Best remakes?

[J-Proof]

Um...that's not the impression I've gotten from every recap I've ever read of it.  I read a COMPLETE RECAP (i.e. every single scene is described in detail, with screenshots), and it left me shaking my head, wondering why Bakshi even tried to undertake such a massive project when he clearly had neither the money nor the artistic vision to get it right.  Granted, it was a comedic recap, but this isn't the only source on which I'm basing my conclusion.  The characters were portrayed as morons that not even children could learn to enjoy.  Hell, I hesitate to even call them "characters."  And it doesn't even LOOK good!  And it gets a considerable number of plot details WRONG!

Peter Jackson's version, in my opinion, managed to stay mostly true to the message and tone of the book while still serving as enjoyable films.  Hell, if theywere merely ENDURABLE they'd still be better than the Bakshi version.

Got yo back 100% on that one =)

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

2nd, or 3rd depending on whether im agree with platy or agreeing with j proof about agreeing with platy  

[Petey Wheatstraw]

Um...that's not the impression I've gotten from every recap I've ever read of it.

Oh, you must be joking? You're judging based on what other people think? Okay, so what did you read?

I read a COMPLETE RECAP (i.e. every single scene is described in detail, with screenshots), and it left me shaking my head, wondering why Bakshi even tried to undertake such a massive project when he clearly had neither the money nor the artistic vision to get it right.

Dude...Bakshi has more respect for Tolkien than Jackson does. And he did get it right, the fools that were running United Artists at the time didn't give him a fair chance to let him complete the story (clearly, the reason why they were sold to MGM later on was because they were not good with financial decisions).

Granted, it was a comedic recap, but this isn't the only source on which I'm basing my conclusion.

So, you're judging your opinion based on what a couple of morons wrote on the film? The writer of the "Agony Booth" one (SHIT website; their reviews suck) was written by a person who doesn't even like Tolkien, who was completely biased from the get-go, and the Flying Moose sarcasm site is run by a guy who doesn't understand LOTR or animation or good cinema at all. These are TERRIBLE reviews.

And it doesn't even LOOK good!  And it gets a considerable number of plot details WRONG!

No, no, no, it looks great. And the adaptation is excellent. Stop judging from what morons say about the film. They don't even know what the hell they're talking about. Both of those critics are retarded. They over-exaggerate the film's quality based on their own perspective. Bakshi's film only has a few flaws. It is near-perfect. It needed to be completed. Jackson's adaptation is the worse one - badly acted, badly directed, badly written, bad music, bad CGI, bad everything. Not to mention the fact that Bakshi's film is called J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, while Tolkien's family requested that his name be kept off of all advertising material for the live-action films, because they knew Jackson's adaptation was terrible!

[ScottotD]

Oh, you must be joking? You're judging based on what other people think?

No, no, no, it looks great. And the adaptation is excellent.

[gbeenie]

That SHOULD read:

Oh, you must be joking? You're judging based on what other people (besides me) think?

No, no, no, it looks great. And the adaptation is excellent.

[ScottotD]

How about:

Oh, you must be joking? You're judging based on what other people (besides me) think?

No, no, no, it looks great. And the adaptation is excellent according to me and almost nobody else, in fact it's basically a punchline for a large number of people.

[gbeenie]

How about:

Oh, you must be joking? You're judging based on what other people (besides me) think?

No, no, no, it looks great. And the adaptation is excellent according to me and almost nobody else, in fact it's basically a punchline for a large number of people.

No need to get carried away; I'm only taking him to task for his attitude, not his opinion itself.

[ScottotD]

meh.


Anyway, I didn't mind the Assault on Precinct 13 remake but it was odd in that it was actually toned down from the original.

[Minnesota]

i thought king kong was better than umm king kong. 

the best remake ever?  LOTR  period

naw, my Remakes professor (yes I once took a class about film remakes lol) told us to use popularity as a barometer in classifying a film adaptation of a book. Lord of the Rings is a more popular book than the "old" LOTR movies therefore it is not a remake. Same goes for any book that continually gets remade (ie; Shakespear), its likely because of the book and not the earlier adaptations.

must every thread turn into lotr discussion lol. You'all are slowly turning me into Randle from clerks 2.

[ChrisHanel]

No, no, no, it looks great. And the adaptation is excellent... Bakshi's film only has a few flaws. It is near-perfect. It needed to be completed.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

...oh wait, you were serious. Allow me to laugh harder.

[ScottotD]

Clearly you're forgetting it was both excellent and near perfect.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

How about:

No, no, no, it looks great. And the adaptation is excellent according to me and almost nobody else, in fact it's basically a punchline for a large number of people.

So, because a few nerds get their panties in a bunch about the movie, it's "a punchline for a large number of people"? Get real. Like I could give a shit about what a bunch of geeks with too much time on their hands think about a movie that I'll bet they secretly dream of getting to make, a movie whose quality they wish they could come close to.

It was a good movie before Jackson came along. It was a good movie back when the book was just starting to get popular. It's lasted for nearly 30 years. I don't think Jackson's trilogy is going to last that long.

No need to get carried away; I'm only taking him to task for his attitude, not his opinion itself.

I don't understand why you're talking about attitude. I'm just stating my opinion. I'm sorry if some of you have confused it for me trying to state a fact. I'm saying that I and a number of other people like the movie. What's wrong with that?

[ChrisHanel]

It's lasted for nearly 30 years. I don't think Jackson's trilogy is going to last that long.

Like, it's going to die in a fire?     *eyebrow*

[Petey Wheatstraw]

It's lasted for nearly 30 years. I don't think Jackson's trilogy is going to last that long.

Like, it's going to die in a fire?     *eyebrow*

That's not what I meant. I meant in terms of lasting quality; people have remembered this film for almost 30 years, will they still remember the later films after the same amount of time?

[ChrisHanel]

That's not what I meant. I meant in terms of lasting quality; people have remembered this film for almost 30 years, will they still remember the later films after the same amount of time?

I know what you meant, but the idea that LOTR will be, as you suggest, completely forgotten in 30 years is so ludicrous that it deserves to be mocked rather than seriously debated. LOTR, whether you like it or not, was this generation's Star Wars. Kids and teenagers that are growing up now are going to take LOTR and that experience with them throughout their lives. You can have your opinion that the trilogy is, according to you, badly acted, badly written, and badly directed (again, I withhold my snickering), but it does not change that it has entered the public conciousness and is not leaving any time soon. To deny that point any further is going to be like shouting in the wind.


In an effort to get off this circle jerk of pointless debate, I move that the Dawn of the Dead remake was pretty decent. Discuss.