Most of the time they suck, and the original is usually better.

Was this thread really necessary? Everyone knows this.

There have been some exceptions, though.

The Thing
The Hills Have Eyes
Scarface (At least I like it more.)
King Kong (I thought Jackson at least lives up to the original, though I wouldn't say he surpasses it.)
The Amityville Horror (But only because the original sucked so much.)

And I'm probably going to get stoned for this, but I enjoyed The Magnificent Seven much more than Seven Samurai.

I know but I just saw Willy Wonka and needed to vent.

*Gathers stones a la Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery"*

That wasn't a terrible remake. It could have been worse.

They totaly fucked with the Umpa Lompas and that alone makes it bad.

I do agree about that, they sucked.

Ah, but his version wasn't near as impressive a movie to his generation as the original was to its generation. The original blew minds. The remake was just a good version of a movie that used to blow minds.

Well, duh. But in all fairness, it's essentially impossible to blow minds like that anymore.

Jurrasic Park
The Martix
Those movies blew some minds when they came out.

Yes, but those weren't made in 2005, were they? I can't imagine what the next big special effect is going to be. You can only go so far before minds aren't going to be blown anymore.

I mean, seriously, let's look at the special effects landmarks.

Metropolis (1927)
King Kong (1933)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Star Wars (1977)
Tron (1982)
Jurassic Park (1993)
The Matrix (1999)

I mean, now where do we go?

holy shit, hollywoods remaking old movies??!!

Damn your sarcasm to hell.

If we knew the answer to that ... we'd be there already. How's that for blowing your mind!!!???

i would add war of the worlds at 2005, the city scenes, with the people being vaporized, the ships walking around was pretty damn impressive, along with the overpass collapsing.

i was dissappointed with King Kong, not from a FX standpoint, but from the story standpoint, i thought it was horrible, and knew so when i saw jack black was attached

I agree it had some damn impressive effects, but it is in no way, shape, or form a landmark.

i would say it was as close to being a landmark as you can be without actually getting that title. in my mind i knew it wasnt real, well, yanno, cuz its a movie, but nowhere in my mind did it look phony or have any dead giveaways, and to me, that was god damn impressive

The funny thing is that 2001 still has the best looking space effects, if not the most impressive effects period.

I think that effects will only progress through imagination from this point, as computer animation is to a level where anything is possible. Nowaways you have to have something that is truly amazing, not just amazing looking.

I think the next great leap forward in "Wow moviemaking" that will have a true impact rests on the shoulders of Jim Cameron and what he's doing with Avatar and/or Battle Angel Alita. I'm talking in terms of pre cinematic wonder.

Of course, it could be a total failure as well. But Cameron's a huge risk taker and usually moves the visual medium forward while, at the same time, providing popular entertainment. My bet's on him.

according to tim burton, willy wonka wasn't a remake of the first movie, it was just an adaptation of the book.... he claims to not have liked the original film version...

but overall, i don't know why they don't re-release films in theaters... disney mastered that with their animation films, which cycle every ten years or so... i mean why go through all the trouble and money to make a shittier version, why not just release the original again to a new audience