#remake vs original

[daffeine]

Making Timon ‘more’ gay just ultimately makes Timon and Pumbaa less gay

[bartoonist]

Max & Chloe’s DreamKeepers-Redreamt & Original Editions: Ten Years Ago in 2015 when I was still a neophyte DreamKeepers Fan only two since I got into the Webcomic/Indie Graphic Novel series since after I had graduated high school in 2013 back then, I drew my DreamKeeper fan designs of Max Caulfield and Chloe Price as their own DreamKeeper avatars that would reflect on their personalities. In the original DreamKeepers parodied Life is Strange fan art illustration I drew in 2015, I drew Max as a Doe which I at least got right since the original Life is Strange developers had always used a Female Deer as Max’s true Animal Symbol/Spirit Animal of course, one thing I got wrong about DreamKeeper-Chloe is that I never sought to look up what her true canonical animal symbol/spirit animal originally was since I just imagined DreamKeeper-Chloe to be some pink and purple striped raccoon with light blue hair, and after watching some fun new walkthrough videos of the new Max Caulfield direct sequel: Life is Strange Double Exposure on YouTube with some multiple narrative path where I liked some of the choices those YouTube Streaming Gamers did and some I did not like from those them at all, I decided to start remaking my DreamKeepers parodied Life is Strange fan art illustration by looking up Max & Chloe’s true Animal Symbols and redesign my DreamKeeper fan designs of Max & Chloe in style, DreamKeeper-Max is now a Caracal Doe hybrid because the first LIS protagonist with the Doe Symbol also liked having her very own cat in the DLC version of LIS: Double Exposure, and DreamKeeper-Chloe is now a Butterfly Crow hybrid since the Blue Butterfly wasn’t the only animal to foreshadow the conflicting fates between Chloe’s end vs Arcadia Bay’s end, so did the Crows too… if I remember that correctly when I played the five episodes of the first LIS game ten years ago of course. I had fun remaking my DreamKeeper fan designs of Max & Chloe and I hope you DreamKeepers Fans and LIS Fans alike like both my fan remake and fan original altogether anyway.

[maniacalshen]

Hellraiser 2022 - spoilers below the cut

I watched this a few days ago, and I do think it's worth watching! However, I have two things to note:

First, I don't love the new Cenobites. They're too... much. The designers way overdid it, and some of the Cenobites themselves gleam with CGI. You could look at the disfigurements of the old ones and feel horror because you could almost imagine it happening. A half-hidden hook or a pin would catch your eye, and you'd shudder anew.

These new ones are so mangled that becoming one is unimaginable. And you don't even get the visceral reaction that simpler effects lend.

Second, they changed the central conceit. I think it differentiates the remake from the original in an interesting way. Spoilers:

So consent just doesn't matter anymore.

In the original Hellraiser, one summoned Cenobites by solving the puzzle box while having at least some idea of what that meant. Maybe one wanted to experience a physical extreme but didn't know how it would happen. Maybe one knew the Cenobites existed, didn't want to go to their special Hell, and solved it anyway. But each victim knew that they were getting into something. They couldn't, say, leave it for a precocious child to solve and expect Pinhead to take the kid away.

In the 2022 edition, the victim doesn't even need to solve anything. They just have to bleed on one phase or another of the solved puzzle. The box now has multiple configurations, and each configuration demands a sacrifice, but it sure as hell doesn't have to be the solver. This lets the Cenobites toy with, break down, corrupt, and twist someone into the sort of monster that gets "rewarded" by making a final choice upon solving the last configuration. After getting five other people horribly murdered.

It's a different kind of head-fuck and adds a progression around which writers can pace a movie. They also left interpretation open for the three "rewards" we did not see, which is fun.

I don't find it as compelling as the original. But both movies ask of a character: What do you REALLY want? What will you do to get it? And what will you do with what you get?

[nightmaremaven]

Check out mine and CarnageCandyy’s videos for a Remake vs Original on Cabin Fever (2002 and 2016)!

Lizzi’s video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixH-gj89cJc&t=111s

[nightmaremaven]

[talkcouchtalk]

Evil Dead New and Old comparison review

Evil dead

New and Old

So one of my favorite films is The Evil Dead, and I don’t mean the new one I’m talking about the good Bruce Campbell filled delicious B-movie goodness, funded by 4 college and some local investors. This movie is the real starting point for Sam Raimi and his brother the people behind the original spiderman trilogy and the new Wizard of Oz prequel Oz The Great and Powerful. However were not here to talk about that were here to talk about the differences and the stuff that I liked and disliked about both films. Just a warning I love the old film and I really tend to nitpick the new film because I worshiped the original for a very long time. Now lets be clear I really enjoy both films and there are definitely things I like about the new film. So as I go i'm going to be comparing both films and giving my 2 cents about them. First of all you know the demons from the humans by the color of their eyes. In the original the demons had solid white eyes and in the new film they had yellowish red eyes. I really prefer the original white eyes because it makes them less human looking then the already would have with normal eyes like they have in the new film but now they just have crazy color. For some reason them not having pupils scared the hell out of me and really felt more demonic. Something I liked about the new one is that instead of having a love interest they had love between friends and family because the main male character is just trying to make sure his sister gets off drugs with the help of a few friends. When it comes to the cast I enjoy the original cast because of Bruce Campbell but the acting for everyone else is kind of lacking but the new cast is great besides for the teacher, I really hated his character more then anything in this film because he does stupid stuff that seems like it would be in every horror film. For example he takes the book and then without anybody elses okay, decides to read it and I just didn’t understand why? Like he walked into a room filed with dead cats hung from the ceiling and he decides that its a good idea to even open it without saying a word of it to anybody else. Speaking of the basement I really hated how that it was super over the top crazy with decaying cats and the only person to smell it is Mia the main girl until they go and open it up. I really don’t believe for a second that one blood soaked carpet could cover up the smell leaking out from the basement of like 30 decaying cats. But off that topic of me nitpicking again one thing that I liked about the new film is that there was no sex there were couples in the movie but it didn't focus on a bunch of horny teenagers like ever other horror film. Another thing that I enjoy was the change from a male lead character to a female I thought since she is taking up the role of the “ash” type figure it would be cool to have them do this and I was really happy when I went and saw the movie that they actually did. The final thing that I liked in the new movie is that the ending is more satisfying with a real battle instead of ash just laying on his back trying to burn the necronomincon. Over all I really enjoy both films but both are definitely flawed and we love them for it.

I give the original Evil dead a four out of five for being wildly different then anything I had seen up to it and I give the remake four out of five for giving a pretty good job of filling the shoes of a cult classic.

[deluxetraffic]

So today I watched the 2014 remake of Robocop. Before I give my opinion on this particular movie, I'll give my opinion on remakes in general. Whenever a remake comes out, there are always 2 schools of thought on the remake. Either the movie is too much like the original with nothing new or the movie is nothing like the original and the writers have deviated too much from the source material. Either way you're going to end up pissing someone off. I personally think that there is no single "thing" that will make a remake work. Rather it should be a combination of factors. How close the remake is to the original is only one of those factors and for me that isn't a factor that really makes or breaks a remake. 

Now onto the movie itself. While many reviews say that this movie strayed too far from the original and brought nothing new to the table, I feel like that makes this movie look bad. The truth is that I really liked this movie. Sure it's not AS heavy on the social commentary, but it has it's own social commentary. Perhaps one of the reasons that the social commentary in this movie is criticized is that people fail to understand that it has to be somewhat modernized. The sequences with Samuel L Jackson have just enough social commentary to not leave the movie devoid of it but at the same time not bore us.

Of course for me this movie gave one thing that I've really wanted to see: a truly badass Robocop. I'm not saying that the original wasn't badass, it truly was. However due to the technical limitations at the time I felt like at least half of the portrayal of Robocop was simply Peter Weller trying to move inside that clunky suit. While in the original Robocop was supposed to be the machine with the fastest reflexes and fastest speeds and whatnot, in the end he was just a lumbering guy who you're better off walking away from as his pace never really exceeds that of a turtle. In this movie however, thanks to the new technical possibilities, Robocop is fast sleek agile and truly badass.

One of the things that initially worried me was how they changed the story of Murphy's humanity. In the original after Murphy was "killed", when he woke up as Robocop he was set and ready to go and basically immediately started going and fighting crime and throughout the movie he "regains" his humanity. The truth is that I felt like the need to have Robocop part human was never really explained past him needing to be able to judge threats from non threats and not shooting up random people. In the end while it was well done, I feel like the original didn't exactly explain the whole origin and even the point of why Murphy needed to be used for Robocop, in Robocop 2 he even says that the only reason he has Murphy's face is so that others can identify with him better. In the remake, Murphy wakes up with his humanity intact, the reason for which is explained, and his process of rehabilitation is described in detail. Throughout his rehabilitation his humanity is slowly taken away in order to make him more efficient until he ends up as emotionless as the Robocop from the original, and until the end of the movie he slowly regains it. I felt like if there was anything that the remake did better it was in fact Murphy's story. From his humanity to his roboticity and back to humanity again, the remake certainly did it better in my eyes.

I give this movie an 8/10 and on a final note: if you come to this movie expecting Samuel L Jackson to say motherf*cker, you won't be disappointed. 

[whatsupralph]

"The remake ruined the original!"

the only way a remake ruins the original is if you let it bother you.