On 06/09/2011 4:19 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

>>> in my experience, there's never been a remake of anything that was worth a
>>> damn.
>>
>>
>> Why would we expect much from a re-make? The people who are producing
>> them don't have enough talent to come up with a novel idea, though they
>> seem to be able to convince some people that their product will be
>> better than the original, but tend not to be. The only reason that I can
>> think of for a remake is that the special effects could be better.
>
> Many of the very old classics were lousy quality; fuzzy B& W, poor
> audio (some with no audio), and made for small screen...

Small screen????? WTF???? The old movies were made long before
television, and it was some time before they even started running movies
on television.


> some of the
> remakes are far superior, some are awful... but for those who want the
> originals are still there. I like the original cartoons, the new
> cartoons are terrible.

I can't think of any movies where the remake was better than the
original. Then there are the television program ideas stolen from other
networks or from other countries. The British show Man About the House
was much better than Three's Company, and the British series The Office
was infinitely better than the American version. Many have tried to
capitalize on the fame of a show by coming up with spin-offs. It is rare
for the spin-offs to be anywhere near as good as the original. Maude
had it's fans (not me), but I think that the only one that became more
popular than the original was the Cheers spin-off Frasier.