wasting time today and saw some remakes of some movies I liked both "Flight of The Phoenix" and "King Kong' and would like to hear the members preferences..Let it be known I'm a classic fan,,Black and white is solid with me
I liked the original "Flight of The Phoenix" much better than the remake. Something about it just felt more substantial.
The original "King Kong" is such a classic that it's difficult to compare it to new movies. I think it's known more for being ground-breaking for its time than the actual story at this point. The remake had amazing effects, of course, and made Kong more sympathetic, I think, but it was just way too long. Peter Jackson just can't seem to make a movie shorter than 3 hours.
Ken Cartwright
No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.
I have a friend who outright refuses to watch black and white films because its a waste of his colour TV
Asus Maximus XI Hero i9-9900K 32Gb Corsair Vengeance Pro DDR4 3200MHz MSI RTX 2080Ti Ventus Corsair H115i Corsair RM850X PSU Phanteks Evolv X Asus VG32G Monitor 2560x1440 Win 10
I have to say though I have not seen the original FotP. I love Jimmy Stewart though and things like SAC and Spirit of St. Louis so I know I'll like it. The sequel I watched recently too since seeing it back when in the theatres and I think its a pretty entertaining movie. Its got some things I don't care for however, it has probably one of my most favorite little monologues I have ever heard in a movie. This one right here. It sounds a little like they are on helium as I assume they adjusted the audio to get around Youtube copyright stuff.
I have a friend who outright refuses to watch black and white films because its a waste of his colour TV
Black and white aren't colours?
There was only 16 squadrons of RAF fighters that used 100 octane during the BoB. The Fw190A could not fly with the outer cannon removed. There was no Fw190A-8s flying with the JGs in 1945.
I think it's known more for being ground-breaking for its time than the actual story at this point.
I had the same thing with the 1954 Godzilla. I can understand the cultural significance and popularity of it, but watching it in 2019 definitely wasn’t an enjoyable experience. It's too bad the later Godzilla movies lose the anti-war, anti-nuclear message to focus on the monster itself. There are a ton of monster movies out there and very little anti-war movies, so the decision to make Godzilla another generic monster movie is just frustrating. But hey, why make a movie if it doesn't do well in the box office?
But I digress...
For me, there is no common thread through my preference for either originals or remakes.I really didn’t like the 1954 Casino Royale. It tried to pull an Austin Powers-like comedy, but fell flat. In contrary, the 2006 Casino Royale was definitely entertaining. Similar with the drawn-out original Thomas Crown Affair and the entertaining Pierce Brosnan remake.
To the contrary of that, the original Day of the Jackal was absolute ace, with the Bruce Willis version being a big “wait, what?” Headscratcher. Also, was there anyone who liked Never Say Never Again over Thunderball?
And I LOVE the original Gone in 60 Seconds, but the remake with Nicholas Cage was pretty good as well. Certainly a fun popcorn flick. Same with The Italian Job.
I have a friend who outright refuses to watch black and white films because its a waste of his colour TV
Black and white aren't colours?
Black isn't. White is.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
I really didn’t like the 1954 Casino Royale. It tried to pull an Austin Powers-like comedy, but fell flat. In contrary, the 2006 Casino Royale was definitely entertaining.
For the record, the spoof Casino Royale was made in 1967, and yes, it was garbage. Lots of top stars + bad script = crap film. As an aside, Murder by Death is exhibit 2 for that principle.
The 1954 version of Casino Royale was a rather stripped-down TV movie of 50 minutes. Not really worth anyone's time except as a historical curiosity.
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,499PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,499
Miami, FL USA
As a general rule, most film remakes are a waste of time because the makers of those remakes fail to realize that lightning almost never strikes twice. There are a few notable exceptions though in my book:
"The Fly" remake from 1986. "The Thing" remake from 1982. "The Last of the Mohicans" remake from 1992.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
Joined: Apr 2001 Posts: 121,499PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,499
Miami, FL USA
Originally Posted by rwatson
wasting time today and saw some remakes of some movies I liked both "Flight of The Phoenix" and "King Kong' and would like to hear the members preferences..Let it be known I'm a classic fan,,Black and white is solid with me
Personally I never understood the fascination with King Kong. I've watched the original 1930's version, the 1970's version with Jessica Lange and the Peter Jackson version and while I thought they were decently entertaining, that was about it. I found nothing compelling about them to make me want to buy the DVD or even watch them more than once.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
wasting time today and saw some remakes of some movies I liked both "Flight of The Phoenix" and "King Kong' and would like to hear the members preferences..Let it be known I'm a classic fan,,Black and white is solid with me
Personally I never understood the fascination with King Kong. I've watched the original 1930's version, the 1970's version with Jessica Lange and the Peter Jackson version and while I thought they were decently entertaining, that was about it. I found nothing compelling about them to make me want to buy the DVD or even watch them more than once.
+1
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
wasting time today and saw some remakes of some movies I liked both "Flight of The Phoenix" and "King Kong' and would like to hear the members preferences..Let it be known I'm a classic fan,,Black and white is solid with me
Personally I never understood the fascination with King Kong. I've watched the original 1930's version, the 1970's version with Jessica Lange and the Peter Jackson version and while I thought they were decently entertaining, that was about it. I found nothing compelling about them to make me want to buy the DVD or even watch them more than once.
As a general rule, most film remakes are a waste of time because the makers of those remakes fail to realize that lightning almost never strikes twice. There are a few notable exceptions though in my book:
"The Fly" remake from 1986. "The Thing" remake from 1982. "The Last of the Mohicans" remake from 1992.
All good choices. In reality, though, there are probably a lot more remakes than we really think about. "Heaven Can Wait" was a remake of "Here Comes Mr. Jordan" from 1941, "Always" was a remake of "A Guy Named Joe", also from the '40s, "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" was a remake of "Bedtime Story", and so on.
Ken Cartwright
No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.
As a general rule, most film remakes are a waste of time because the makers of those remakes fail to realize that lightning almost never strikes twice. There are a few notable exceptions though in my book:
"The Thing" remake from 1982.
Generally, if remakes mainly use the original source material rather than the original film adaptation, the results I think tend to be better. Source material that is well-known to the prospective audience. such as Jane Austen novels, tend to be better adapted because filmmakers don not tend to stray too far from expectations. It is arguable that subsequent adaptations of such sources are not remakes at all.
The Thing is a little different, for although it leans heavily on the novella Who Goes There by John W. Campbell Jr., the original source was probably far less known than The Thing from Another World (1951). Despite this, the 1982 version's more faithful adaptation of the source material, along with stellar filmmaking, resulted in a film that is far superior to the 1951 film.
By the way, how is the new Das Boot series compared to the original?
Apart from the title and the opening music, it has absolutely nothing to do with the original movie/series nor with the books they were based on. Don't bother with it.
I immediately agree that The Thing is a great movie. I've only seen parts of the original however. I only saw it once years ago but there was also that other "The Thing" prequel. I don't remember much about it. I'll have to give it another watch. I've also been wanting to read "Who Goes There".
I think a remake of the 1951 movie with a script more along the lines of Carpenter's The Thing but still shot in black in white and set in the 1950s would be really cool. I've also been hoping someone makes a next generation The Thing video game. I still play the 2002 game but its pretty dated especially in its controls. It wouldn't even need a cutting edge engine, just an engine that's capable such as the one used for the original Dead Space would be great. With great light and shadows and physics set in a 50s or 80s aesthetic in Antarctica would be very cool. I also always thought that Naught Dog's engine used for The Last of Us would be great. Its a great engine and there are times in that game especially when using the flame thrower in dark buildings that remind just how well its engine could render a The Thing game.
I have read that Carpenter is planning to do a reboot of The Thing, again!