Many classic movie remakes - for whatever reason - are considered inferior to the originals.
If the 2005 Jack Black/Naomi Watts "King Kong" were released in 1933 would it not nave been considered the greatest movie of all time and impossible to be topped? If the original 1933 movie were then released in 2005 surely it would've been dismissed as laughable hokum?
Can you think of any other movie comparisons like this? Maybe the "A star is Born" original and remakes?
I've given up on Hollywood films entirely. I just do not care anymore, because they just don't make films that are worth my time. Independent and "foreign" films are much better.
No, I wouldn't agree with that. I think the 'special effects' stand up well on their own in the '33 one...and, what you have to remember is that with each remake is a retelling of an original story. Original story. Important to note. That's why it gets watered down, as well as critics reviews, because people know of the story already!
Write something original....like 'The Matrix' did...or the original 'Ring' movies (the Japanese series, based on Koji Suzuki's books)...make a re-tread of those is just silly...
I love Peter Jackson, getting on to the 'King Kong' thing, and I know that was a labour of love for him, so I respect that, but he's better off creating new things.
But it wasn't released then and while the original was groundbreaking for it's time -- and still a great watch -- the Jack Black remake was far inferior and often simply ridiculous -- like watching a ten-ton Kong swinging from tree branches that somehow don't break under his immense weight.
“TheThing” was an excellent version of the original story “Who Goes There” Compared to the 1951 movie. The remake of “The Fly” was different from the book, but much more frightening.
