Why is this better than the 1962 version

[deleted]

Here's why the 1935 version is considered to be superior to the 1962 version:
The short answer: Many more people have seen the 1935 version.
The 1935 version was a great critical (won Best Picture) and financial success. So successful that it was reissued to theatres in 1951 and made more money. The 1935 version was a staple on TV in the 60s & 70s. The 1962 version was a big budget bomb, it made money but not enough to offset the amount spent on it. It cost tons of money, Marlon Brando was behaving badly (the original director (Carol Reed) left rather than deal with him, the replacement director, Lewis Milestone said this (interview from the French film magazine Cahiers du Cinema): "When I came on to Mutiny on the Bounty, after Carol Reed left, I felt it would be quite an easy assignment because they'd been on it for months and there surely couldn't be much more to do. To my dismay, I discovered that all they'd done was a seven-minute scene just before they land in Papeete, in which Trevor Howard issues instructions about obtaining island breadfruit. Marlon Brando swears he had nothing to do with Carol Reed's departure; that was a matter between Reed and the producer's departure; that was a matter between Reed and the producer. However, Carol resigned with full pay, which is not a bad way to go. During my first two weeks on the film Brando behaved himself and I got a lot of things done-especially with sequences like the arrival in Tahiti, when I could work with the British actors. I got on beautifully with with Trevor Howard, Richard Harris, and the others; they were real human beings, and I had a lot of fun. I've remained good friends with Richard Harris. Then the trouble started. I would say that what basically went wrong with Mutiny On The Bounty was that the producer made a number of promises to Marlon Brando which he subsequently couldn't keep. It was an impossible situation because, right or wrong, the man simply took charge of everything. You had the option of sitting and watching him or turning your back on him. Neither the producers or I could do anything about it. Charlie Lederer would write the script from day to day. He would bring it on set in the morning, then they would go into Marlon Brando's dressing room and lock themselves up there until lunchtime. I don't know what went on, I never went in there. After lunch, they came out. By then it was about two-thirty and we hadn't shot a scene. You had the option of shooting it, but, since Marlon Brando was going to supervise it anyway, I waited until someone yelled "Camera!", and went off to sit down somewhere and read the paper. When the picture was finished Brando came to see me, wanting to know why -as he put it-I'd treated him so badly. "I didn't treat you so badly," I said. "You BEHAVED very badly. You didn't want to discus the scenes, you just took over." Brando's antics were widely reported via the gossip columns and a cover story in the Saturday Evening Post, this, along with Elizabeth Taylor and "Cleopatra," made "overpaid" actors a hot topic for discussion. Coupled with the film's so-so to bad reviews the whole enterprise sank without a trace. In the 60s & 70s no one was lobbying for the rediscovery of a critically dismissed big budget epic that tanked at the box office. The fact that the widescreen (70mm Ultra Panavision) Bounty couldn't be seen as such on square TV sets didn't help matters any-it looked awful in pan & scan. The Brando version simply wasn't shown much-the fact that it had a reputation as a "bomb" didn't help. Today many people (myself included) feel it is a fine version of the story in it's own right, a gorgeous looking film. The music score, by Bronislaw Kaper, is highly praised by most movie music fans. This review of the Blu-Ray sums it all up nicely:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s3721boun.html

I agree; I consider the '62 version to be a better film than the '35 version (which I also love). For me, this is mainly due to Brando's acting. The depth of character he gives Christian is hypnotizing!

And, lest anyone think this is because I saw the '62 version first as a kid so it became "my" version or something like that? No. In actuality, I grew up with the '35 version which I saw on TV many times (and which, as I wrote, I also love), and I didn't see the '62 version until I was an adult.

Its better because of CHARLES LAUGHTON.

I just find the 1935 much more enjoyable to watch. Generally watch it once or twice a year.

I have tried several times to watch the '62 version, but have never been able to get through it.

Short Cut, Draw Blood

Gable and Laughton are better than Brando, Laughton especially - amazing villain. Direction is more precise, more suspenseful. 1962 drags on and has problematic visuals (some crappy FX if I remember correctly)

The 1962 version is too long with uneven pacing. The 1935 version has just the right pace. As far as Captain Bligh goes, Howard's portrayal was just as false to history as Laughton's. Gable's and Brando's readings were also not accurate. However, all do an excellent job. As long as you take the films as movie entertainment and not history, they are lots of fun particularly the 1935 version. The Bounty from 1985 is more accurate but it is a fairly dull affair. There is room for one more version of the tale preferably with the rousing entertainment of the 1935 film while remaining true to history. Poor William Bligh deserves it.

My dear man, Brando has nothing on Laughton.