DVD Talk
Watch the original or remake first? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Watch the original or remake first?


RoadToPerdition
03-24-12, 04:12 PM
I'm asking this because I'm not sure if I should watch the original Girl with the Dragon Tattoo first or the remake, but I'm curious what people do in general?

I saw Let the Right One In before Let Me In, which I liked the original better (but Let Me In was still really good), and Infernal Affairs before The Departed, which again I liked both but thought The Departed was better.

It seems sort of backwards to watch the remake first. As far as The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, for anyone who has seen both, do you think it's okay to watch the remake first or what would you do in hindsight?

Solid Snake
03-24-12, 04:44 PM
Wouldn't matter to me. Each film should stand on it's own. I'm random w/ in terms as to what comes first to my plate. I saw Cronenberg's THE FLY first, saw the Price original much later. Sometimes the former sucks hard in comparison to the remake. Sometimes it's the other way around. Shouldn't matter in watching the former over the newer one. The only thing that matters is that one of them be good...in some cases...both are. TGWTDT for example has it in both. The Fly doesn't.

Also TGWTDT isn't a remake. it's another adaptation of the novel. There's a difference.

islandclaws
03-24-12, 04:50 PM
Well, I'd say Snake nailed that one, so... yep. I agree.

RoadToPerdition
03-24-12, 04:58 PM
Also TGWTDT isn't a remake. it's another adaptation of the novel. There's a difference.

That is interesting to know. Are they very different, the original compared to the remake?

Solid Snake
03-24-12, 05:23 PM
well here's the problem w/ that. They're both based on the same story and tread the same ground for the most w/ slight changes or addictions here and there. I personally feel that Fincher's was the better film. You're seeing pretty much the same thing..cuz it's the same story. It's just the way it was done was better. Also the acting was better etc. Fincher didn't set out to remake the Swedish film.

so it goes
03-24-12, 06:54 PM
In that scenario, I would say watch one or the other. Fincher's may have been better made, but it doesn't add anything over the other. If you've seen one, then the other is unnecessary.

bjh_18
03-24-12, 07:06 PM
If a film truly is a remake, I try to watch the original first if I'm wanting to watch both. But in a situation like this, with Fincher's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo not being a remake, it wouldn't particularly matter to me which I watched first if I'd never seen either one. Although, I'd say that if it were me, I'd be drawn to Fincher's version first since it's Fincher. His name is enough to make me want to watch something. If it was a run of the mill director behind the camera on the American adaptation, I'd probably watch the Swedish version first.

JumpCutz
03-24-12, 07:13 PM
Yeah OP I've seen both versions and liked them both. Fincher's version is superior, I'd recommend watching that one first as you get a full barrel load of Fincher doing his thing, hitting on all cylinders. I'd certainly recommend you also watch the Swedish version to compare and contrast.

Spottedfeather
03-24-12, 07:22 PM
Depends on the movie. For The Thing, I would definately go with the 1982 version first. For The Day The Earth Stood Still, definately go for the original and completely skip the Keanu Reeves version.

whotony
03-24-12, 07:57 PM
What about reading the book?
Do that first or after the movie?

Chadm
03-24-12, 08:33 PM
I saw the original Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. I have no interest in the remake.

Supermallet
03-24-12, 09:28 PM
Fincher's Dragon Tattoo has better direction, a better performance by the lead actress, and a better ending. See that first. The original is still good, but Fincher's tops it.

Matthew Chmiel
03-24-12, 09:39 PM
Also TGWTDT isn't a remake. it's another adaptation of the novel. There's a difference.
If only Matt Reeves actually bothered to read the original novel for Let The Right One In rather than doing a remake of the original Swedish film. :mad:

There's some interesting material the novel presents that I would've love to see presented in the American adaptation as Reeves originally claimed he was doing. Nope!

RoadToPerdition
03-24-12, 11:34 PM
Alright, so I just went ahead and watched the remake. I really liked it; the story was intriguing and Mara gives a great performance. I did think, however, that the movie climaxed too soon and then sort of dragged out a bit.

Charlie Goose
03-25-12, 12:20 AM
Before I saw It's a Wonderful Life, I saw the TV movie remake It Happened One Christmas. -eek-

Supermallet
03-25-12, 01:31 AM
Alright, so I just went ahead and watched the remake. I really liked it; the story was intriguing and Mara gives a great performance. I did think, however, that the movie climaxed too soon and then sort of dragged out a bit.

Listening to the commentary, Fincher makes a point to say that the film is deliberately a five act story, so the falling action is an important component.

kurupt
03-25-12, 06:51 AM
Listening to the commentary, Fincher makes a point to say that the film is deliberately a five act story, so the falling action is an important component.

Yeah, I heard that too and while I get the reasoning for it, I completely agree with RoadToPerdition that it dragged on toward the end. Mostly because the murder mystery was, to me at least, much more interesting than Blomkvist's other issues, which I cared little about.

Supermallet
03-25-12, 10:43 AM
Gonna have the blame the book for that one.

Solid Snake
03-25-12, 01:22 PM
I found no issue w/ it.

dhmac
03-25-12, 10:54 PM
The story has a mystery in it, so it matters which one you see first.

And I recommend seeing the Fincher version first because it's the better version.

The order I saw them in (all in the same week) was:
1st: David Fincher version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
2nd: Swedish version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
3rd: Swedish version of The Girl Who Played with Fire
4th: Swedish version of The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest

Of the initial one, the Swedish version is pretty good, but Fincher's version is better due to much better production values, a far better director (of course), a better cast (particularly the main characters of Mikael and Lisbeth), and is closer to the original novel in some key important details (a bit of a surprise, but the Swedish version actually changed the story more).

Of the two Swedish versions of the sequel novels, "Played With Fire" was very disappointing and "Hornet's Nest" basically just sucked all around. If the sequel novels are as lame as these movies, I hope they are majorly re-written when/if an American version is made of them. (And I only saw the Theatrical Versions of the Swedish films, so can't say whether or not they are any better in the Extended Editions.)

Numanoid
03-26-12, 12:06 AM
Depends on the movie. For The Thing, I would definately go with the 1982 version first. I'd recommend the real orignal, the 1951 film The Thing From Another World, be viewed first.

Solid Snake
03-26-12, 12:23 AM
No offense but that original film is leagues below the Thing. I like it...it's good..but...Carpenter's film is so damn good that it overshadows it and rapes it w/o even trying to lift a finger.

Jaymole
03-26-12, 07:20 AM
No offense but that original film is leagues below the Thing. I like it...it's good..but...Carpenter's film is so damn good that it overshadows it and rapes it w/o even trying to lift a finger.

I find both films equally good...I would have picked Carpenter's version over the original if he had spent more time on character development...to me that is the biggest flaw in the film.

Trevor
03-26-12, 08:24 AM
I can't imagine any scenario where I would purposely watch the newer version first.

Ash Ketchum
03-26-12, 10:02 AM
I find both films equally good...I would have picked Carpenter's version over the original if he had spent more time on character development...to me that is the biggest flaw in the film.

I watched both versions of THE THING (1951 and 1982, in order) for the Sci-Fi Challenge over on DVD Talk last year, the first time I'd seen either version in many years. I'd always liked both equally, but I found both disappointing, for different reasons, this time. I didn't like the jokey tone of the original. The serious tone of the remake was a big improvement. I didn't like the fact that the effects in the remake were so over-the-top; we saw too much too soon. The way that's handled in the earlier version is much better.

Dr. DVD
03-26-12, 10:29 AM
For old horror movies, I recommend the remakes first as they tend to be a bit more interesting in some regards. However, that does not make them better than the original. Universal definitely has a lot to offer in this category I might add. ;)

For instance, I watched the 1982 Cat People before the Jacques Tournier original. While the original is a much better film, the re-make is a bit more interesting with its flashy visuals, vintage 80s synth score, and of course, naked Nastajja Kinski. :D King Kong is an interesting example in that both really work well together, but in that case I recommend the 1933 version first. The way PJ shot the 2005 film seems to hint that it is the "real story" of what happened, while the original is the sensationalistic depiction of the story that would have occured during the time period.
If the movies being remade are "cult favorites" (Assault on Precint 13, Halloween) then just go with the original, as the remakes tend to try and be everything to everyone more often than not.

dhmac
03-26-12, 07:59 PM
I find both films equally good...I would have picked Carpenter's version over the original if he had spent more time on character development...to me that is the biggest flaw in the film.
Oh yeah! I think it's time for a "The Thing vs. The Thing vs. The Thing" poll!!!