Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
here in this thread...lets put remakes or different versions of songs, movies or tv shows out here for the determination....which was better?
was the new version of robocop better than the original.
here in this thread...lets put remakes or different versions of songs, movies or tv shows out here for the determination....which was better?
was the new version of robocop better than the original.
You stole this from me!!!!! it's ok. the 1987 was better because the ideology. I don't care about violence.
You stole this from me!!!!! it's ok. the 1987 was better because the ideology. I don't care about violence.

Biggest difference between the original Robocop and the remake is that the original was deliberately over the top and didn't try to be a serious movie. It was first and foremost entertainment. Even the social commentary was delivered in a mostly humorous poke in the eye way, particularly in the form of the on screen news reports and TV commercials.
What is your opinion(s) on the film Mighty Joe Young with Terry Moore, Robert Armstrong and Ben Johnson and the remake with Charlize Theron and Bill Paxton? I have to say that the first film from 1949 it all. More than the remake(even though it had interesting visuals and Terry Moore and Ray Harryhausen make a cameo). The first one had spectacle, comedy, pathos, drama and suspense. And Ray Harryhausen never disappoints with his stop-motion effects artistry. Mighty Joe Young was known as King Kong's grandson.
The remake had a detailed story of Jill and Joe's relationship and even played on Joe's fear of capture by the use of jangling metal as a trigger. It was a sound that tormented him. While the first film dealt with show biz, the remake dealt with animal preservation and Joe being used as a mascot(exploitation).
The escape and the fire at the orphanage were the most suspenseful scenes in the first film and were very memorable.
The Ferris wheel fire scene was okay. But Joe ended up killing the man who tormented him.
If I had to choose, it would have to be the first film being better because of the simplicity and thematic elements in the story. The remake had some of those elements, but in my humble opinion, the remake kind of fell short.
I like the original better. The remake of course had the better visuals/EFX and updated story/themes but when all said and done sometimes simple and straight forward is better.
Same with the classic King Kong compared to Peter Jackson's remake. I Liked Peter Jackson's mainly due to the updated creatures and all of the events on Skull Island, but everything that took place in New York before and after I could live without. In the remake too much effort went into trying to make Kong more human and relatable for his inevitable demise IMO. You automatically felt sympathy for Kong in the original because he was an animal who was brought to civilization for human greed and entertainment purposes, so his escape and actions afterward leading to his death were simply him being what he was.
When you say classic/original King Kong, are you referring to the original 1930's Fay Wray movie, or the 70's Jessica Lange / Jeff Bridges remake? The latter is one of my all time favorites...frikkin loved that movie.
The Original 1930's.
I like the original better. The remake of course had the better visuals/EFX and updated story/themes but when all said and done sometimes simple and straight forward is better.
Same with the classic King Kong compared to Peter Jackson's remake. I Liked Peter Jackson's mainly due to the updated creatures and all of the events on Skull Island, but everything that took place in New York before and after I could live without. In the remake too much effort went into trying to make Kong more human and relatable for his inevitable demise IMO. You automatically felt sympathy for Kong in the original because he was an animal who was brought to civilization for human greed and entertainment purposes, so his escape and actions afterward leading to his death were simply him being what he was.
Ah. Well your description of it is exactly how l feel about the 70's remake (and not Jackson's remake which was awful) - that Kong was so much more emotional to me, so l say in this instance the remake was better for me.
I do not think the intention in Jackson's film was to see Kong as human, more as to show that Kong was a giant animal that was worshipped as a god and feared by all who would ever see him. Andy Serkis(who also played the cook Lumpy) played a gorilla in the wild and in captivity. Gorillas are not predatory but they are protective. So, it is easy to sympathize with Kong because he does not belong in our world. He is brought to our world in bondage, he escapes into a world not his own and he dies there. And that is Kong's tragedy.
Once Kong escapes and finds Ann Darrow in New York, it came across to me as Jackson trying to make Kong human IMO. Especially the whole ice skating/dancing scene. That kind of bordered on trying to be a romantic moment between Kong and Darrow. Ann Darrow should have been & was sympathetic to Kong as she should be after bonding with him on Skull Island and discovering he wasn't a savage beast or monster god. That's the only thing about the original King Kong I would gripe about. Ann Darrow still viewed Kong as a monster even after he did nothing remotely harmful to her the whole time she was with him. But I chalk that up as a sign of the era in which the movie was made.