Among the greatest remakes of all time(?)

NO, The Wizard of Oz, True Grit with Maltese Falcon and The Thing ARE NOT remakes! Scarface, Man Who Knew and Fistful of Dollars are TRUE remakes.

I loath it when one of my fave movies The Thing is called a friggin' "remake" of the earlier film from 1951, NO they have little in common other than alien and snow and Carpenter's film is so different than the "original" movie yet they have nothing to do with each other. In 1951 a film called The Thing From Another World based on on a novella called "Who Goes There" by John W. Campbell was made. I say "based", it virtually ignored the book, There was no film called the The Thing in 1951. In 1982 a film called The Thing came out in 1982 but it was no remake as the 2 movies have little in common, sure there were 2 homages to the earlier film like circle of men and the opening title card plus a similar sounding name but those are just it, everything like the location (one in the north pole and the other in the south pole), the characters and their background, the discovery of the alien, the origin/discovery of the spaceship, the nature/methods of the alien (one is a dumbed down frankenstein vegetable humanoid vampire alien that could reproduce itself and is a plant-like being rather than a shapeshifter and the other is an organism that could imitate other lifeforms by cell structure), the ways of killing the alien etc. are worlds apart from each other. They are 2 separate and completely different adaptations of the same original source material "Who Goes There", the 1951 movie is a good movie but in reality it's one of the worst book to film adaptations of all time (just like Running Man, Lawnmower Man, World War Z etc.) and Carpenter's film is a standalone film that is an excellent adaptation of the novella, Carpenter maybe a fan of the earlier film but he's a bigger fan of the novella and it stated that it was the studios idea to do a remake of The Thing from Another World but he refused to do a remake of a childhood favorite as instead he wanted to go back to the same original source material. He stated his film is not a remake but it is it's own film and it's a re-adaptation as it's not a remake in name, content or source. The Wizard of Oz is NOT a "remake" of the earlier 20s film it was a separate adaptation of the 1910 book and has nothing to do with the earlier film, same for Maltese Falcon. Calling The Thing a "remake" of the earlier film is like saying every Dracula film is a "remake" of Nosferatu/1931's film, NOPE they are all separate adaptations of the same source material same goes for the various movies based on I Am Legend (I Am Legend/Last Man on Earth/Omega Man) which are all separate adaptations that have nothing to do with each other.

I consider remakes and re-adaptations to be 2 separate and completely different things, remakes are for ONLY being based on movies especially original ideas, original screenplays (not based on source material) and original movies like say The Blob or Ocean's 11 which are REAL remakes. Re-adaptation means another adaptation of source material (comics, book and novellas) like say The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Batman Begins, True Grit, I Am Legend, War of the Worlds, Girl with Dragon Tattoo etc.

True Grit is a separate adaptation of the novel and NOT a remake.

You killed Captain Clown, YOU KILLED CAPTAIN CLOWN-The Joker on Batman TAS

Sorry, but I really dislike the word 'remake', when it is primarily a movie based on a book.

Leo Tolstoi wrote the novel Anna Karenina in the 1870s. There are about half a douzen movies based on the book. If I would follow your logics, all but the first would be remakes. Sorry, but this is just wrong, plain and simple.

If a movie is based on a book and 20 years later another director takes the original book again and makes another movie based on the book, then this second movie is the second film adaption of the book and not the first remake of the first film.


This is not a remake of the 69s Wayne-western, this is the second adaption of Portis' book.



If something is the first remake or the second movie adaption depends on the source. If the source is a book and the second movie is based on the book, than it is the second adaption. If the first movie is the source, than the second is a remake. I really think, that precision in language is something worth maintaining.

Remakes and Greatest. Is kind of a oxymoron.

[deleted]

True Grit (2010) version is a movie I cannot take very serious. When they start to remake a movie done by maybe one of the greatest directors Henry Hattaway and his star cast with John Wayne that did give him a academy award for his work in the 1969 movie.

When looking at the cast in the 2010 version compared to the 1969 version almost makes me laugh. But here you so how bad actors we have today but think that B.Bridges must be a man with a huge ego when taken the role that J.W did have and he must know that what ever he does isn't good enough.

I prefer watching true grit from 1969 over the 2010 version any time.

I would definitely agree on that account. I'm not a big fan of westerns but this version of TG has me rewatching it as many times as possible. It's really got lots of healthy ingredients: excellent acting and chemistry (especially between Maddie and Rooster), wondrous cinematography, catchy dialogue, unique humor and proper timing, swell pacing, it's told through the person it should be (Maddie), etc. There's something about this version of True Grit which captivates me so much and I consider it superior to John Wayne's version (it helps that Jeff Bridges was in this one, as I view him to be a better actor than Wayne...while the latter isn't bad, I consider him overrated and generic with a limited ability. The one thing he always had going for him, though, is he could carry a picture. However, Bridges has never had that issue either)


When God made Tom Cruise, he was only joking.

What does this modern version of True Grit bring that the John Wayne version didn't have? I know they are both adaptations of the same novel, which explains the same dialogue etc, but what is new by the Coens? If there's nothing new, then I think it is pointless.

As for other modernised versions of older movies that FAIL:
- The Wickerman
- Flight of the Phoenix

I think the remake of True Grit is far superior and has to be the best western since Eastwood's 'Unforgiven' . Bridges and the young girl should have won Oscars.