|
My guess is that for the purpose of this thread, remake/reboot/re-imagining all are candidates for the conversation. But I agree there is a somewhat subjective distinction: How different is the "remake" from the original? If it's significantly different, maybe it's more of a re-imagining, or reboot (although that term seems to be used for franchises).
I thought Dawn of the Dead was pretty different than the original, if for no other reason because the zombies are fast, so it has an action element that the original didn't have.
I agree with ChronoGrl that Evil Dead was not a straight remake, and also fantastic. :)
Also, she's making me want to see My Bloody Valentine 3D. I liked the original, but assumed the remake was just another cash grab.
I actually kinda liked the Rob Zombie Halloweens, but they have almost no relationship to the original.
I've never seen the original for some of these remakes: The Thing, The Fly, Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I really liked all three of those (meaning Carpenter, Cronenberg and 1978 body snatchers). Funny that two of those three have been remade again since, and I hear the Fly is in the works.
If I were to pick one remake that I can actually compare to the original, and that I thought really good, I'd pick The Ring. The original had better pacing, but I thought the remake was creepier -- especially the video.
I also liked King Kong 2005 because it brought back some of the prehistoric action from the 1933 version that the 1976 version left out.
|