Better remakes than original or highly regarded remakes

TNBT was saying that the hope for Rob Zombie's version of Halloween was, from the film's initial rumored conception, that it would usurp the original version. Unfortunately, in the opinion of TNBT at least, it was an even bigger disaster.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

Lets try again.

Rob Zombies adaption of Halloween was destined to be better than John Carpenters original (and was). The remake couldn't have been much worse than the overrated and rather terrible original.

Sorry, the confusion is caused by my emphasis on how bad the original was as apposed to the remake being better.

Wow. I utterly misunderstood.

I wouldn't worry about it, its definitely me rather than you.

Im having one of those day were I cant type, coupled with the fact that I'm tired and depressed. I shouldn't be on the forum lol

Not to me.. I found Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice, Batman Returns Sleepy Hollow, Mars Attacks! all good..

You see I love movies.. & as a kid I have enjoyed Horror/Sci-fi movies.. I too have grown up enjoying B-grade films, Dracula, Frankenstein, Vincent Price, etc...
I haven't grown up on Bergman, Scorcese or Coppola..

So I am an actual movie lover.. I watch all kinds of films, there are few genres I wont like... Call me immature & not a Cinema Critic like most.
But I enjoy my movies & not always look for a deeper & hidden meanings in them..

I cant compare Tim Burton to Scorcese... But I manage to enjoy both of their works..

So sorry, I don't find all his films steaming sh1tpile.

I did love Zombie's remake, but I personally can't say that I liked it better than the original. Maybe it's nostalgia for how that movie made me feel the first time I saw it. I do love that he delved more into Michael's history to explain how he turned out the way he did, which the original didn't really do.

That being said, I wasted nearly 2 hours watching his version of Halloween 2 last night.

__________________
"I know, honey. Look at the map. We go your way, that's about four inches. We go my way, it's an inch and a half. You wanna pay for the extra gas?"

No, I completely understood what you were saying and meant TNBT, I just can't believe that anyone would a) dislike Halloween that much and, b) think that Rob Zombie would do a better job. I was just making a joke... That obviously went down like a sick sandwich, so I'll leave it at that.

The Dark Knight over Tim Burton's Batman. There is a stronger emotional presence AND NO KIM BASINGER.

I have trouble calling a film a remake if both are from another source like a novel.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Tim Burton's had little going for it besides atmosphere, which, while important, doesn't save it from being a slow, dwindling turd when you watch it. As far as I'm concerned the new Batmans are one of the very few comic adaptations that's doing it right. X-men, while entertaining, I personally have no desire to ever watch again and Spiderman was too predictable to follow. Is there more to Iron Man than clever laughs and second-rate morality lessons?

Don't mind my asking Winter, can I ask how old you are?...

I hate all the X-men movies.. Spiderman were ok.. 2/5-ish

Not entirely on topic, but I figure it's close enough . I heard an interesting quote this morning about remakes. The person said "I don't watch remakes, they don't re-write books, they shouldn't remake movies."

WOW. This is great quote, because I think it marks a fundamental difference between film and literature.

If you have a script and you shoot it twice with different directors and actors each time, you're going to have to utterly different films.

Yet the script (literature) remains the same.

Film is not a representational art like drawing or writing. It's, well, as Godard put it, "truth 24 frames per second". When films are remade they are different. A novel is not rewritten (an exception to this probably exists, but the way---also, writers often change their works during the writing process or start over with the same story---this is perfectly analogous to a remake, I claim) because it's representation. It just describes "a beautiful girl". But the casting must decide between, let's say Drew Barrymore, and Ellen Page. Who is the "beautiful girl"?

Great quotation though. Very thought provoking.

A novel can be interpreted in many ways in a film..
But I am sure there have been times when a novel has been adapted into a new genre or written in a new style, not necassarily exactly the same, but more or less similar.

I can't recall any examples though.

Ulysses!

just turned 20, why?

The James Joyce one? I haven't seen any remake of it.. but that old one was a bit boring..

I noticed that people who hate Tim Burton's Batman movies are usually below 25.. Strange!
Nothing wrong with that though..

No. Ulysses is a modern retelling of The Odyssey. Essentially a remake. There're are plenty of these modern retellings in novels these days.

I think novels just take more time to be ready for a remake. Movies need a period of inactivity for a remake to seem plausible too usually.

*cough* Spiderman *cough* Hulk *cough cough*

hahaha what? that's so strange...I like his other movies though

Maybe it's because when Batman first came out, all people had in mind was that jumpsuit tv show so it was all the more impressive