It merely makes it less convoluted and more coherent. I don't know about everyone else but the original was confusing as hell, adding one twist too many that the plot went all over the place. The remake takes the basic storyline from the original and makes it clearer, and, for that, it's the better film.
share[deleted]
Fact: Everything you said is wrong.
...just sayin'...
Lawl, so making things simpler and easier to understand is not dumbing it down?
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story
No. Unless you think "simple" and "dumb" are the same things.
And I would've gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids! -Count Olaf
"No. Unless you think "simple" and "dumb" are the same things." - Clopinne
Agree with you, Jameron.
They made it understandable for people who couldn't understand. That's called "dumbing down".
The original was perfect. Ever twist had a purpose. It was a masterpiece.
This is a used piece of toilet paper that stuck to the original's shoe.
No comparison. At all. If you understood the original (which wasn't hard at all if you actually watched it...they spelled it out quite clearly at the end), there is NO WAY this could ever come close.
TOTS STILL gives me chills every time I find someone to watch it with that hasn't seen it. Such an emotional story. Univited doesn't have half the emotional connection to the characters.
No. Unless you think "simple" and "dumb" are the same things.
[deleted]
A Tale of Two Sisters is not a perfect movie. If anything, it's a cure all for insomnia.
shareWhy pit movies against each other (as long as one of them doesn't completely suck)? Sometimes I'm in the mood for a more convoluted, ambiguous Asian movie with subtitles. Sometimes I just want to watch something less convoluted, with cute girls, and in English.
shareBoth the Korean film and this one had problems. The Korean film handled the emotions of Su Mi better than this film for Anna, but one problem was that the plot was far too complicated for its own good. In this film, Anna acted as if Alex was still there and no one noticed until the end, and that was already totally implausible. (Wouldn't Anna eventually say something like: "Dad, Alex and I are going to swim"?) Still, if we are willing to suspend disbelief, that still helped to explain. But in the original, Su Mi was talking aloud as THREE people for days and the father was still able to restrain himself and said nothing?! That seemed to be completely preposterous - she was so obviously insane that any responsible father would have sent her back to the mental hospital straightaway. Also, in the Korean film, the supernatural (ghost) was suddenly introduced at the end, which seemed unnecessary and weakened the psychological angle. For this remake, everything was just the outcome of Anna's mental state - which was a plus. In general, the original film is still better, but I think the present film is sleek and simpler in its approach and it is not bad.
share"But in the original, Su Mi was talking aloud as THREE people for days and the father was still able to restrain himself and said nothing?! That seemed to be completely preposterous - she was so obviously insane that any responsible father would have sent her back to the mental hospital straightaway." - HenryCW
"Also, in the Korean film, the supernatural (ghost) was suddenly introduced at the end, which seemed unnecessary and weakened the psychological angle." - HenryCW
I would give just a short reply or otherwise it would lead to a scene by scene argument, which I think neither of us would want. The father must have been aware from the very beginning that Su Mi was speaking as three people (often when those characters were not even around). It was also fairly clear that the father knew all along that Su Mi was acting as if the sister was still alive and it was not a "surprise" to him (though it was meant to be a surprise to the viewers). He must have witnessed that many times before he concluded that she was still mentally-ill. Whether he did "nothing" was just a matter of wording. He certainly should have known that she needed to go back to the hospital immediately.
As for the ghost, I had always assumed that was a real ghost. Was there anything in the film that said it was Su Mi's "revenge fantasy"? I don't think such a "fantasy" would serve any purpose in the film either.
"The father must have been aware from the very beginning that Su Mi was speaking as three people (often when those characters were not even around). It was also fairly clear that the father knew all along that Su Mi was acting as if the sister was still alive and it was not a "surprise" to him (though it was meant to be a surprise to the viewers). He must have witnessed that many times before he concluded that she was still mentally-ill. Whether he did "nothing" was just a matter of wording. He certainly should have known that she needed to go back to the hospital immediately." - HenryCW
"As for the ghost, I had always assumed that was a real ghost. Was there anything in the film that said it was Su Mi's "revenge fantasy"? I don't think such a "fantasy" would serve any purpose in the film either." - HenryCW
They were not presumptions, but based on reasonable interpretations in an even remotely realistic situation. Just like in criticizing The Uninvited, while you could insist that the father and the stepmother never heard Annie mentioning Alex until the very last scene, in real life that would be ridiculous. For the Korean film, you can call it a presumption, but it would be preposterous for Su Mi talking not only as herself but also as her sister (who was dead) and her stepmother (who was not even there until the last scenes) - for example, at the dinner table - and we are still expected to believe that the father didn't notice.
Also, the father finally yelled at Su Mi that her sister was dead, and if you look again at the translation, he said something to the effect that he was exasperated by Su Mi talking all the time as if the sister was still there, and so he had to tell her. So he knew it long before that scene because Su Mi did that all the time. That part at least was not a presumption.
I remain unconvinced about the revenge fantasy part, if the only proof was in the slippers (which I did not notice). I still think that instead of Su Mi imagining the stepmother going into her sister's room, it is more logical that that was what really happened. There was no way that Su Mi was let out of the hospital in the first place, and you don't need a revenge fantasy scene to know that she "will not be recovering".
"They were not presumptions, but based on reasonable interpretations in an even remotely realistic situation." - HenryCW
belief on reasonable grounds or probable evidence.
a ​belief that something is ​true because it is ​likely, ​although not ​certain.
an idea that is taken to be true on the basis of probability.
"For the Korean film, you can call it a presumption, but it would be preposterous for Su Mi talking not only as herself but also as her sister (who was dead) and her stepmother (who was not even there until the last scenes) - for example, at the dinner table - and we are still expected to believe that the father didn't notice." - HenryCW
"Also, the father finally yelled at Su Mi that her sister was dead, and if you look again at the translation, he said something to the effect that he was exasperated by Su Mi talking all the time as if the sister was still there, and so he had to tell her. So he knew it long before that scene because Su Mi did that all the time. That part at least was not a presumption." - HenryCW
Moo-hyeon Bae: Tell me.Please point out where it shows that Moo-hyeon Bae knows, without any ambiguity, that Su-Mi has previously been talking about her sister as if she were still alive.
Su-Mi: Tell what?
Moo-hyeon Bae: Why the hell are you doing all this? Tell me why you've acted so weird since you got here.
Su-Mi: You really don't know?
Moo-hyeon Bae: Don't know what? What is it?
Su-Mi: What that woman is doing to us!
Moo-hyeon Bae: So tell me what has she done?
Su-Mi: She keeps harassing Su-Yeon.
Moo-hyeon Bae: Shocked face. Looks like he could cry
Moo-hyeon Bae: What?
Su-Mi: Didn't you hear me? I said she keeps harassing Su-Yeon! She's viscious, evil and always locks Su-Yeon up in the closet!
Moo-hyeon Bae: Su-Mi, please stop it.
Su-Mi: Stop what? You know that Su-Yeon is scared of her.
Su-Mi: Looks to her left
Su-Mi: Su-Yeon, you tell dad. Stop crying and tell him now. Tell him!
Moo-hyeon Bae: Please stop! Su-Yeon is dead.
Su-Mi: What? No.
Moo-hyeon Bae: Su-Yeon is dead, so pull yourself together.
Su-Mi: Shakes head slowly in denial
Moo-hyeon Bae: How long will you keep this up?
"I remain unconvinced about the revenge fantasy part, if the only proof was in the slippers (which I did not notice)." - HenryCW
1. I do not have the DVD on hand, and even if I do, I would not consider it worth our time to dissect every scene. Even so, I have to mention that even taking your long quote, the last line "How long will you keep this up?" to me (you may disagree) implies that Su Mi had been doing it before that scene. Just difference in interpretation, perhaps?
You prefer to focus on individual details and even look up meanings of words from the dictionary but conveniently overlook my basic point - that the scenario depicted in the film was not - to quote myself - not "even remotely realistic". You spent a lot of time trying to show - based on the dialogue from the scenes shown - that the father had no reason to "know". Even if I grant you that, the most you can claim is that there is no internal inconsistency in the script. That in my view does not in any way make the scenario - that Su Mi not only imagined the presence of two other characters but talked aloud in their places without others noticing - any more credible. The OP asked for the views on the original vs. the remake. I have given mine and you have voiced yours - so why not let the other IMDb users have their say too instead of debating forever?
2. As for the ghost scene, you think the "blood oozing out form the floor" supports your interpretation because you have already determined that it was Su Mi's "revenge fantasy". In a supernatural setting, however, blood oozing out from the floor and even stranger things - whether as perceived by the characters in the film or as seen by the viewers - are indeed possible. In any case, I have heard your view, and when/if I watch this film again, I would look at that scene in the overall context of the film to see which interpretation is the more plausible. But as I said, that won't be anytime soon.
"1. I do not have the DVD on hand, and even if I do, I would not consider it worth our time to dissect every scene. Even so, I have to mention that even taking your long quote, the last line "How long will you keep this up?" to me (you may disagree) implies that Su Mi had been doing it before that scene. Just difference in interpretation, perhaps?" - HenryCW
"You spent a lot of time trying to show - based on the dialogue from the scenes shown - that the father had no reason to "know"." - HenryCW
"That in my view does not in any way make the scenario - that Su Mi not only imagined the presence of two other characters but talked aloud in their places without others noticing - any more credible." - HenryCW
"so why not let the other IMDb users have their say too instead of debating forever?" - HenryCW
"2. As for the ghost scene, you think the "blood oozing out form the floor" supports your interpretation because you have already determined that it was Su Mi's "revenge fantasy"." - HenryCW
"In any case, I have heard your view, and when/if I watch this film again, I would look at that scene in the overall context of the film to see which interpretation is the more plausible. But as I said, that won't be anytime soon." - henryCW
I think we have to disagree on certain parts, but thank you for the discussion.
shareThe original borrowed from Lucy Comes to Stay by Robert Bloch. But nobody seems to mention that.
----
EDIT: BTW for all those who don't know he also wrote Psycho.
Edit 2: The princess below has stated that I am wrong. I am OK with that. My bad.
Okay, I'll bite.
"The original borrowed from Lucy Comes to Stay by Robert Bloch. But nobody seems to mention that." - theLastResort
"Tale of Two Sisters ripped off Lucy Comes to Stay so... " - theLastResort
While you are busy trying to suggest something underhanded by Kim Jee-WoonThat was not my point but you can look at it that way if you would like. I was replying to the people who come on this board all pissed off that soemeone remade "their" movie.
"That was not my point but you can look at it that way if you would like. I was replying to the people who come on this board all pissed off that soemeone remade "their" movie.
There is nothing more to my claim than that." - theLastResort
----
Utter nonsense.
Your claim is that Kim Jee-Woon stole chunks of Lucy Comes to Stay and didn't give any credit to Robert Bloch.
You have made two separate posts about Kim Jee-Woon "borrowing" or "ripping off" and yet you have failed to mention your alleged point before. The reason being is that that is not your point and you had to think of something when I called you out on your *beep*
"You seriously need some anger management classes. Getting all pissed off over a post on IMDb?" - theLastResort
Thank you for enlightening me. May you enjoy a life of peace and beauty.
----