Are the only ideas left just remakes?!

thats the thing though, there is nothing so drastically wrong or dated with the storytelling, characters, script or concept in The Karate Kid that it even needs a remake. It is a movie that still stands upon its two feet even now, twenty four years later.

Originally Posted by Bass X0 You're a very angry engine aren't you, Gordon.

I think it depends on the source material.

Friday the 13th - Ok I can see a remake. The old one is pretty good, but It can be updated a bit.

The Thing - The 80s version is vastly superior to the old one. New one had more suspense and a deeper meaning to it. Still a fantastic movie.

Dawn of the Dead - a decent remake, but lost the deeper roots of the old one.

I say old sci-fi and horror movies can be remade and often times be as good as or better (unless is a true classic like Psycho) than the original.

This is kinda pointless. The old one is great and still stands up fine.

I've never understood the problem people have with the very existence of remakes (do people have the same problem with the Universe 2.0 toyline?). It's not like having a remake out there rends the first version from the spacetime continuum and no one can ever watch the original again. If you don't like the remake, or don't like the idea of the original film being redone, just ignore the remake and watch the original. Now, granted, I can understand having problems with how a specific remake is executed and critiquing such a film on it's own merits, just not the loathing of remakes in general.

Hulk wasn't a remake.
It was a reboot of the franchise.

Chaos was the law of nature; order was the dream of man. Henry Brooks Adams, American Historian (1838 - 1918)

Toys are a bit different...like reissues of G1 stuff, or classics. They aren't the same because plain and simple, you can't get the original G1 stuff as easily, or cheap for that factor.

Reboot, remake, under a technicality it is the same aspect, it still sucked. You reboot a computer to start it back up, you remake a movie because you think you can do better.

Now, for instance where remakes didn't suck, Batman...I was a fan of the first 2, than Forever came out, wasn't awesome, but I thought that Carey did a great job as Riddler. Begins came out, I thought it was great, a darker side of it.

Granted also, there are movies that need to be remade, for instance older movies that were just too cheesy and didn't convince people. Now this isn't a movie to movie instance, but the Twilight Zone show to movie, with the "Terror at 20,000 ft" I've watched the original with Shatner, more funny than scary. That gremlin looked so fake, with his tennis shoes on. Now the one where they remade it into a movie with more convincing details acutally used to scare me.

Reissued toys, to come back to the movie theme, are like re-releasing an original version of a film on DVD, so that's definitely a different matter. But the whole purpose of Classics/Universe 2.0 is to remake figures from G1 (mostly); the availability, price or ease of obtaining the original versions doesn't have anything to do with whether it's a remake or not. If that were the case, then Hollywood could do a new version of some film that is hard/expensive to obtain and, by that definition, it wouldn't be a remake.

True, but even still, a toy is a toy, and a movie is a movie. I am not trying to say that Hollywood shouldn't do remakes. I am saying that some movies are better left alone. This all revolves around them remaking movies, that make no sense entirely to remake. Even this morning on the radio the show was talking about the remaking of Karate Kid and they straight up felt the same way.

Like I was saying about them Remaking Star Wars 4, 5, and 6...they are fine the way they are,...I don't wanna see them ruin what was done fine. Because knowing Lucas...it will be just like the Prequel trilogy...not awesome...

You don't have to see it, though; just don't watch the remakes. How does their mere existence detract anything from the original?

TBH, though, I'd like to see someone (not George Lucas) remake the original Star Wars trilogy, since I thought they were all terrible. An interesting basic 'universe', and one that I think could be incredible with someone more skilled at the helm, but the dialogue and plots (and, to some extent, the acting) as they currently are turn me off.

And a remake is a remake. I guess I really don't understand the fundamental difference between media that makes a remake OK (or at least generally acceptable) in one medium but bad in another.

Right?

You have something you like. It still exists. Now you have a chance to possibly enjoy many of the same things you liked about the original again, but maybe with a fresh, new spin. And if the remake sucks...so what? You still have the original, right?

What's the problem?

Originally Posted by llamatron Seriously, Bryan. is pretty much the coolest person in all of existence and definitely all of GD.

It's all about the premise, some things just shouldn't be remade.