PDA

View Full Version : Remakes/Adaptations better than the Original


ProphetofGanja
03-24-2017, 11:48 PM
What remakes or adaptations (such as books translated to film) do you feel are better than their original incarnations?

I was initially thinking of the movie Karate Kid. Never saw the whole original film or any of the sequels, because they were so uninteresting to me I didn't care to finish. I really liked the new version with Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan though.

CyberCubed
03-25-2017, 01:22 AM
King Kong 2005 and the new one are better than all the old/original movies. And no, I don't care that the black and white ones are "classics" or were "made for their time," they're dreadfully boring movies.

MikeandRaph87
03-25-2017, 02:02 AM
In most cases thd original cannot bs out done. Here are a pair of films quite old but classics.

The Matese Falcon(1941), remake of a silent film. Did the plot knotch better and is still cinema gold.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) is the remake of a silent film far out doing the original. It also has unique distinction of having the same director, Alfred Hitchcock for both films. Like The Maltese Falcon remake this has legendary actors to help improve upon it.

Utrommaniac
03-25-2017, 02:41 AM
I enjoyed the Secret of NIMH movie so much more after I read the book. While it did leave out a lot of worldbuilding and Brutus, I found myself rooting for Mrs. Brisby far more than Mrs. Frisby. She was more charming, I empathized with her more, and she joins the ranks of Molly Weasely in bad@$$ mothers.

And while I'm not big on magic elements on TMNT, I like the magical element of NIMH. It feels more natural with the narrative for my perspective. I like the haggardly wizard Nicodemus, I like that Mrs. Brisby was able to save her children with the amulet - even if it was basically a deus ex machina.
I like that the movie is scarier than the book, with the history of the rats and Jonathan Brisby, it needs to be scary.

There's something about the style of the movie and Mrs. Brisby's sheer determination melding into one with her meekness that puts her very high in my incomplete favorite female characters list. This blogger (https://thegirlwholovesmuppets.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/book-vs-movie-the-secret-of-nimh-edition/) articulates my feelings better than I can.

Doug Walker does too
34a3qRUZcYA

Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH told a story, Secret of NIMH gave it a little bit of polish, especially on characters like Mrs. Brisby and her children.

And of course...the movie has the Flying Dreams suite. If there's a thread on favorite film scores, I'd put it on there. Is there one? I know there's one for favorite soundtracks.


The Animals of Farthing Wood is another one (sans season three...I'll subdue my rage toward that for the moment), but I've already gushed over NIMH.

Turo602
03-25-2017, 02:52 AM
What remakes or adaptations (such as books translated to film) do you feel are better than their original incarnations?

I was initially thinking of the movie Karate Kid. Never saw the whole original film or any of the sequels, because they were so uninteresting to me I didn't care to finish. I really liked the new version with Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan though.

Funny you bring up the Karate Kid. I actually re-watched the original 2 days ago but I cannot for the life of me bring myself to watch the remake. The original just has that timeless charm that movies like Back to the Future have. Never gets old to me.

As for remakes better than their originals... I can't really say as I haven't really seen many of the original films the remakes are based on. As for remakes I really enjoyed in general I'd say 21 Jump Street, The Departed, Friday the 13th (2009), Let Me In, and Little Shop of Horrors are what comes to mind right now.

CyberCubed
03-25-2017, 02:54 AM
I think the only new successful remakes is the current Planet of the Apes films, even though none of them are actual remakes of the classic films in terms of story.

Ninjinister
03-25-2017, 03:40 AM
It wasn't the original, but I did see the 1925 Wizard of Oz once. Complete ass of a film. The '39 one was straight fire tho.

ToTheNines
03-25-2017, 07:34 AM
First one that comes to mind is Mrs. Doubtfire being better than the book, Madame Doubtfire.

The Godfather I and II are probably better than the book. Pretty much everything from the book was included, except where they excised some really stupid stuff. There's several chapters dedicated to Sonny's estranged mistress and how she is seeking an experimental vaginal tightening surgery in Vegas because hers is abnormally large and Sonny is the only dude with a large enough organ to have ever made her feel anything. I'm not kidding. And it literally goes nowhere.

Captain America: Civil War is WAY better than that turd of an "event".

Spectacular Spider-Man is my favorite version of Spidey. I recognize the classic status of the Lee/Ditko era, but I think Weisman did it best.

IDW and Nick TMNT are both better than Fred Wolf.

Goodfellas is probably better than Wiseguy, even if the book is all fact based.

The DCAU and Batman: The Brave and The Bold would occasionally pep up some old stories.

The Man in The High Castle worked much better as a TV series than as a book.

That's all I can think of, off the top of my head.

CyberCubed
03-25-2017, 01:04 PM
Most movies are better than books besides a few. They just tell you books are better because they "stimulate your mind" or help you learn new words or whatever.

TheSkeletonMan939
03-25-2017, 01:29 PM
I think I'm one of the few who enjoy the 2005 Burton "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" film, and in my mind it matches the sheer whimsy and fun of Dahl's original book. And I enjoyed the added subplot about Willie's dad, if only because it wasn't treated with as much gravitas as it easily could have been.

Rooish
03-25-2017, 02:05 PM
Girl, Interrupted.

ssjup81
03-25-2017, 05:37 PM
Most movies are better than books besides a few. They just tell you books are better because they "stimulate your mind" or help you learn new words or whatever.No, they have more detail that the movies can't convey well.

I'll use Harry Potter as an example. I will always prefer the books to the films.

There are situations that are opposite, like Jaws for example. Book wise, the characters just weren't very likable, especially Hooper. The film did the characters justice.I think I'm one of the few who enjoy the 2005 Burton "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" film, and in my mind it matches the sheer whimsy and fun of Dahl's original book. And I enjoyed the added subplot about Willie's dad, if only because it wasn't treated with as much gravitas as it easily could have been.I hated that subplot with an extreme passion because it felt so unnecessary.

I thought it was good that it followed the book so closely, but for me personally, I felt that the 1971 version was more fun to watch. The newer one was boring to me, especially Charlie himself...and the songs didn't stick with me. ^^

Utrommaniac
03-25-2017, 06:35 PM
Yeah, I'm on the '71 boat too. One of the big reasons being that Charlie wasn't such a Perfect Child™ and that Willie Wonka wasn't another Johnny Depp Character™.

ToTheNines
03-25-2017, 07:41 PM
No, they have more detail that the movies can't convey well.

He knows better. That's just his retard/troll/baiting act.

MsMarvelDuckie
03-26-2017, 06:21 PM
Yeah, I'm on the '71 boat too. One of the big reasons being that Charlie wasn't such a Perfect Child™ and that Willie Wonka wasn't another Johnny Depp Character™.


Oh good I'm not the only one. I also thought the newer version was just plain creepy. Especially Wonka himself.

MikeandRaph87
03-26-2017, 06:33 PM
Oh good I'm not the only one. I also thought the newer version was just plain creepy. Especially Wonka himself.

While I prefer the first film adaptation with Gene Wilder I appreciate that 1. it gave us a backstory to Willie Wonka giving us reasons within story as to why he is the way he is. 2. It didn't just abruptly end with them breaking through the factory roof but finished the scene.

DisKosh
03-26-2017, 06:50 PM
The film adaptation of Trumpet of the Swan by E.B. White.

Admittedly the film adaptation isn't that great either, it's a fun, really sweet kids movie.

However, I could not stand the book. I only really got into the story as an adult but I don't think I would have enjoyed it as a kid, I didn't like the characters in Charlotte's Web either. Wiht E.B. White, I love the plots but the characters are irritatingly perfect. I actually found myself rooting for the villain in Stuart Little 2.

Again, everyone complains that the romance in the Trumpet of the Swan movie is cliche but their relationship in the book was literally based on looks and wealth, no depth whatsoever which is a terrible message for kids. Cliche development is better than no development and it wasn't even a bad cliche so I don't even consider that too much of a negative point.

There's also this scene where a kid is being bullied for having an unusual so he runs away from camp then later on he gets in trouble for running away and the bullies get away with it. We're actually meant to side with the bullies.

There's just so much about that book that really pisses me off. The film is honestly far better and the development of characters and plot is more interesting.

TigerClaw
03-26-2017, 07:06 PM
What remakes or adaptations (such as books translated to film) do you feel are better than their original incarnations?

I was initially thinking of the movie Karate Kid. Never saw the whole original film or any of the sequels, because they were so uninteresting to me I didn't care to finish. I really liked the new version with Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan though.
Many regard the 1983 version of Scarface being way better then the original from 1932.

ssjup81
03-26-2017, 10:47 PM
Yeah, I'm on the '71 boat too. One of the big reasons being that Charlie wasn't such a Perfect Child™ and that Willie Wonka wasn't another Johnny Depp Character™.Yeah...this. I felt Charlie came across as too nice and perfect and not childlike or have at least one selfish moment, unless new Charlie did and I missed it.

Depp's portrayal of Wonka was just weird and creepy to me, and I generally like Depp.

Utrommaniac
03-26-2017, 10:53 PM
I personally am fine not knowing Wonka's backstory, and I'm not huge on him being a dentist's son.

Now, I can imagine him coming from a long line of confectioner Wonkas, but they were generally small business and not very successful.
But the Willie Wonka we know was able to find success by first being a focused businessman, a talented explorer, and a formidable scientist and engineer as well as a candymaker.

Because if you look at the way his factory is structured, he is so much more than just a regular ol' confectioner and businessman. When they say he's a genius, he really, truly is.

...Stop me before I write an entire essay about that.

But yeah, the one with Johnny Depp is SUPER creepy aesthetically. I don't care if it's more accurate to the book or that the author of the book didn't care for the '71 movie. The parts of it that are technically creepy about the story are much better when it's hiding under bright color and whimsy.
AND STEALING FIZZY LIFTING DRINKS.

sdp
03-26-2017, 11:59 PM
Movie and show adaptations of books are usually inferior to the books and no Cybercubed's crazy theory is incorrect. Movies are just easier to consume since they're a passive while books are more active. But a book can tell you so much more in about a situation or characters in general and that's hard to portray in film. That's not to say that film doesn't have it's advantages but in general books tend to be better with the exceptions that arise with anything of course.

Jurassic Park is one of those that in the fandom is hotly debated, the book is amazing but so is the film but neither is technically superior as they feel as different stories. The book is far more depressing while the movie has that Spielberg magic that makes it timeless and makes your imagination go wild. I personally prefer the movie but I understand why the book is considered superior since it's just deeper but it's just a grimmer tale and I prefer the "magical" take the movie has on it.

The terms reboot and remake are used interchangably nowadays but they're quite different, a reboot is a new take on a story like say the latest Kong: Skull Island while a remake is taking the original story and making a new movie off it like Peter Jackson's King Kong. Reboots are easier to separate from the original while remakes usually fail since they're always compared to the original.


I was initially thinking of the movie Karate Kid. Never saw the whole original film or any of the sequels, because they were so uninteresting to me I didn't care to finish. I really liked the new version with Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan though.

I didn't really see the Karate Kid until I was older so no nostalgia for me blinding my thoughts on the film.

The only thing bad about the original is it definitely takes place in the 80s and it's also a bit slow by today's standard but other than that the story of this kid becoming someone is just classic and basically all future plots that deal with this rip off this movie, it really is a classic.

I don't really remember the sequels very well besides the basic plots, the second one is a bit weird since they go to Japan and it's odd but cool they took the chances to do something else and the third film is what you would've expected Karate Kid 2 was going to be with basically the same plot but the stakes being larger. I almost feel like normally movies go the route of repeating the story before going into new territory for the third film and KK did it differently. The Next Karate Kid is like a new take on the first film but with a less interesting character, it's definitely the weakest of the four original films. The cartoon reeks of bad 80s cartoons and has nothing to do with the movies besides the character names and relationships but it has to do with magic and whatnot.

I expected not to like the Jackie Chan version even if I love Jackie but I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. It's a decent entry and deserves to be called Karate Kid which were big shoes to fill but no way is it better than the original. I'd like to see a sequel though, it's been in the planning stages for years now but who knows as Jaden Smith is now an adult, it'd be weird. I really would've liked Jaden to meet Daniel from the original movies since this version isn't really a remake just a new take but it could easily be in continuity with the original films.



King Kong 2005 and the new one are better than all the old/original movies. And no, I don't care that the black and white ones are "classics" or were "made for their time," they're dreadfully boring movies.

King Kong 2005 is the one that is dreadfully boring and I love it but they stretched the story and it was way too long, it's a decent entry but no way it's better than the original. The lack of music and black and white really set the mood of the movie, the fact that it's only an hour long or so the movie goes by fast and you never get bored, I'd say King Kong 1933 is really a timeless movie that you don't have to appreciate it because it was "made for their time".

CyberCubed
03-27-2017, 12:02 AM
If there is a good movie adaption of a book, I would never read the book. The problem is some movies are just plain terrible, but that's just the fault of that particular movie.



King Kong 2005 is the one that is dreadfully boring and I love it but they stretched the story and it was way too long, it's a decent entry but no way it's better than the original. The lack of music and black and white really set the mood of the movie, the fact that it's only an hour long or so the movie goes by fast and you never get bored, I'd say King Kong 1933 is really a timeless movie that you don't have to appreciate it because it was "made for their time".

I rewatched King Kong 2005 just a while ago and it still holds up. It doesn't need any stupid monster fights of King Kong Vs. giant moths or roaches or whatever, it's just the island and King Kong himself.

I can appreciate the old movies for what they were, but they're just rather boring to watch. Too slow for my tastes too, but whatever, it was literally 1933 so you can't say much about some of the first movies ever made other than they were a timepiece.

plastroncafe
03-27-2017, 12:19 AM
Fight Club
That movie is leaps and bounds better than the book.

Allio
03-27-2017, 12:20 AM
I think the only new successful remakes is the current Planet of the Apes films, even though none of them are actual remakes of the classic films in terms of story.

that's more reboot.

DestronMirage22
03-27-2017, 12:46 AM
I'd say Ender's Game.

Krutch
03-27-2017, 07:08 AM
Depending on who you ask, the new Evil Dead can give the original a run for it's money.

The Fly.
Dredd.
Piranha 3D.

ProphetofGanja
03-27-2017, 09:03 PM
Lot of good points in here

Fight Club
That movie is leaps and bounds better than the book.

Yeah, I can't even recall if I finished the book after seeing the movie. Not worth it in that case

If there is a good movie adaption of a book, I would never read the book. The problem is some movies are just plain terrible, but that's just the fault of that particular movie.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif

I rewatched King Kong 2005 just a while ago and it still holds up. It doesn't need any stupid monster fights of King Kong Vs. giant moths or roaches or whatever, it's just the island and King Kong himself.

I can appreciate the old movies for what they were, but they're just rather boring to watch. Too slow for my tastes too, but whatever, it was literally 1933 so you can't say much about some of the first movies ever made other than they were a timepiece.

there are some good moments in that film, but ultimately it just drags on and on and onnn

In most cases the original cannot be out done. Here are a pair of films quite old but classics.

The Maltese Falcon (1941), remake of a silent film. Did the plot notch better and is still cinema gold.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) is the remake of a silent film far out doing the original. It also has unique distinction of having the same director, Alfred Hitchcock for both films. Like The Maltese Falcon remake this has legendary actors to help improve upon it.

I haven't seen The Man Who Knew Too Much, but I have seen the Bill Murray flick The Man Who Knew Too Little and it probably to this day stands as one of my top ten favorite films

First one that comes to mind is Mrs. Doubtfire being better than the book, Madame Doubtfire.

The Godfather I and II are probably better than the book. Pretty much everything from the book was included, except where they excised some really stupid stuff. There's several chapters dedicated to Sonny's estranged mistress and how she is seeking an experimental vaginal tightening surgery in Vegas because hers is abnormally large and Sonny is the only dude with a large enough organ to have ever made her feel anything. I'm not kidding. And it literally goes nowhere.

Captain America: Civil War is WAY better than that turd of an "event".

Spectacular Spider-Man is my favorite version of Spidey. I recognize the classic status of the Lee/Ditko era, but I think Weisman did it best.

IDW and Nick TMNT are both better than Fred Wolf.

Goodfellas is probably better than Wiseguy, even if the book is all fact based.

The DCAU and Batman: The Brave and The Bold would occasionally pep up some old stories.

The Man in The High Castle worked much better as a TV series than as a book.

That's all I can think of, off the top of my head.

I was not even aware that Mrs. Doubtfire or The Godfather flicks were adaptations, crazy.

Agreed on Civil War. I'm way more of a fan of the MCU than I am of most of the comics. I can't look at the comic book costumes anymore without grimacing and thinking that the movies are doing them better (Hawkeye, Thor, Falcon all come to mind, as well as Wolverine, although I know that's a different studio)

Most movies are better than books besides a few. They just tell you books are better because they "stimulate your mind" or help you learn new words or whatever.
https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif
No, they have more detail that the movies can't convey well.

I'll use Harry Potter as an example. I will always prefer the books to the films.

There are situations that are opposite, like Jaws for example. Book wise, the characters just weren't very likable, especially Hooper. The film did the characters justice.I hated that subplot with an extreme passion because it felt so unnecessary.

I thought it was good that it followed the book so closely, but for me personally, I felt that the 1971 version was more fun to watch. The newer one was boring to me, especially Charlie himself...and the songs didn't stick with me. ^^

Mannnnn, Harry Potter was the "worst-case scenario" I had in mind when I made this thread. I absolutely loved the series as I kid, I grew up reading them as they came out. When I heard they were gonna be made into movies I was so excited. Then the movies came out and I died a little more inside with each one's release.

Yeah...this. I felt Charlie came across as too nice and perfect and not childlike or have at least one selfish moment, unless new Charlie did and I missed it.

Depp's portrayal of Wonka was just weird and creepy to me, and I generally like Depp.

Same, it was just too weird, and I also like Depp quite a bit usually. Also the songs weren't as great

ranger_scout
03-27-2017, 09:05 PM
The Wiz Live! was WAY BETTER than the the 1978 film. The more I watch the latter, the worse it gets. The former just looks a lot nicer and has a very sold cast.