Original vs. Remake: Which one actually holds up?

Generally speaking, I’m not a fan of remakes, and most of them end up being total garbage compared to the originals, though there are a few exceptions here and there.
Take
Cape Fear although De Niro😁 didn't quite hit the same level as Robert Mitchum for me...

And how exactly are you planning to give a remake any soul?

'Non bis in idem'... sounds fancy when you say it in Latina, right?🙂

But seriously, who could possibly be powerful enough—who’s got the guts—to recreate that raw charisma of the kid running around with a chainsaw? Anyone? I'll wait...😁

Even if there *is* a "better" version out there—which, let's face it, might happen—it’s probably just some other movie made by "new kids for new kids."

Honestly though, the whole word 'remake' just gives me the creeps...

Jack Harris3 said:Generally speaking, I’ve always been pretty skeptical of remakes. Most of them feel like total garbage compared to the originals they're trying to mimic. That said, I'm not completely closed off to the idea—there are definitely a few exceptions that actually manage to hold their own.
Take *Cape Fear*, for instance.
In my humble opinion, Robert De Niro never quite reached the heights of Robert Mitchum. 😁

Wait, are you telling me this is actually a remake?! 😲 😲

So, I was sitting there thinking about it earlier today, and I just had to wonder—is it really fair to say that Robert De Niro hasn't quite reached the heights of Robert Mitchum? It’s one of those cinematic debates that you can get lost in if you aren't careful, much like getting stuck in a slow crawl on the I-95 during rush hour. I mean, don't get me wrong, De Niro is a powerhouse. There is no denying his intensity or the way he completely transforms under the direction of someone like Martin Scorsese. But when you look at the sheer, effortless cool that Mitchum brought to the screen—that gritty, laid-back magnetism—it feels like a different breed of acting entirely. One is all coiled tension, while the other is pure, unadulterable presence. It makes you wonder if we're even comparing apples to apples here.

So, how on earth am I supposed to track down an original copy now? 🙂

Jeff, it’s a remake. 😁
Man, I don't have my DVD handy right now, so I can't exactly rip a copy for you... 😢 A video rental store? 😁

Kids who just discovered movies love parroting this line—"a remake can never live up to the original"...

But honestly? A remake can actually outshine the source material.
There aren't any hard rules here.

It all comes down to the *why* behind the remake—if there’s a genuine desire to say something fresh, or if it pushes past the limitations of "that era" (think censorship or outdated tropes), then it works. If the script builds upon the foundation and adds layers that resonate with our modern world while keeping the soul of the original intact... then you've got a success.

Now, if they're just recycling an old script because they've run out of ideas—well, that's a pointless exercise (unless you're the producer looking for a quick buck, of course)...

Take "Sabrina," for instance—a safe, overly polished effort by Sidney Polak that doesn't really offer anything new.
On the flip side, a great remake that corrects the naivety of its predecessor is Peter Hyams' "Narrow Margin" featuring Gene Hackman.

Or look at "The Big Sleep"—where Howard Hawks' version feels more like a lark, but the Michael Winner version with Robert Mitchum and Sally Miles is actually a fantastic film.

Then there's "Getaway"—where Sam Peckinpah's original is a total masterpiece, making the remake feel like a complete dud...

I am seriously fed up with all these classic movie remakes. Honestly, they should just stick to remaking absolute garbage like Leprechaun instead of touching an actual masterpiece like Hellraiser.
Looking at today's remakes, *The Hills Have Eyes* and *Dawn of the Dead* actually deserve some credit. As for the rest? Forget about it. 👎

Look, I get that remakes can add a bit of a modern edge to a movie, but what’s really the point of remaking a story and keeping it in the exact same time period? You're basically just swapping out the actors. Take The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, for example. Personally, I think House of Wax works as a remake, but honestly, remaking every single horror movie ever made feels totally unnecessary.

Just imagine if someone actually made a remake of your favorite movie, and suddenly everything would make sense...

The Fog... you going with the original or the remake?

Keith Kelly3 said:The Fog... you going with the original or the remake?

What kind of question is that? I didn't even finish watching the remake because it was such garbage. It's obviously the original.😁

I am genuinely looking forward to the Fahrenheit 451 adaptation 🙂 🍿 😍 ...though, if I may be so bold, they would really be better off just making it properly from the start. 🙂

The nice thing about a remake is that if they actually admit it, they end up shining a spotlight on a potentially forgotten classic that inspired the whole thing.

One crucial thing to keep in mind when discussing this topic is the distinction between a straight remake and an adaptation of an existing source material—something that existed long before the first movie ever hit the screen. There are plenty of instances where different directors have taken the exact same story and played around with it across various cinematic eras.

Take the Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur drama "The Front Page," for instance; it’s got a fantastic core story. In my book, Lewis Milestone nailed it in 1931, and later, in the mid-70s, Billy Wilder did just as well. Then you have Howard Hawks, who gave it a clever little twist back in 1940 by rebranding it as "His Girl Friday" starring Cary Grant. All three versions are absolute gems, much like how the directors who took on these adaptations were clearly master craftsmen at their trade.

Fog, the original one, obviously!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I usually go with the originals—they just hit differently, you know? But hey, there aren't any hard and fast rules in life. I honestly can't think of a single remake that actually outdid the source material right now... though, to be fair, my brain isn't exactly firing on all cylinders since I just woke up XD
for example, I'd say The Ring is a solid remake.

Tyler Price3 said: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.
🙂

This is probably the closest anyone has come to my own perspective... if a remake of an absolute masterpiece fails, people just call the movie bad regardless—does it even matter if it was the original or the reboot at that point?

There’s an undeniable charm to the originals, but they are what they are. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing certain titles reimagined with today's CGI capabilities...

It feels like pretty much everyone has brought up the heavy hitters here—the remakes that actually work! In my book, you can't talk about successful updates without mentioning Ocean's Eleven (which I honestly think holds its own even better than the original), Cape Fear, and Narrow Margin. And hey, I’m totally on board regarding The Big Sleep, though I have to admit—I’ve always felt that the Hawkes version has a bit more edge to it.
Alright, here are my top three picks for the absolute worst remakes ever made:
Regarding *Breathless*—honestly, it feels like people usually go after movies that have a rock-solid plot when they decide to do a remake. But trying to take a classic like Godard's masterpiece and give it a modern makeover? That just felt completely pointless from the jump. Given how much soul was in the original, I can't say I'm surprised the result turned out exactly how we all expected it to.
Honestly, I’ve been thinking about this lately—the original *Get Carter* was all about that raw, thick atmosphere, you know? It had a certain soul to it. But that remake? Man, it was just terrible. Even with a massive lineup of big-name Hollywood stars thrown at the screen, it just couldn't capture the magic. All those celebrities can't save a movie if the vibe is totally missing!
I really thought the remake of *Diabolique* was going to be a winner—I mean, looking at that casting, it felt like such a slam dunk! Especially when you consider the two lead actresses; they were absolutely perfect for those roles. But honestly, that’s pretty much where the potential ended. It just didn't land for me. The atmosphere feels way thinner than it should, lacking that real sense of dread, and then there's the ending... they basically smoothed everything over to fit those typical Hollywood standards, which totally kills the impact. Such a missed opportunity!

So, we've got Friday the 13th and My Bloody Valentine hitting the schedule, and since every single one of these already has its own dedicated threads, I won't treat them like they're some big new releases... more like just another look at how Hollywood loves to recycle the past. What’s everyone's take on this whole obsession with remakes? You know, that massive trend where studios just dig up old gems to polish them up again. Which movies actually deserve a second look, which ones were already done right the first time, and which ones were just total downgrades from the originals? This is a wide-open topic—doesn't matter the genre—so if you’ve got a remake that actually holds water, let me know, or if one was a complete disaster. Feel free to weigh the classics against the modern versions... I'll kick things off with a few titles that have been remade, and you guys can take it from there.

Get Carter
Dawn of the Dead
The Hitcher
The Italian Job
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
Shaft

It seems to me that remakes are, for the most part, significantly inferior to the original films.
I suppose there is a certain argument to be made that Tui tends to execute things with much more finesse, though I suspect we might occasionally encounter a remake so vastly superior to its predecessor that the general public remains entirely oblivious to the fact that a remake even exists—one might think of instances like The Thing, The Fly, Cape Fear, or Scarface.