Pick Original Or Remake To See Who's A Fan Of Old School (And Who's Not)
- by Jamie Light
- – on
- in Movies and TV
Which movie is better? The original with the slow build-up of simple, yet realistic style effects, or the remake with the higher budget, explosive special effects, and cropped storylines? It's one of the biggest clashes of movie fans today. Especially, since it appears that there are at least a dozen remakes of older movies coming to theaters every year. Some people look forward to the new take on an older classic, meanwhile, there are those who dread the upcoming remake. Mainly because so many of those classics end up butchered. Either way, fans have to see the remake and compare it for better or worse. Afterward, fans of old-school go on to argue about which version was better with those who love the remake for decades.
In fact, being a fan of old school goes so much deeper than just loving the classic movies, rather than the originals. The same argument can come up in a conversation about anything from music to clothes. Fans of old-school love Tupac, while those who are not fans of old school will always say Lil' Wayne's rap style is better. With that being said, one of the easiest ways to tell who's a fan of old school vs who's not is by comparing tastes between original movies versus the remakes. Go on! Decide between original, or remake for these movies to see who's a fan of old-school and who's not.
Alice in Wonderland
There have been several movie adaptions of Alice in Wonderland, which are based on the children's book "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". However, the most popular versions made into film are Disney's 1951 version and Disney's live-action version with Tim Burton, from 2010. The original is animated and follows a very young, lost Alice along on her journey in Wonderland. Meanwhile, the remake was live action and Alice was returning to Underland (not Wonderland), although, she couldn't remember her first trip. Both had all sorts of interesting characters. Which was the best?
A Nightmare on Elm Street
The 2010 remake for A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), mostly followed along the same storyline of the original. Freddy Kruger was still a villain terrorizing a group of teens in their dreams. However, there were some scenes left out which altered the flow. Plus, the reason why Freddy had returned from the grave was changed, but only a little. Still, these slight changes were enough to chase away the truest fans of the original, including Robert Englund, who played the original Freddy.
Bad News Bears
The original Bad News Bears showcased a lot of adult themes that wouldn't pass for a PG film these days. However, it came out in 1976, just before the PG-13 rating came into play. In it, a washed up coach coaches a losing baseball team of kids. The 2005 remake stayed with the storyline as much as possible, but some changes were made in order to keep it at that PG-13 rating. This meant that a couple of scenes had to be left out, or changed and there was a stronger emphasis on the positive message for kids. Both were great movies. Which is better?
Beauty and the Beast
In 1991, Disney came out with their animated version of Beauty and the Beast, which has become a popular family classic. The movie tells the story of a cursed prince, who was turned into a beast by a rejected enchantress. Beauty was an inventors daughter, who ended up replacing her dad in the Beast's castle. In 2017, Disney did a live-action remake of the movie, which stays true to the original with only a few minor changes. Both were great movies, although, there was some criticism of the remake. Which was best?
Dirty Dancing
The original Dirty Dancing was a surprise hit when it came out in 1987. The movie is the coming of age taleof Fracis "Baby" Houseman's summer trip. On the trip, she met and fell in love with one of the resorts dance instructors. In 2017, ABC decided to make a made-for-TV remake, which may not have been a great route for such a classic movie. It received horrible reviews, although, there were probably a few fans who loved the remake. Which version was better?
Footloose
Footloose is another 80's classic that got the remake treatment, only the reviews for the 2011 version of this one were decent. The movie mostly followed the same lines as the 1984 version. Both were based on a boycott of a no dancing law with the teenagers trying to get around it. The remake was set in the south and the mood and music were both given a country touch. Plus, the remake didn't have Kurt Russell, yet it is still one of the best 80's remakes out there. Which was better?
Friday the 13th
There wasn't too much that could've been messed up with remaking Friday the 13th. The original movie was a standard slasher film, which turned into a classic. In it, Jason Vorhees' mom is determined to take the lives of the teenagers preparing Crystal Lake to reopen for camp. The 1980 horror film was remade in 2009 and the end result was awesome. The storyline stayed the same, only with better graphics and a little more detail. Which was best?
Ghostbusters
In 1984, the classic comedy Ghostbusters came out and quickly became a popular franchise. In it, four parapsychologists start a business with the intention of ridding New York City of its ghostly inhabitants. The original was so awesome that it made making a loveable remake tricky. Still, the 2016 remake did its best to live up to the original with the storyline, but met a lot of criticism over the various changes. A lot of the iconic places were changed along with switching out an all-male main cast for an all-female main cast. Which was best?
Hairspray vs Hairspray Live
The original Hairspray came out in 1988 and left a big enough mark for it to get the remake treatment in 2007. Both are set in the 1960's and are centered around the main character, Tracy Turnblad, who wants to dance on the local TV show. The remake stayed in line with the original story, although, it was done as actual musical. This put a new spin on an old classic. That along with the cast was enough to make the remake into a classic all on its own. Which was best?
Ghost in the Shell
Ghost in the Shell was originally a 1995 anime, which was rebooted in 2017, as a live-action movie. The storyline is about Major, whose human brain has been placed in the body of a robot. The two versions are very different takes on the story. In the original, the focus is mostly on Major's future, whereas the remake dives into her past. Aside from that, there is less nudity and other minor changes that were made in order to keep it at the PG-13 rating. Which was better?
Jumanji vs Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle
Jumanji was one of those classic movies that most fans didn't want to see remade. It wasn't just that the oiginal set such a high bar, but also that one of the original's most-beloved stars is no longer living. However, the remake put a lot of new twists into an awesome, old storyline. It also honored the late Robin Williams, which made fans of the original super-happy. The main difference was that the original began with an old board game, which brought the jungle to the players, whereas, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, used an older video game, which brought the players into the game. Which was the best?
Grease vs Grease: Live
In 1978, "Grease" became an instant hit! Now, it has become one of the most well-known classics of all time. Of course, that didn't stop Fox from remaking it into "Grease: Live" in 2016. The remake had a great cast, even if it wasn't the ever-so popular, John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John at the center of the storyline. The reviews on the music and choreographed sdance moves were great and most fans seemed to like this remake. That is, except for those die-hard old school fans. Which was the best?
The Karate Kid
The original Karate Kid came out in 1984, yet it's still a great story! That's why it's become a classic today, which just had to be redone. The 2010 version stays mostly to the original script, aside from the location changes, casting, and the fact that there isn't any karate in the movie. In the original, Ralph is learning karate from Mr. Miyagi, who has since become a beloved TV mentor. In the remake, Mr. Han teaches Kung Fu to Dre. I'm not quite sure how you can take karate out of Karate Kid, but they did and it mostly worked. Which was better?
It
In 2017, "It" hit the big screen for the first time. The original was a made-for-TV mini-series based on the Stephen King novel of the same name. The story remains the same as the original. A group of kids in Derry, Maine, known as the Loser's Club, are doing their best to track down and end the terrifying reign of Pennywise the clown, who can take your worst fears and make them appear to be real. He uses these tactics to kidnap the kids in Derry. The biggest difference is the graphics, which needed an overhaul. As for the rest, sticking to the original was probably the best way to go. Which one is better?
The Mechanic
The Mechanic originally came out in the 70's and it was a great action movie based on a guy who assasinates people, while making the COD look like natural causes. This was another reboot which stayed true to the origianl, yet was updated a little with better graphics and a fresh cast. The remake came out in 2011, which was nearly 40 years later. Which was better?
Man on Fire
The 1987 and 2004 versions of Man on Fire are nearly the same, only the first one was French and nearly 20 years old by the time the remake hit the US. The biggest changes were the location, times, and the directors. The story was about an ex-CIA agent who has post traumatic stress disorder from the Vietnam War. He accepts a job offer to be the bodyguard for a little girl. Another big change in between the original and remake was that the remake had Denzel Washington as ex-CIA agent, Creasy and Dakota Fanning as the little girl, Samantha. Which was better?
The Evil Dead vs Evil Dead
The Evil Dead is a 1980 horror film which follows Ash as he and a group of family and friends go to stay at a cabin. They are all attacked and become possesed by an entity, which tires to make them take each others lives in vaious gory ways. Ash is the only one to survive in the end. The 2013 remake did a quiet gender swap by recasting Ash as Mia, but you never know this until nearly the end. It also had boosted graphics. Which version was better?
Halloween
Some of the best films that should never be rebooted fit in the horror category. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't any diomonds laying around in the rough. Take Halloween for example. It is one of the most populr horror franchises of all time, yet the remake turned out to be decent. The 2007 movie still had the same feeling and stayed with the original plot, but had a few differences in directing style that made it more Rob Zombie-like. Still, it also paid homage to John Carpenter for the greatness behind the original. Which was better?
King Kong (2005) vs Kong: Skull Island
King Kong is one of the best-known classic monster movies, ever. There have been several sequels and remakes since the original 1933 version of the story. In it, a gigantic gorilla is overtaken by humans and ends up coming to civiliazation. However, comparing a 1933, 1978, and 2005 versions to the latest installment would be a bit much. The focus here is on between the two most modern adaptions. The 2005 version runs along with the original 1933 storyline, only with bigger monsters and better graphics. Wheras, 1017's Kong: Skull Island pulls away from Kong envading us and stays focused on Kong in his territory. Which is better? 2005, or 2017?
Overboard
The original Overboard came out in 1987. It told the story of a rich heiress who berated the carpenter hired to work on her husband's yacht. The heiress got thrown overboard and lost her memory, which prompted the carpenter to make her believe that he was her husband to take care of his sons. Goldie Hawn was the rich heiress, Joanna, and Kurt Russell played Dean the carpenter. The 2018 remake swaps the genders around by having the guy as a Mexican playboy who goes overboard. Meanwhile, the lady cleaning the carpets on his yacht, ends up taking him home to her kids. Which is better?
The Stepford Wives
In 1975, The Stepford Wives was a movie that pulled psychological horror from the times. Women were beginning to become more independent and successful, meanwhile, husbands were being left to heat up TV dinners. The movie played on these changes with a storyline where the wives of Stepford's lives were taken and they were replaced by identical robots. In turn, these robots would be the doting housewives that the husbands wanted. In 2004, a remake was made that used the same storyline, yet tried to update it by having the wives controlled by microchips. Which version of The Stepford Wives was better?
Gone in 60 Seconds
Gone in 60 Seconds is an awesome movie and a favorite for any car buff. The storyline is about a retired car thief who must steal 50 luxury cars in one night with his crew. The original came out in 1974 and later became known as the movie in which 127 real cars were either destroyed or damaged during filming. The remake came out in 2000. Not near as many cars were damaged, although, it is still known for the 50 hot cars that starred in it. Which one is better?
Planet of the Apes
The original Planet of the Apes came out in 1968. The hit quickly grew into a sensational franchise, which gave people a view into what it'd be like if apes were the intellectual ones. To make matters worse, their desire was to enslave and torture the humans that were still around. In 2001, Tim Burton did a remake which stayed true to the story, yet also changed it drastically. It began by having the ape's location changed from a dessert to a more jungle-like area, which made more sense. However, the remake chose to follow the human's escape, rather than focus on the original which focused more on the ape's tactics. Which was better?
The Longest Yard
The Longest Yard (1974) is one of those classic football movies that fans didn't want to see remade, but being the classic that it is, it was remade. The original starred Burt Reynolds as Paul Crewe, who was sent to jail, after taking Maserati for a joyride. As a disgraced pro-football player, he ends up being the quarterback for the inmate's team, which is playing against a team of prison guards. The 2005 remake starred Adam Sandler as Crewe, only he got busted after taking a Bently for a joyride, instead of a Maserati. Burt Reynolds did make it into the remake as another inmate, who once was an NFL coach, and mentors Crewe. Original, or remake?
Robocop
The original Robocop became a cult classic of the sci-fy genre in 1987. It had a corporation that was using the body of an expired beat cop to invent a robotic cop that would be able to take down perps without feeling or vulnerability. The movie was famous for its storyline, violence, and gore. In 2014, Robocop was rebooted and pushed into the PG-13 catergory, which meant taking out a lot of the elements that made the first a classic. However, it also put a fresh spin on the original storyline. Which was better?
Poltergeist
The original Poltergeist is one of the most iconic horror movies of its time. It was the storyline, acting, and effects that got people back then. In it, a family of 5 moves into a neighborhood that was built over graves. The youngest daughter gets pulled into the spirit world, but is able to communicate with her family through the TV. In 2015, the remake was smart enough to follow the original storyline. However, things were sped up a bit. Plus, the communication channels were updated to include smartphones and tablets. The one thing that really affected the remake was a changed scene where the original has one of the investigators appears to pull his skin off. Which was better?
The Mummy
First off, The Mummy from 1999 was already a remake from a 1939 classic, but it was so well done that it became a classic of its own. So, the comparision here is between Brendan Fraser's from 1999 and Tom Cruise's 2017 remake. Both go along with the tale of an ancient figure who was cursed and left to rot as a mummy. However, the remake changes things up with a genderswap of the mummy. The original mummy is High Priest, Imhotep, who was cursed for an affair. Meanwhile, the remake mummy is Princess Ahmanet, who was cursed for taking her families lives, after the promised role of Pharoh was given to her brother. Which was better?
Sparkle
The original for Sparkle came out in 1976 with the story of 3 sisters, Sister, Sparkle, and Delores, who try to become famous singers for different reasons. However, their personal lives kept getting in the way. In the end, Sparkle set out for a solo career and made it. There were several changes made for the 2012 remake, including the time, place, and the girls mother played a bigger role. In the original, she was okay with her daughters becoming famous, but in the remake she wasn't. Also, the mom was played by Whitney Houston in the remake, making it her last appearance in a movie role. Which was the better movie?
Tomb Raider
The original Tomb Raider that came out in 2001 was phenominal. It ws based on the video game series of the same name and starred Angelina Jolie as Laura Croft. The original stayed mostly in line with the game series, whereas, the 2018 remake appeared to cover both of the original Tomb Raider movies, as well as the 2013 reboot for the video game. Despite being a little comfusing, it is still a great take on a popular classic, with Alicia Vikander acting as Laura Croft. The remake does give gamers thrills for taking them step for step, through some of the most intense parts of the 2013 game. Which is better?
Psycho
The original Psycho is another one of those classic horror movies that nobody ever expects a remake to live up to. Anthony Perkins acted as Norman Bates, who takes the lives of women as his mother. The downside was that the original was in black and white, but that never took away from the classic. In 1998, Gus Van Sant went and made a remake starring Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates. The remake was almost an exact replica of the original, with only a couple of updates. Original, or remake?
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory vs Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Ever since its release in 1971, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory has been a beloved children's movie. The movie is based on a book named Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl. It starred the late Gene Wilder as renowned chocolatier, Willy Wonka, and Peter Ostrum as the last child to get a golden ticket, Charlie Bucket. The tickets were good for a tour of Wonka's Chocolate Factory, which led to so much more. Over 30 years later, Tim Burton did a remake of the original, but went with the book's name, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The remake followed the storyline to the original, with just a few hanges to make it work for the current times. Plus, they actually gave a little back story to Willy Wonka's childhood. Which was better?
The Amityville Horror
Some people will always prefer the old school to the remakes when it comes to horror movies. The Amityville Horror is a good example as to why. The original was born in 1979 and while the special effects weren't great, they were at least realistic. Both tell the same story of the Lutz family, who moved in to the Amityville house, following the DeFao murders, only to move out shortly after due to the place being terrifylingly huanted. In 2005, the remake was made, which had some spooky special effects, but maybe not as simple, or realistic as the original. However, the graphics really helped things out and there was some added storyline. Which was better?
The Taking of Pelham 123
The 2009 remake of The Taking of Pelham 123 played like a much-needed update to the original 1974 version. It has all of the star power that movies from a new generation need, with Denzel Washington playing an average train dispatcher turned hero and John Travolta as the bad guy. Aside from the new-age look and feel, the remake stayed true to the original storyline. In it, a criminal gang hijacks a New York subway train, looking to get a ransom. In the original, the ransom was a million, but the remake upped the ante to 10 million. The remake also added a tad bit more action. Which one was better?
Wonder Woman
This comparison is a little different considering the 2017 Wonder Woman was the first live-action movie. Instead, we are comparing the 1974 TV series to the movie. In 1974, the role of Wonder Woman was played by Lynda Carter, who was perfect as a 70's Wonder Woman. However, the show itself was seriously outdated by the time Gal Gadot took on the role for the 2017 movie version. The biggest key differences between the two are Carter's outdated outfit, the graphics, and the original Wonder Woman had the military backing her up, whereas, in the movie Wonder Woman had another Amazon to help her out. Which version was better?
The Fantastic Four
The original Fantastic Fantastic Four was released in theaters in 2005. It wasn't considered to be one of the best Marvel movies to begin with, but it also didn't leave much of a mark for the remake to beat. However, the reviews for the 2015 remake were actually worse than the original. Both movies cover how the Fantastic Four got their powers and banded together to defeat Doom, but the original puts more detail into bringing the four together. On the other hand, the remake left a lot of questions concerning the storyline. Which movie was better between these box-office bombs?
