While reading reviews for movies that are remakes or reboots, one thing I have noticed is that people that really like the new version often say it is "better" simply because the original was released when they were a small child, or possibly before they were born, and because the new version is newer that automatically makes it "more serious and better" than the original. Why do some people seem to think that just because a movie is newer that it is automatically better than the original?

I've never heard any one say that...ever.

Me neither. Usually, it's just the opposite...people automatically dismiss remakes. Indeed, some remakes are better than the original, but that's generally seen as the exception.

Cause they are, I mean the new Evil Dead and RoboCop are way better than the originals.

Sorry for being unclear. What I meant was that some people have stated that because the original movie came out when they were young, that automatically, in their mind, made the original movie "silly" or "childish" which meant that the remake/reboot was "more mature," "serious" and "better" by default.

Nope, never heard that either. Maybe you are hanging out with the wrong people.

"Some people." How very specific of you.

Answer: you'll have to ask them.

This. Most people tend to have nostalgia for their childhood and therefore tend to think things from their chidlhood are better than newer things.

I agree and I will also add that the remakes of Diabolique & The Vanishing make the originals look like incompetent shit.

So PenguinJoe made this comment and was immediately suspended?

Damn

He had it coming. Or maybe I should bump a completely unrelated thread from 2002 to emphasize how much so.

anyone who says that will probably be either under 15 or see clips of the original on youtube or cable & say 'that looks so bad, new technology!'

The last time a remake was better than the original was probably in the 1980's. Back when remakes weren't such an out and out cash grab. It used to be that remakes were only made when the filmmakers had something fresh or original to put on screen. Such is no longer the case. Nowadays remakes are purposely more like the original, because its blatantly about branding and not filmmaking.

I think sometimes remakes suffer from the idea that most people think the original is better by default.

But if there is a reason a newer film would win out, I'm thinking it's either technological advancements or the cast.

Example: Ocean's 11. I don't think either version is vastly superior to the other, so it really comes down to would you rather watch: Clooney and Pitt, or the rat pack? I'd put The Italian Job in this category as well, as they remade a film for a modern audience.

Or how about something like King Kong, shot in Black & White, Full Frame, with stop motion animation as opposed to Peter Jackson's fully color, widescreen CGI remake? Sure, the original is superior in it's pace, and gets the job done with amazing effects for 1933, I could see a modern audience enjoying Jackson's epic a bit more.

I have a feeling I know which "some people" the OP has in mind. And a recent movie reboot, that perhaps rhymes with "Shman of Shmeel"?

SHMAN OF SHMEEL? Best Shmuperman movie ever! Almost as good as the Shmiderman movies.

Stay off IMDB.

The only remake which automatically comes to my mind that I would consider to be better than the original is (John Carpenter's) The Thing. Most remakes IMHO are pale imitations of the original film. I can't see but a very small percentage of the people aged 21 & over thinking otherwise. Kiddies might, but that's only because most of the time they have no idea the original even existed and would probably laugh at the antiquated effects.

Now, if you changed the word "people" in your thread topic title to "kids", I might agree with you.

Serious answer is that people often look at older films as dated (style, effects, quality of the picture, etc.) and see new shinier looking films as preferable.

On a serious note :

To me these films (along with The Thing) stand strong on their own because they only use the basic premise of the originals.
The filmmakers added some fresh ideas to it instead of just retelling the same old story.

David Cronenberg's The Fly
Philip Kaufman's Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Werner Herzog's Nosferatu
William Friedkin's Sorcerer

yeah I agree with that! But it kind of depends on how the old version was...if you try to make a remake of a movie that has become legendary...you'll propably mess up

You could counter this question with the opposite. Why do some people immediately assume that a remake will be terrible? Granted there are some movies that are deemed somewhat "untouchable" and shouldn't be remade but there have been quite a few that I've enjoyed more than or on close to the same level as the original film. Robocop actually comes to mind for me recently. The new film actually wasn't that bad and can stand on it's own and in my mind actually expanded on some things I always wished the original film would have touched on. Not to say it's a better film than the original, but it is one that I think once more people give it a shot will realize that it's really not so terrible.

I don't think I've seen that?

Still Haven't seen it, where you are reading this?

Older is always better, in all situations.