You're exactly the market they are looking for - someone for whom the movie is new and but also someone who has no ken of the original so he can't campare the two.

That's one of the reason they remake classics - for young audiences who have never seen or even heard of the original.

Sadly, most of the time the young audiences are gypped because the original is so much better but they won't see it, especially if the film is a black and white classic. That's not to say all young audiences members dislike B&W movies and won't watch, but many do avoid them.

I think the main reason I don't like some old movies is because I can't appreciate how groundbreaking they were at the time they came out. For example, I prefer the 1976 (?) version of King Kong to the original. The original King Kong just looks like bad claymation to me. Also movies like The Graduate with the wedding scene which has been duplicated ad infinitum. Of course, I just hated that movie all around.

I think the main reason I don't like some old movies is because I can't appreciate how groundbreaking they were at the time they came out. For example, I prefer the 1976 (?) version of King Kong to the original. The original King Kong just looks like bad claymation to me. Also movies like The Graduate with the wedding scene which has been duplicated ad infinitum. Of course, I just hated that movie all around.

Excellent points, Jim. Makes me glad I got to see so many original movies when they were truly original! There's something to be said for being a tad older.

Remakes often seem pointless to me. Why should "Casablanca" or "Beau Geste" or "War of the Worlds" be remade if the original was a classic? I'm sure the latter of those three will disappoint me!

I guess it really depends on what you would call a classic and what you would call a remake. The Thing could be referred to as a classic, but its 1982 'remake' was by far superior and holds up to this day. But on the whole, I have to agree about remakes. Most are unnecessary. 'Man on Fire' comes to mind for me, not because I think the original is so good, I actually saw about ten minutes of it. But Tony Scott's directing has gone into a dark and scary place (in a bad way). I felt like I was tripping out on acid, what was going on with the editing? And in his new movie it looks like he's doing the same thing.

I guess it really depends on what you would call a classic and what you would call a remake. The Thing could be referred to as a classic, but its 1982 'remake' was by far superior and holds up to this day. But on the whole, I have to agree about remakes. Most are unnecessary. 'Man on Fire' comes to mind for me, not because I think the original is so good, I actually saw about ten minutes of it. But Tony Scott's directing has gone into a dark and scary place (in a bad way). I felt like I was tripping out on acid, what was going on with the editing? And in his new movie it looks like he's doing the same thing.

I agree that "The Thing" was better than the original. Likewise, I think that the 1953 movie of "War of the Worlds" was at least as good as the 1938 radio presentation (taking difference of medium into account). Still, try to remake a classic Bogart/Bacall or Tracy/Hepburn movie, and you won't get my interest. I guess I'll go see the remake of WOTW, but I'm not holding out much hope.

I agree that "The Thing" was better than the original. Likewise, I think that the 1953 movie of "War of the Worlds" was at least as good as the 1938 radio presentation (taking difference of medium into account). Still, try to remake a classic Bogart/Bacall or Tracy/Hepburn movie, and you won't get my interest. I guess I'll go see the remake of WOTW, but I'm not holding out much hope.

Just noticed the "Pony Bottle" reference in your location, was that always there????

The thing that grabbed from the previews for the remake was that Giovanni Ribis's character with the blonde hair & specs made him look like he was a Nazi. (I thought this was going to be a WWII film).

After it was revealed that he designed toy airplanes I all but lost interest in finishing the movie but glad I did - I would have missed out on LMAO when they strapped everyone to the wings & flew off into the sunset.

The thing that grabbed from the previews for the remake was that Giovanni Ribis's character with the blonde hair & specs made him look like he was a Nazi. (I thought this was going to be a WWII film).

After it was revealed that he designed toy airplanes I all but lost interest in finishing the movie but glad I did - I would have missed out on LMAO when they strapped everyone to the wings & flew off into the sunset.

Aaarrgghh....Rats, now I know the ending. I haven't seen this film yet, and it's coming from netflix. If you can post a spoiler alert, it's very helpful for those of us who haven't seen the movie or read the book yet.

Anyone considered that the problem here is that we are old enough to remember the originals but active enough to see the remakes? Course as I am only (cough)4 years old that doesnt apply to me.....

Anyone considered that the problem here is that we are old enough to remember the originals but active enough to see the remakes? Course as I am only (cough)4 years old that doesnt apply to me.....

Is that dogs years, or donkeys years?

Ken V.

The thing that grabbed from the previews for the remake was that Giovanni Ribis's character with the blonde hair & specs made him look like he was a Nazi. (I thought this was going to be a WWII film).

After it was revealed that he designed toy airplanes I all but lost interest in finishing the movie but glad I did - I would have missed out on LMAO when they strapped everyone to the wings & flew off into the sunset.

If you're going to give away the ending to a book or film, you really should announce it, so that those who haven't seen or read it yet can bypass your . . . SPOILER!

Ken V.