Today, we will be looking at a question that haunts the mind of Younglings and Padawans alike: Are remakes worse than the originals? The answer seems clear: Yes. But, after excruciating research on five examples, I have deduced a strange answer to the question:
But first, some examples. The original will be competed against it's most current reboot.
Example #1
The Jungle Book (1967) is a fun little animated feature made by Disney in 1967, the Jungle Book is a
hour and a half long and beautifully animated. It has some fun songs, but...
The Jungle Book (2016)
This one's better. The CGI is even better than the animation in the original, it's funnier, and has a more potent story that really makes you think, or at least get it on DVD. Whichever happens first.
Reboots 1, originals 0.
Example #2
Ghostbusters was remembered for it's special effects, great casting, plot, and basically everything. It is a classic film, but has lots of language and crass humor. I also think it was burdened by Bill Murray, who in the film I remember thinking, "He said he'd start a Ghosbusting agency, but I can't tell if he's serious."
Ghostbusters (2016)
Ghostbusters was an even better film in my opinion. Yeah, I'm like, the only one, but honestly, when I saw the trailers, I thought, "Oh my. How can they remake Ghostbusters? And look, they're all girls. That's a bit political." But then, it ended up being better than the original, only burdened by lame trailers. But I seem to be the only one that thinks that, mostly because everyone else on the internet who cared about this issue saw the original movie in the theaters and is thus very biased. I, however, didn't see the film 'till I was 10 ish, so I didn't have a lot of time to grow a bias.
Reboots 2, originals 0.
Example #3
Willy Wonka is a classic. Gene Wilder's Wonka was inspiring. The songs were amazing. Candy Man and Pure Imagination have cemented themselves in pop culture. The effects were all real, so that's cool.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
Charlie improves on the mistakes of the predecessor, such as backstories and the burping scene, which they cut (thank goodness). But, it lost some of the love from the original in Tim Burton's hands, and soon became a creepy, albeit fun movie. I also think that Johnny Depp didn't do as nearly a good job as Gene Wilder, and the song's really did make you cringe.
Reboots 2, originals 1.
Example #4
King Kong (1933) is a classic film. With revolutionary special effects and plotline, this became an instant hit. The "Beauty killed the beast line" was amazing and made you think about the film in a whole different way. It was also the basis of the Disney film, Beauty and the Beast, which we won't talk about later.
Kong: Skull Island was chosen over the 2005 movie because it was released more recently. It was an okay movie follow up to Godzilla, which was an impressive film. But... no. This movie is too scary, the dialogue's cheesy, and the amount of swearing looks bad.
Reboots 2, originals 2 (ooh, it's gettin' close. This last one will decide it all...)
Example #5
DuckTales (2017) is a modern Disney TV show. It has standard today animation, shout outs to the old series, but here's where it gets to me: they don't sound like the classic ducks you know. They each have separate voice actors, and that really bugs me.
So, final score, reboots 2, originals 3.
So, the answer to the question that haunts the mind of Younglings and Padawans alike: Are remakes worse than the originals? The kind of obvious answer is: no. But, after this excruciating research (10 minutes of free time) and tedious math (2 seconds in my head), I have found the answer is:
Yes.
But first, some examples. The original will be competed against it's most current reboot.
Example #1
Jungle Book (1967) v Jungle Book (2016)
The Jungle Book (1967) is a fun little animated feature made by Disney in 1967, the Jungle Book is a
hour and a half long and beautifully animated. It has some fun songs, but...
The Jungle Book (2016)
This one's better. The CGI is even better than the animation in the original, it's funnier, and has a more potent story that really makes you think, or at least get it on DVD. Whichever happens first.
Reboots 1, originals 0.
Example #2
Ghostbusters (1984) v Ghostbusters (2016)
Ghostbusters was remembered for it's special effects, great casting, plot, and basically everything. It is a classic film, but has lots of language and crass humor. I also think it was burdened by Bill Murray, who in the film I remember thinking, "He said he'd start a Ghosbusting agency, but I can't tell if he's serious." Ghostbusters (2016)
Ghostbusters was an even better film in my opinion. Yeah, I'm like, the only one, but honestly, when I saw the trailers, I thought, "Oh my. How can they remake Ghostbusters? And look, they're all girls. That's a bit political." But then, it ended up being better than the original, only burdened by lame trailers. But I seem to be the only one that thinks that, mostly because everyone else on the internet who cared about this issue saw the original movie in the theaters and is thus very biased. I, however, didn't see the film 'till I was 10 ish, so I didn't have a lot of time to grow a bias.Reboots 2, originals 0.
Example #3
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) v Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
Willy Wonka is a classic. Gene Wilder's Wonka was inspiring. The songs were amazing. Candy Man and Pure Imagination have cemented themselves in pop culture. The effects were all real, so that's cool.Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
Charlie improves on the mistakes of the predecessor, such as backstories and the burping scene, which they cut (thank goodness). But, it lost some of the love from the original in Tim Burton's hands, and soon became a creepy, albeit fun movie. I also think that Johnny Depp didn't do as nearly a good job as Gene Wilder, and the song's really did make you cringe.
Reboots 2, originals 1.
Example #4
King Kong (1933) v Kong: Skull Island (2017)
King Kong (1933) is a classic film. With revolutionary special effects and plotline, this became an instant hit. The "Beauty killed the beast line" was amazing and made you think about the film in a whole different way. It was also the basis of the Disney film, Beauty and the Beast, which we won't talk about later.Kong: Skull Island was chosen over the 2005 movie because it was released more recently. It was an okay movie follow up to Godzilla, which was an impressive film. But... no. This movie is too scary, the dialogue's cheesy, and the amount of swearing looks bad.
Reboots 2, originals 2 (ooh, it's gettin' close. This last one will decide it all...)Example #5
DuckTales (1987) v Ducktales (2017)
DuckTales (1987) is a classic Disney TV show and had great animation, shout-outs to pop culture, and was really nice to watch. The voices sounded like the 1950 Disney cartoons where they sounded like ducks.DuckTales (2017) is a modern Disney TV show. It has standard today animation, shout outs to the old series, but here's where it gets to me: they don't sound like the classic ducks you know. They each have separate voice actors, and that really bugs me.
So, final score, reboots 2, originals 3.
So, the answer to the question that haunts the mind of Younglings and Padawans alike: Are remakes worse than the originals? The kind of obvious answer is: no. But, after this excruciating research (10 minutes of free time) and tedious math (2 seconds in my head), I have found the answer is:
Yes.
Comments
Post a Comment