I rarely say that a remake is tops the original, and if I do it's because it truly does. This was a lot better. There was more detail and better writing. Anyone else agree?
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!
LOL, get ready to be told you're an idiot by the hater/purists who constantly bash this movie.
Though I disagree that this was better than the original, I really really like this musical version...And don't understand why so many hate it.
"Dabblin'in water colors,Eddie?"
LOL, well take a look at my other posts, I'm no stranger to people ganging up on me over my opinions.
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!
I also like it more than the original, though the original film is also terrific. I like the new musical numbers a lot and it works as a wonderful adaptation of the stage show, which also fixed some story problems in the original film.
However, I wouldn't classify this film as a remake. It's more of an adaptation of the stage show.
"I was born in Düsseldorf and that is why they call me Rolf."
I like the remake better. I don't like Ulla in the original, she kind of scares me. I also the "gay Hitler" more than "hippie Hitler". And I also like them getting out of prison at the end. And the songs. Definetely the songs. And Nathan and Matthew. The original wasn't bad... just liked this one better
"I'm a leaf on the wind" BAM!!! NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Ulla was basically a whore in the original, one-note comic relief and a potentionally offensive immigrant-stereotype ( part of what made the original so subversive ) but I liked her '68 version because she was funny as hell.
In this one she's actually a character with a personality...And still a little bit funny.
I like how they get out of prison in the end too...It was sappy, but that was the point , considering this film was pardoying light-hearted sappy musicals.
And all of the music was excellant, particularly while watching it in the theatre.
"Dabblin'in water colors,Eddie?"
I really liked the development of Ulla into a major character. I thought it was genius to pair Ulla with Leo in the musical, because in a way, she helps him come out of his shell too. I think it's good that they tuned down the Leo's neurotic nature as well and turned him into a light romantic lead. The original had a lot of characters that didn't have much purpose.
I generally think this version was a LOT better than the original, but mainly because the story is much more coherent =D
Of course it's better. It's funny, more stylish and Nathan Lane is fantastic!
shareDear. God. No.
shareI've voiced your opinion in the past, although on the 60s version board, and got ripped to shreads.
The original is dire.
i prefer this version, nothing against gene wilder but matthew broderick was sublime in the role.. nathan lane was fantastic and the 3 guys from the lion king sang once more in the deleated scenes
Thunderbirds Aren't Slow
To answer your question, " Gosharootie.....Jumpin' Jiminy.....NOOOOOOO!!!! "
shareLOL I guess I really am the only person on IMDb who loves BOTH!!
They are both my favorite movies of all time (among many others)
"Dabblin'in water colors,Eddie?"
The "Springtime for Hitler" show in this one was a lot more fun. I'd really understand why it became such a big hit.
Ferrel and Thurman also add an extra something to this movie.
But the original is good too.
LOL I guess I really am the only person on IMDb who loves BOTH!!Not quite, I love both as well.
This version of the film was a million times worse then the orginal. Lane was so gay as Max Zero was a million times better as was Gene as Leo
shareSorry. Can't agree. Do you recall that Mel won an Oscar for the 1968 screenplay?
I am not such a 1968 purist that I can't enjoy the new film. Nathan Lane is about the only guy who could ever play Max close to Zero's level of energy. Broderick is a pale Leo compared to Wilder (but he sure can dance!). Will Ferrell and the gay guys are just as funny as the originals. But I can't warm up to Uma as Ulla, or the intrusion of her character into the musical plot.
I laughed at the gay Hitler, but mixing the Hitlers up removes one of the funniest scenes from the old film, when Kenneth Mars stands up in the audience to protest Dick Shawn's portrayal of Hitler. "Vat is this 'baby'? Mein Fuhrer never said this 'baby'!"
The extra songs are mostly fine, especially the old lady walker dance. But Mel is not the most creative lyricist. And I felt that the movie was at least 20 minutes too long. The Rio sequence and trial just drag it out.
I guess I'm saying that both versions have their merits, but nothing beats the real thing: Zero and Gene, and the explosive finale.
Do you recall that Mel won a Tony for his music and lyrics though? Does that mean your opinion is wrong? No. Just as other people's opinions are not wrong if they liked the new version more than the old. Titanic holds the title for most Oscars won, does that mean it's the best film ever made? Hardly ;)
It's nice to hear that you can at least enjoy the new one to some extent, but you're too bogged down by your love for the non-musical to give the film a fair go. Your compliments to the musical are so restrained, you're obviously reluctant to admit them.
Nathan did more than come close to Zero in his level of energy; with the advantage of the musical numbers, he squarely outdid him I think. Who knows how Zero would have been with the music though? They were given different things to work with. Gene was a fantastic Leo Bloom, but in the musical, the character was completely re-imagined by giving him ambition and even a love interest, which I don't think Wilder could have pulled off nearly as well as Matthew, who also had to sing and dance. Likewise, Matthew probably couldn't pull off Leo as well as Gene did if he only had that two-dimensional psychotic neurotic character to work with. They had to eliminate LSD because it's just not funny in this day and age. Ulla's minute role in the original would come across as being incredibly redundant and sexist if duplicated in the musical. There's no point in remaking the film joke for joke, but if you'd focus on what the musical brought to the story, and not what it left out, you might just enjoy it a bit more. It's not an adaptation of the 1968 film, it's a musical reinvention. I think Zero and Gene were great in the straight comedy, but Nathan and Matthew are perfect as their musical counterparts. Neither pair should over-shadow the other. People rarely compare the musical Hairspray to John Water's original non-musical cult classic. This is the same deal. It's like an orange trying to out-orange an apple.
I wish this was a musical in Zero's time. He would have been fantastic!
shareI want some of whatever you were smoking when you thought this was better than the original.
share"I want some of whatever you were smoking when you thought this was better than the original."
Have to agree!!
Dave
I saw the original. Good. But I like the remake more. The original seemed like they were trying to make you laugh by force sometimes. Not all originals are better than the remakes as not all remakes are worse than originals.
shareagree completely avalhon. i like both. Mostel and Wilder were funny, for sure. Matt and Nathan were also funny. They all had different takes on their characters. The comedic timing (in my opinion) could have been better in the original, i liked it and thought it was funny (i loved it when they blow up the theater). But overall i think that Matt and Nathan are my favorite Leo and Max.
that's just my opinion, i liked the comedic timing more in 2005 version. its not that the timing in 68 was bad, but it was different. i liked the 2005 more.
both are good though.
Brooks deserved best screenplay, but he deserved another best screenplay for this version!
my 2 cents.
What people are forgetting is that this isn't a remake of the MOVIE The Producer's, it's a screen adaptation of the BROADWAY MUSICAL. They're both good in their own rights.
I'm not finished!share
Oh yes you are Captain... I mean Fraulein.
we know that, you'd have to be an idiot not to. But the plot and characters are the same and in 2 different movies. as 2 movies on their own and one not being a remake of the other this shouldnt be an issue. But since people do classify it as a remake then 2005 version was way better than the original IMO. boh are still cool though
share[deleted]
For me, the original is objectively better, but I prefer watching this version more.
The original is a perfect 10. A classic. This version is a very solid 8 or 8.5 out of 10, very good, but not perfect. Yet, in terms of entertainment, I prefer this one. (I think it has to do with the fact I saw this one first, and I'm a sucker for a good musical.)
And FURTHERMORE, this is my signature! SERIOUSLY! Did you think I was still talking about my point?
While I enjoyed this musical remake, the original was better imo.
- Gene Wilder is a superior actor than Matthew Broderick. Broderick's overacting often didn't work that well.
- Lee Meredith had more sex appeal than Uma Thurman.
- Kenneth Mars played the Nazi as more angry compared to Will Ferrell. This was more appropriate. Ferrell seemed too sympathetic.
As for the story, in the original, the "Springtime for Hitler" play gradually wins over the audience in the second act. In the remake the gay Hitler almost instantly gets the audience back in their seats. This felt unnatural and wasn't as funny.
- The Rio sequence with Matthew and Uma was unnecessary.
- The end of the remake needed to be edited down. It was too long. Possibly the songs or the dance numbers could've been cut down, especially towards the end.
BB ;-)
it's just in my opinion - imo -