The Ultimate Standoff: Original Movies Vs. Remakes

The original characters had... well, character.

Ne new CGI c**p is just a legal ruse to muddy the waters on character copyright, using the new movies to extend older character protection (something that has not been challenged yet and is likely to fail, but they do so anyway). What's more infuriating is that Lion King is a complete unauthorized ripoff -in some cases scene by scene- from the 1960s Japanese cartoon "Kimba the White Lion" by Osamu Tezuka

The original Japanese White Lion, Kimba, from the 1950's of course.

SheHulk

SheHulk

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

Premium

Premium user. Get details.

I have not seen the remake but, like all of these, seems unnecessary. A real looking version probably romanticises the life of wild animals.

ooh, both of them are good.

I loved this movie as a kid. But when i watched it again as a adult, i find this movie absolute horrible. The animal abusing is....overwhelming...aaaaaarrrggggghhhhh I just wanted to punch every clown, celebrating themselves for delivering a good show by kicking a baby elephant out of a 10m high window, and then planning to kick him out of a higher window. I just wanted to screw the head of that mouse of, for giving the director bullsh!t ideas.

Original is pretty hard to watch as an adult in modern times. There’s a lot of stuff we had to explain to the kids, “well people used to think it was ok to say/represent that idea” .

Wow, 5% voted for the soulless CGI remake?

Can't stand Tom Cruise. Brandan Fraser is brilliant. This one is no contest.

Brendan Fraser AAAALLLLLLLLLL THE WAY!!

The Mummy with tom Cruise is not a remake. Its totally different movie!

I didn't even know they'd remade it but Cruise is no match for the amazing Mr Fraser

OMFG IT'S BRENDAN, NOT BRANDON! AND FUKC OFF, TOM CRUISE!

I'd always choose Robin Williams. He is my emotional support actor

They both rock, but it was super fun to come back to jumanji as an adult to these two newer ones

The first Jumanji was very good but too dark for me. But my kids (39 & 32) prefer the original

I love both, but Welcome to the Jungle is one of my favorite movies.

Sorry, Robin Williams was better

The big problem with the 1984 version is that it's too short. The original plot was longer, there were scenes that should have been in the movie, but the studio execs wanted a shorter film and definitely no duologues or trilogies. Sounds crazy now, but that was in style back then

I found the original weird. It focused too much on Paul's godhood, without giving enough of the why. What little why we got was muttered phrases that someone who hadn't read the book would understand. And that whole "weirding way" thing was laughable, as were all the cuts to spice-addicted eyes. The remake, however, I found to be very poorly paced. It was, to me, boring, because although it covered enough for people to understand, there wasn't enough actually going on.

Honestly, both are great in their own way.

I love the Alan Smithee version. Even Lynch wasn’t happy. Still, for me it’s the one that got me into the books.

The 80s movie was good. The 2000s miniseries was good, and Children of Dune was amazing with James McAvoy was AMAZING! The new one is also really good. There's no reason we should have to make this choice.

Mr. Miyagi (Pat Morita RIP) is really what made the originals great.

The remake was trash.

As I've said before, Jaden Smith seems to have negative talent, if such a thing is possible.

I hated the original and definitely did not bother with the new one. I had 3 older sisters at the time and could not deal with their fangirl BS

I liked that the remake was set in China. The story made more sense with older teens, though. And well, the entire premise is ridiculous. Two months of even intense training isn't going to win over eight to ten years of it.

Both! I read the book and loved it - watched the movie with Tom Hanks and loved it - although admittedly a bit of time passed between reading the book and watching the movie. Will have to put 'A Man called Ove' on my Movie Night list.

Haven't seen either, but I loved the book (in English translation).

I will admit that I probably one of the only people that enjoy the new one, I love the original but I like the female cast one also.

Liked both to be honest. Though if you think about the original, Venkman is more than a little bit skeevy.

The remake might have been OK if it hadn't been edited by a throwing it under a lawnmower. I wasn't keen on remaking GB but I thought doing it with women was a better idea than a remake with a male cast. Who could compare to the originals?

This should never EVER have been remade.

I really quite enjoyed the 2016 one when I first saw it. When I rewatched it at home, it was less funny.

Why I isn't there an option for I like them both equally they can't be compared because of the production time difference? Both of them has their flaws, a goods too.

Keep offering the "I'd rather read the books" option please. What I see while immersed in the book is way better than any director's vision.

I think I didn't realize there were two 'original' ITs. I knew there was a sequel. Now I'm wondering which original I watched.

Both