One legitimate jumpscare in the whole movie

It's a troll you fucking idiot. Return to Reddit where upvotes can sanitize the opinions for you.

I liked the movies but jump scares are a flaw

Dude there were a lot of jumpscares.
I liked the movie because it has a cool story but it completely failed to frighten me.

Very much this.

Literally never because there's a subgroup of insufferable hipster morons who will always insist the original is better no matter how garbage it is. Look at Evil Dead for a really hilarious example of this.

This.
I'm fine with the way they reimagined Pennywise in this movie but in the book It took that form to fool children into trusting it, that's how it managed to fool Georgie.
I prefer this new version but the Georgie scene in this movie was stupid. In the TV series Pennywise at least tried to appear friendly and goofy, in the new movie it drops the act way too soon, to the point that it makes you wonder why Georgie didn't fuck off before it even showed him the boat.
Also, why did they changed his powers so that not fearing him made him powerless? The books make it clear that's not the case.

You're the idiot.

>In the TV series Pennywise at least tried to appear friendly and goofy, in the new movie it drops the act way too soon, to the point that it makes you wonder why Georgie didn't fuck off before it even showed him the boat.
In the new movie Pennywise got Georgie to laugh for him. The thing I like about in the 2017 one is the sudden tone shift as soon as Pennywise realizes he's not scaring Georgie. Georgie wants to leave immediately but stays for the boat. Another subtle detail I liked was him changing his eye color to blue (Same as Bill) so Georgie would identify with him easier.

You have to be 18 to post here.

You'd better get going then.

>Also, why did they changed his powers so that not fearing him made him powerless? The books make it clear that's not the case.
Doesn't Stan survive being killed by thinking about birds (happy stuff he knows) and he was able to hold It off?

Ghostbusters '84 was technically a remake of the 70s TV show with the gorilla, so that one

Yeah, you could argue that since in this version there was no point in making him trust it since It needs fear to do anything, then it was more appropiate for it to act thst way.
That way the "not fearing It makes him powerless" thing kind if fucks up the struggle of the Losers once they are adults. The whole reason they doubted that they could win was that they had lost the childish innocence and imagination that allowed them to defeat It years ago but in this version lacking imagination actually makes you stronger against him.

Is that Charlie Sheen

In the books It can be harmed only by things you believe can harm him. The Losers fuck him up by using silver pellets because they believe silver fucks up monsters, but not believing in him doesn't do shit. It just bothers scaring children because it makes their meat tastier.
There is literally a whole chapter in the book about a kid who keeps thinking It is some dude in a suit till he gets killed.

no thats Tracy the Gorilla

>In the books It can be harmed only by things you believe can harm him. The Losers fuck him up by using silver pellets because they believe silver fucks up monsters,
Huh, that makes it sound like you could beat It, or at least hold it back, relatively easy

...

As long as you believe the weapon you are using can harm an ancient abomination from another dimension, yeah.
Why do you think It targets mostly children and tends to kill people in sneaky ways?

Though I forgot to mention that It is unkillable unless you use a weird as shit ritual, and even then it's doubtful if the Losers actually killed It.

isn't there also a rule that it inherits the weakness of whatever form it takes? I'm sure I remember something about that but it has been awhile

His eyes are looking in different directions

I think it's more like it's easier to believe that you can use X to harm him if he takes a form with a popular weakness.
For example, the Losers get the idea of using silver after they see him turn into a werewolf.

t. dipshit. It's funny you mention Charlie since that movie contained a bunch of material that was in the book but not the other film. Almost like it was just another adaptation or something.

They wanted to make it so Pennywise always has one eye on the audiencie. They were going to do that in post-production but the actor told them he can actually do that shit with one of his eyes.

youtube.com/watch?v=iFMJFFRyqKE

they needed more scenes like this

putting pennywise in the background is better

...

anything that relies upon effects heavy the remake will always be hailed as the better version

depends on the director, pic related has shit material but fincher can turn anything into kino

Weird eyes and nigger nose ruin the good jawline. He's average at best

>IT'S BETTER BECAUSE IT'S OLD!!!
>MUH RUBBER SUIT!

name 5 interesting themes

It helps that it's not a remake but an adaption of the same book.

The best way I've heard it put is this:
The Miniseries Pennywise feels like a clown who got turned into a monster while the movie feels like a monster trying its hardest and failing to be a clown.

Why do you get all your opinions from RLM?