MovieChat Forums > Ringu (1998) Discussion > Good movie but the US version scared me ...

Good movie but the US version scared me a lot more!

posted 11 years ago by Evil_Reverend_Kane
21 replies | jump to latest

I think this version kind of flows better, but the US version scared me a lot more for the following reasons

1. The videotape in the US version was much creepier, the video is longer, has more content including the fly on the screen and has a very eerie creepy tune to it. Also, the pulling the string out of the mouth and close up of the horse face was much more disturbing than the short film the Jap version gave us.

2. One of the creepy elements in the US version is the Samara hospital video, when the Psych guy interviews her. This video does not exist in the Japanese version

3. In the US version, a big part for me was after Aidan's mother rescues Samara from the Well....Aidan tells her "Why did you do that! Told you, she never sleeps! This was also not part of the Japanese version

4. The US version contains more stories from elders regarding the childhood of Samara

5. The expressions on the faces of Samara's dead victims is incredibly creepy in the US version, where as in the Japanese version, they just have their mouth open.

In saying that......the US version of the Ring 2 is far far inferior to both Ringu 2 and Rasen......after seeing Ringu 2 and Rasen I question why they decided to create a whole new story for Ring 2 which was not scary, in fact it was very cheesy, I mean, Samara goes from this spooky supernatural badass murderer to a little girl who "just wants a mommy" I mean seriously??? That killed the US franchise and probably any chance of them ever doing Ringu 0

[–] hiddenagenda1 10 years ago

The 1998 movie is scarier and better than the 2002 movie.

Volker Flenske: (While torturing David) I don't know why you're doing this to yourself!

[–] imranbecks 10 years ago

I disagree. This Japanese version is so much better than the American version. Can't beat the original..

[–] CoSMiGoNoN 10 years ago

Agreed. Everything about the remake is scarier, creepier and/or spookier.

[–] unknown1000 9 years ago

The American version is better and scarier...imo.

[–] Bullets1 9 years ago

I disagree. The Japanese version is far scarier in my opinion, and for all the reasons you claim the US version is.

The remake shows you EVERYTHING. You don't get a chance to use your imagination at all. The original hints and suggests. Your own brain will always come up with something scarier than could ever be put on film (for the simple reason that your own imagination is tailored to suit your specific tastes).

Honestly, the remake tried so hard to scare me by cutting to one supposedly frightening whatever to the next that I was laughing by the halfway mark. It came across add more of a parody than a remake.

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

The U.S. Remake is very good, but ultimately inferior due to too many Hollywood action moments that ruin the vibe.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] ira_gaines 9 years ago

The U.S. Remake is very good, but ultimately inferior due to too many Hollywood action moments that ruin the vibe.

I would say that the atmosphere of the U.S. version is maintained to a much greater extent than in the Japanese. I rewatched the Japanese version recently and there were multiple aspects and scenes that were incredibly distracting. The emptying of the well scene with that synthy countdown music is a good example, but also the way Sadako getting thrown down the well looked and sounded.

Other aspects were more general. There were numerous scenes in the Jp version filmed during the day in full sunlight, including the one immediately after the opening scene, as well as the two scenes at the cabin. In contrast the U.S. version has all its day-time scenes in either overcast or broken cloud conditions, often with rain. This contributes towards a much more consistent atmosphere.

In addition the Jp version had too many unnecessary shots, scenes and characters. For example, in the first scene at the protagonists apartment we see her drive in to the car park and then walk all the way up the stairs to the front door. The same is done when we go to the ex-husbands apartment. What's the point of these shots? This may sound like nit picking but ultimately these were intentional directorial choices, and in these cases and others were unnecessary and wasteful.

To be honest the Jp version really felt like it lacked visual literacy in general. I don't remember seeing any constructive editing in the Jp version at all, whereas the U.S. version had a huge amount. There was also too much of a reliance on medium shots to show characters even in scenes of heightened tension when close-ups would have been far more appropriate.

[–] SherlockVonEinstein 8 years ago

What was the point of those drawn out shots in the original? Pacing.

All the things you described as strengths in the American remake are what ruined it for me. It's all so "on the nose." The editing is obvious. The constant overcast is obvious. It's all obvious, obvious, obvious. At no point do I ever forget that I'm watching a movie.

[–] ira_gaines 8 years ago

What was the point of those drawn out shots in the original? Pacing.

I didn't say anything about any shots being drawn out, I said that they were unnecessary. Their length wasn't the problem. They weren't particularly long as I remember it.

At no point do I ever forget that I'm watching a movie.

Are you saying you forgot you were watching a movie when you saw Ringu?

[–] SherlockVonEinstein 8 years ago

Regarding those "unnecessary" shots: the context was more important than content. Pacing was the point in and of itself.

Also, I guess I should clarify: At no point did I find myself noticing the editing, paying particular attention to the score, etc. while watching Ringu. If I catch myself noticing those things during a horror film, then the mechanics of the film aren't seamless enough. In a Kubrick or Peter Greenaway film, you're supposed to notice those sort of things. Both of those filmmakers are formalists. To me--and this is just personal preference, I guess--a good horror or suspense film will have me absorbed to the point that I'm not aware of its conventions.

[–] ira_gaines 8 years ago

Regarding those "unnecessary" shots: the context was more important than content. Pacing was the point in and of itself.

That's speculation though. You don't know why those shots I was referring to were put in. I don't see that their presence/absence would have had any effect on the pacing at all.

Also, I guess I should clarify: At no point did I find myself noticing the editing, paying particular attention to the score, etc. while watching Ringu.

Neither did I (because there wasn't any).

To me--and this is just personal preference, I guess--a good horror or suspense film will have me absorbed to the point that I'm not aware of its conventions.

The U.S. version wasn't purely horror/suspense though. It was more dramatic and psychological which justifies the denser soundtrack and cinematography. Admittedly that style wouldn't really be appropriate for the original given that it wasn't dramatically ambitious.

[–] Degree7 8 years ago

I liked the fact that many of the scenes take place in broad daylight. It adds a sense of normalcy and everyday mundanity to the beginning of the film, as it gradually descends down the horror path. Tbh, I thought the remake went a little overboard at times with the grey filter, but at least it adopted a style of its own (they also had the budget to do so). It is somewhat unfair to complain about certain scenes being too brightly lit, as the remake has the pivotal climax take place in a huge, bright, white studio apartment, as opposed to the dark claustrophobia of the original.

What's the point of these shots?

They are establishing shots, designed to clue the viewer in as to the character's location and frame of reference. They also add to the normalcy and subtle atmosphere of the film, and create a languid pace. Certainly not wasteful.

I don't remember seeing any constructive editing i

Nor should you. The Japanese original uses a more analytical style of film editing.

There was also too much of a reliance on medium shots to show characters even in scenes of heightened tension when close-ups would have been far more appropriate.

Personally, I'm Glad they didn't go overboard with the close ups either. They saved that for the climax, where there are plenty of close ups to add to the terror.

Sometimes less is more.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] ira_gaines 8 years ago

I liked the fact that many of the scenes take place in broad daylight. It adds a sense of normalcy and everyday mundanity to the beginning of the film, as it gradually descends down the horror path. Tbh, I thought the remake went a little overboard at times with the grey filter, but at least it adopted a style of its own (they also had the budget to do so).

The scenes in broad day light last throughout the film not just the beginning. Even the scene where they're going down the well is really sunny. I don't think adding a sense of normalcy is really productive to the tension considering the type of horror film it is. Sadako/Samara isn't Michael Myers or Ghostface. She's not jumping out of closets to scare the heroine. She has very little presence throughout most of both films (although slightly more in the U.S. version). The tension has to rely on the atmosphere rather than on the presence of the villain, and having "documentary style" visuals is not conducive to that.

It is somewhat unfair to complain about certain scenes being too brightly lit, as the remake has the pivotal climax take place in a huge, bright, white studio apartment, as opposed to the dark claustrophobia of the original.

I accept that scene in the original does look better. However, I don't think this is necessarily a flaw of the remake when taken as a whole because the film up till that point had been so creepy and menacing. There wasn't any need to make that scene as atmospheric as it was in the original.

They are establishing shots, designed to clue the viewer in as to the character's location and frame of reference. They also add to the normalcy and subtle atmosphere of the film, and create a languid pace. Certainly not wasteful.

The type of housing accommodations the protagonist has is immaterial to the story. In neither film is her apartment a central location (even less so in the original). Having an outside view of her apartment is a complete waste.

The Japanese original uses a more analytical style of film editing.

Which is not conducive to the type of horror film it is where there is not a clear and present danger, e.g. as in Halloween.

Personally, I'm Glad they didn't go overboard with the close ups either. They saved that for the climax, where there are plenty of close ups to add to the terror.

That's the thing though. I feel the original is leaning way too much on the climactic scene and not really putting much effort into the rest of the film. Just compare the music that plays when the credits role in both films. The remake is a much more even film to me.

[–] Degree7 8 years ago

The tension has to rely on the atmosphere rather than on the presence of the villain, and having "documentary style" visuals is not conducive to that.

The tension is relayed more through the slow build and false sense of security that is mantained up until the climax. Personally, I feel the film does not need to beat the viewer over the head with any overt visual cues. The atmosphere is mantained through the story and the character's reactions to it, rather than overtly expressive cinematography or directorial choices. The documentary style realism is actually directly in tune with the lo-fi, vhs theme that permeates the plot. The characters are, after all, spending important moments in front of the television, so it feels more in tune with the low budget feel of the film.

The type of housing accommodations the protagonist has is immaterial to the story. In neither film is her apartment a central location (even less so in the original). Having an outside view of her apartment is a complete waste.

It's all part of creating atmosphere. I'm a big fan of filmmakers who take their time with their shots, and even if it's not integral to the plot, it's still nice for the viewer to understand spatial relationships to draw them into the world the film creates.

Which is not conducive to the type of horror film it is where there is not a clear and present danger, e.g. as in Halloween.

The editing style the film goes for is more conducive for narrative sequencing in the service of continuity and clarity. It's not an art film, but an unpretentious, low budget horror with a simple mystery to propel it forward. The editing is perfect for what it is, and anything else would serve to distract.

I feel the original is leaning way too much on the climactic scene and not really putting much effort into the rest of the film.

Maybe, but I feel that it anchors the rest of the film well enough for it to be enjoyable as a whole.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] ira_gaines 8 years ago

The tension is relayed more through the slow build and false sense of security that is mantained up until the climax.

Which makes my point that the original is relying on the climax too much. Apart from the video tape and the climatic scene there were not any other really striking scenes in the film. The remake had many striking scenes outside of those. The whole sequence on the Island was very memorable to me even when there wasn't anything threatening.

The atmosphere is mantained through the story and the character's reactions to it, rather than overtly expressive cinematography or directorial choices.

What I'm saying is that the narrative threat contained in both films isn't overt enough to carry the tension on its own. Plus, I didn't really find the acting in the original very engaging. Although that might just be a cultural thing, as many Japanese films tend to have quite understated performances.

It's all part of creating atmosphere. I'm a big fan of filmmakers who take their time with their shots, and even if it's not integral to the plot, it's still nice for the viewer to understand spatial relationships to draw them into the world the film creates.

I don't mind that but like you said below this isn't an art house film. It's supposed to be creating tension through it's imagery which is done a disservice by shots that disrupt it. Just compare the more or less equivalent scenes in the remake. Rachel is driving her son home worried about his mental state after his cousin's death. Next shot, she's tucking him in and he starts saying creepy things about not having enough time, further worrying her about his mental state. If they'd included a scene of her parking, them walking into the apartment complex and going into their apartment that would have broken the tension between the two scenes.

[–] fountainclown-12370 8 years ago

Yep the remake is much better than the original in this circumstance.. And they are both better than the book.
It just kept getting more focused and effective in each incarnation for me

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HalBanksy 8 years ago

I have to agree the remake was much scarier for me. Although with these things, people usually prefer whatever version they watched first. I saw the original when I was much younger, and only just got round to seeing this now.

A lot of these comments are predictably elitist "original is always better." ... There is no golden rule than an American remake will always be rubbish! They most often ARE but that doesn't wipe-out the few good ones - Of which The Ring is an example. The OP is definitely correct that the American version of the tape itself is far scarier, as are the victims faces - Anybody denying that is deluded. Also helped by Naomi Watts - a fantastic actress.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

2. One of the creepy elements in the US version is the Samara hospital video, when the Psych guy interviews her. This video does not exist in the Japanese version

I disagree here. Showing Samara's face and having her speak was a mistake. It robbed her of the same creepiness that Sadako had.

[–] Kawada_Kira (7269) 3 years ago

I disagree here. Showing Samara's face and having her speak was a mistake. It robbed her of the same creepiness that Sadako had.

Exactly. I think overall the US remake was scarier than the Japanese original (though the Japanese original is a better movie), but as a character Sadako was scarier than Samara. She was more alien.