original vs remake


ive only seen the remake and that was bloody as hell. how does the original compare


Rob Zombie is one of the greatest directors today

reply

[deleted]

The original is bloody for 1978, but no where near as bloody and gory as the remake. I love the remake for a fun gory as hell movie by Aja, but I think the original is far superior as a film, one of my favorite horrors. Aja's is just a fun bloody film whereas the original has better characters and a better story and such.

black swan is a horror film

reply

thanks i will be sure to watch the original now


Rob Zombie is one of the greatest directors today

reply

Well, I have to ask what you are talking about?

The "true" remake was in 1995 and it aired on some Corwin tribute on cable (HBO, Showtime I can't remember). It was basically kind of a scene by scene redo of the film and it was not as good. They even used the same underwater footage of the piranha attacks from the first film. If you liked the original it is worth seeing at least one time but it is not as good. That is the only remake.

Many call Piranha 3D from 2010 a remake but it isn't a remake. It is just a film about killer piranhas (every shark film isn't a remake of Jaws) but it has nothing to do with the first film and the stories aren't the same at all. I still like the first one better as an overall movie I rooted for the main characters a little more and it was done in a way that was a little more creepy and threatening. The second was entertaining but it was done in such an over the top way, with so much fast moving CGI that it almost got a little silly at times.

I didn't care for some of the death scenes as much. SPOILERS AHEAD IF you don't want to know.

Too many people died in ways that had nothing to do with being eaten by piranha and I didn't like that. They were kind of silly too. A cable wire that was under tension snaps cutting a girl in half. A girl has her hair stuck in an outboard motorboats engine and the guy starts it up and rips her face off. A woman is being carried out of the water obviously injured and her body suddenly rips in half which was just silly. A guy has his head smashed between two boats. I wish they would have used all of that creative energy into just showing more detailed shots of people being eaten underwater, that is more chilling, being eaten bite by bite. They went to that much trouble to come up with interesting deaths and then when a semi main character dies SPOILER AHEAD*******, one you should care about, who lives righ up until the last few minutes of the film, instead of expounding on that death they just show her fall in the water and then the water bubbles. That is all. Really? You can't show her trying to swim while screaming and draw it out more while having others trying to get to her but can't? No, she falls in disappears and that is it.

1978 is still the best. 1995 is much cheesier and tries to do it scene for scene just not as well. 2010 isn't related to the 1978 film but it is action packed. It may have a little too much happening all at the same time to even absorb, it is so fast with blood flying around 100's of people running everywhere and CGI fish that are shown for only a millisecond thrashing so fast that you can't follow it that it becomes a little silly and not as chilling as you'd hope.

reply

i ment the 2010 version but have seen the 1995 version too


Rob Zombie is one of the greatest directors today

reply

I wish the 2010 would have followd the same format the 1st two films used (the one in 1978 and 1981) but they didn't, all of these films are supposed to begin with SPOILER****** a skinny dipping couple getting eaten but the 210 began with Richard Dryfuss getting eaten while he was fishing in his boat.

I much prefer the skinny dipping fish dinner.

reply

The 2010 remake is decent trash, but I prefer the original.

reply

Why? What is the point in a remake following the same format as the original. The '95 remake did this, and as a result it's a pointless film. There is absolutely no reason to watch the '95 remake over the original movie.

The 2010 remake takes the basic concept and turns it into a new movie with a different tone, and does a great job. It's a great movie if you take it for what it is, mindless, gory fun, and if that's what you're in the mood for than that's a reason to watch it over the original movie.

reply

The original is better because it focuses more on actually having a good story and character development. The remake, while fun to watch, is just a "boobs and blood" type horror film that doesn't require any thought. If you just want to watch a mindless popcorn film then I would recommend the remake, but if you want a legitimate horror film with a good story then I would recommend the original.

I've been waiting for you, Ben.

reply

[deleted]