Remakes/Adaptations better than the Original

[sdp]

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.

Originally Posted by ProphetofGanja

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.

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

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]

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.

Originally Posted by sdp

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]

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

[Allio]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

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]

I'd say Ender's Game.

[Krutch]

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]

Lot of good points in here

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

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

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

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.

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

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

Originally Posted by MikeandRaph87

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

Originally Posted by ToTheNines

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)

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

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.

Originally Posted by ssjup81

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.

Originally Posted by ssjup81

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]

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.