Original vs. Remake: Which one actually holds up?

Honestly, I’m not even sure how to put this, but it feels like we’ve been stuck in an endless loop of debates lately regarding all these constant remakes. It’s everywhere! It makes me wonder: based on what you’ve actually sat through, which side comes out on top? If you had to pick, would you say the original versions or the modern remakes are superior overall?

Let’s open the floor to every single genre imaginable!

IMO, no remake can ever touch the original—except maybe Ocean's Eleven
I prefer it simply because I can't stand Japanese actors, the language, or that cheap production style...
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre... the remake isn't even a bad movie, but the original is still my favorite.

That question is just plain stupid and completely pointless.

It’s like asking if someone prefers old or new, more or less, empty or full... but more importantly, what exactly are we talking about?

What kind of answer are you even expecting from anyone at this point?

So, look, I sat down a few weeks ago and watched both versions of Ocean's Eleven back-to-back. You know, the old one with Sinatra and his crew, and then the new one starring Pitt, Clooney, and the rest of them. Honestly? I liked the new one better. The original isn't bad by any means, but it feels a bit worn out to me. It doesn't really lean on the actual plot; it just relies entirely on the actors' charisma to carry it.

How? Depends. It's a silly question.

There are quite a few movies where the remake just couldn't quite capture the magic of the original:

Take
The Maltese Falcon and Ben-Hur, for instance...

but then again, you definitely have some remakes that actually work pretty well:

like John Carpenter's The Thing, The Fly, Little Shop of Horrors, or The Man Who Knew Too Much

Personally, I think the whole concept of remakes is just painful... I can't stand the copying and tinkering with someone else's work—it feels like theft, or just taking the easy way out. It’s like saying, "Hey, this guy had a great idea, but I can do it better." A film is someone's creation, their core concept, so seeing it recycled like this just rubs me the wrong way. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind if a movie serves as inspiration or a spark for something new, but blatant carbon copies? Not my thing. I've seen plenty of remakes, mostly because there wasn't much else playing at the time, but it still feels off. It's the same vibe you get with music or literature; there's just something inherently unappealing about it.

To be honest, I’m usually not a big fan of remakes.
There are a few exceptions, though—like John Carpenter's The Thing, which is actually way better than the original,
or The Phantom of the Opera (1989), which is basically just one of dozens of different takes on that story.
Most of the others? Usually pretty weak. Take the '98 version of Psych, the recent Ladykillers with Tom Hanks, or just pretty much everything else out there.

Richard Howard2 said:That question is just plain silly and makes zero sense.

It's like asking if you prefer old or new, more or less, empty or full... but more importantly, what exactly are we talking about?

What on earth is someone even supposed to say to that?

I don't see why my question would be considered silly or nonsensical at all. Honestly, look at how you responded! My question is objective, and I'm genuinely interested in seeing what the majority thinks. Your response, however, feels pretty subjective—give me a break! I half-expected this kind of outcome, where people would favor the original, but let's face it: modern remakes are actually getting better and better lately.

I didn't come here to lecture anyone on my own tastes; I just wanted to hear what everyone else thinks. Okay, no fight!

quietdriver3 said:It depends. Honestly, that’s a tough one to pin down!

Look, man, that’s exactly why people read the whole thread instead of just skimming a headline or a snippet in a poll! Take a look at what I actually wrote below!

Brian Foster2 said:I'm curious—based on everything you've seen, whether it's an original or a remake, which ones do you think come out on top overall?

Basically, looking at all the films you've watched, which side ultimately wins?

It honestly feels like this latest Amityville Horror installment actually manages to outshine the original...

Personally, I find The Man Who Knew Too Much much more compelling in color.

Ethan Perez97 said:this new Amityville horror seems better than the original

I disagree—the reviews I've seen are absolutely brutal, though we'll have to wait until it hits theaters here to be sure. Honestly, even the original wasn't anything to write home about.

ironcrane7 said:I actually prefer The Man Who Knew Too Much in color.

Are you actually being serious?

I’m against remakes if they’re being made purely for the paycheck. I realize that line is blurry—everyone wants to make money, and there's nothing wrong with that. But profit shouldn't be the only motivation.

On another note, how often does it happen when you're watching a movie that you can't help but think about how you would have handled certain things differently? How many times have you sat there thinking you could have shot or directed specific scenes better?

Remakes are everywhere these days. With some, the connection is obvious, while with others, it’s much harder to spot—most people don't even realize that Ocean's Eleven is a remake. It's clear that Hollywood is suffering from a massive drought of original ideas.

It happens again. Multiple films can be based on the exact same literary source material, and if that’s the case, they aren't actually true remakes.

I fail to see the logic behind a remake of Psych. Why bother with literal copying? It wasn't exactly a box office hit to begin with.

Look, I’m not inherently for or against remakes. It all depends on the execution. You have to consider the source material, how much time has passed since the original, and whether the foundation was actually solid to begin with. If someone takes an overlooked gem from the 1950s that had a great concept and handles the remake with actual skill, you might end up with something decent.

In most cases, the originals simply hold more weight than the remakes.

I don't get why they keep churning out remakes of movies that were already massive hits. Why not take a risk on something that actually flopped—something that had a solid story but just didn't land at the box office? At least then the remake wouldn't be constantly compared to a masterpiece... maybe it would actually have a chance.
🙂

Jose Miller17 said:Are you actually being serious right now?

True. I recently revisited both versions, and while the original is certainly a classic, the remake actually edges it out for me. To be honest, they feel like two entirely different movies, even if that final sequence is almost identical.
The first version is a lightweight thriller—total textbook Hitch. It’s stylized, breezy, and just plain fun. You get all the essentials: international espionage, high-stakes chases spanning the entire country, genuine suspense, plenty of red herrings, a wisecracking protagonist, and a charismatic villain. Honestly? It's top-tier entertainment.
Is it any wonder that *Remake* functions much like many of those later Hitchcockian thrillers? It’s all high-octakes chases and mounting suspense, layered over a deep dive into the complexities of male-female dynamics. In the original version, the characters felt like little more than mechanical cogs driving the plot forward—honestly, only the Peter Lorre character possessed any real human depth. But the second version shifts the focus entirely toward the sanctity of family and marriage. The friction between Doris Day and Jimmy Stewart is palpable; there is this constant, underlying struggle for dominance simmering just beneath the vibrant Technicolor surface. In a way, you could view it as a spiritual successor to *Rear Window*, though relocated to a wholesome Midwestern setting. The catch? That "wholesome" family unit is fundamentally displaced and begins to fracture almost immediately. This time around, however, the ultimate test isn't about observation—it's about his commitment.
An absolute masterpiece of a film and a completely justified remake.

ironcrane7 said:Yeah. I actually rewatched both of them recently, and even though the original is great, I think the remake actually hits harder. It’s almost like a completely different movie altogether, you know? Even if that final sequence is basically identical... I guess it just feels like its own thing.
The first version is basically a lightweight thriller—it’s very much a textbook Hitch movie, really. It feels super stylized and lighthearted too. You've got all the classic ingredients: espionage, a chase that spans the entire country, plenty of suspense, some clever red herrings, a witty protagonist, and a villain who’s just incredibly charismatic. Honestly, it's just top-tier entertainment.
I guess *Remake* is pretty much like a lot of those later Hitchcockian flicks... you've got that classic chase and suspense vibe, mixed in with this deep dive into male-female dynamics. In the first version, the characters felt kind of like they were just moving parts to drive the plot along, though I think maybe only the Peter Lorre character actually feels like a real person. But then, in the second version, the whole focus shifts toward family and marriage. The way Doris Day and Jimmy Stewart interact is actually really tense—there's this underlying struggle for dominance hiding right underneath all that bright Technicolor gloss. It almost feels like a sequel to *Rear Window*, if you consider moving the setting to some wholesome Midwest town. Only, instead of being wholesome, the family is totally displaced and starts falling apart almost immediately. This time around, though, the real test is his level of commitment.
It’s a great movie, honestly... and I guess that remake was totally justified too.

🙏

👍

Brian Foster2 said:I don't see why my question would be stupid or pointless. Your previous response was exactly like this. My question is objective; I am interested in the consensus, yet your answer is quite subjective—give me a break. I expected a conclusion roughly like this, where the original prevails, though there are remakes out there which have actually been getting better and better lately.

I didn't come here to lecture anyone on my opinion; I just want to know what others think. Okay, no fight!

Everything is fine.

Still, I maintain my stance that the question itself is meaningless. You are asking something general and undefined; you are inquiring about attributes without providing a subject.

Of course, practice suggests otherwise, and people here certainly provide their own views, but that doesn't prove the question has substance. Essentially, they take those vague concepts you've posed and attach them to their own specific examples.

Here is an illustration: someone asks me, "Do you like a lot or a little?" and I respond, "Well, I like a little because I once drank too much Budweiser and the hangover nearly killed me..." while someone else replies, "I like a lot because you can never have enough horsepower in a Mustang..."

Get it?

But I don't wish to descend too deeply into philosophy... just discuss things, but do not be surprised when both viewpoints end up being riddled with exceptions...

Whether a remake is superior to the original isn't determined by a cinematic attribute, but by the film itself! We have plenty of examples of terrible originals, better remakes, and vice versa. The fact that they are a remake or an original does not define them as good or bad.

Well, that’s exactly why I started this thread! I wanted to dive in and see what everyone else has watched—which originals they prefer, which remakes they’ve sat through, and which ones actually managed to outshine the source material. I wasn't just asking for a simple "remake vs. original" vote; my goal was for us to list the movies so we can all learn something new and stay informed together. It’s about building a shared watchlist!

It doesn't matter.