Judgment Time: Originals vs. Remakes - Round 1

Today I would like to talk about a subject that is very near and dear to me - remakes and reboots.  The world of Hollywood has seen fit in recent years to become more of a recycling center and less a place of creative conception.  In an effort to profit off of past projects, they are all-too-willing to go back and steal something that has already been made.  I can see the reasoning behind this, of course.  After all, it’s cheaper when you already have a basic script ready.  What’s more, the properties they remake are usually ones that did well, so the wallets are more confident that they will be seeing a return on their investment.  Sometimes the remakes actually end up better than the originals.  Other times, they fall very short.  Here I present a few films that have seen the remake treatment for better or for worse.  Enjoy.

Lord of the Rings (1978/1980) vs. Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) -

The first attempt to bring J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic novel series to the big screen was done via the magic of animation.  This was pretty much the only way it could have been done back in 1978, since special effects were far from being capable of producing armies of orcs, giant Balrogs and flocks of giant eagles (or at least to any realistic degree).  The original films, the first of which was very long and encompassed the first two books, failed in one major area, however.  They switched up the animation style for Return of the King (the second movie) and what was a fairly decent cartoon became muddled and ugly.  I still remember these films with childhood fondness, but they could have been better.

Once Peter Jackson took the reins and made three full-length feature films, Lord of the Rings really took shape.  He took quite a few liberties with the story, many of them unnecessary, but the trilogy is widely regarded as a masterpiece of fantasy on the big screen.  A massive budget and top-notch special effects brought Tolkien’s world to life in a new and exciting way.  To be sure, a lot more people will be sitting down with the kids in the future and watching Jackson’s rendition rather than the old cartoons.

My final judgment - both were great in their own way and people should watch them all to get a full appreciation of Tolkien’s adapted work.

Judge Dredd (1995) vs. Dredd (2012) -

This one is a no-brainer.  The original Judge Dredd, starring Sylvester Stallone, was a campy pile of crap that attempted to take the Judge Dredd property and make some cash off it.  This was past the glory days of sci-fi, when movies like Aliens, Robocop and others became every year occurrences, and the quality of Judge Dredd reflects the waning interest.  Though the budget was good enough to recreate Mega-City One and have stuff explode within it, there was no attention paid to producing any sort of a decent script.

When Dredd came out last year, I was skeptical at best.  I’ve never really been a fan of the Dredd universe so I saw no need to rush to theaters and watch this.  The first had been disappointing enough, so why continue the pain?  When I finally did watch Dredd, I was rather impressed.  It’s simple action with a gritty and realistic backdrop and would have, if made during an earlier time, been a sci-fi classic.  This is by far the superior of the two films and I am still hoping that they continue the franchise so that we can get a better look at all the little details that make the Dredd universe so interesting.

My final judgment - I am right there with Rotten Tomatoes when they give Judge Dredd a nasty 18/32%, but would say that the Dredd remake deserves more than the 78/73% that they gave it.

Dawn of the Dead (1978) vs. Dawn of the Dead (2004) -

Last but not least, I must take a moment to apologize to Zack Snyder, a man whose work I am almost always impressed with.  What you did to Romero’s classic, Mr. Snyder, was horrifying.  The original Dawn of the Dead was a slow-paced classic that brought the horror of living in a zombie-infested wasteland to life.  The zombies were slow and menacing because of their numbers and constant presence.  The real threat to survival in the first Dawn of the Dead was other people, not the undead.  There was a message in Romero’s work that did not transfer over to Snyder’s remake.

The remake, though it was certainly pretty and filled with zombie action, was little more than a kill-by-numbers horror flick.  There was none of the complexity of the first tale and that was its major failing.  We can see movies like the Dawn of the Dead remake anywhere, with zombies or without them.  Sure, they’re not all as well put together, but at their heart they are all the same and there was no need to loot an old property to create another cookie-cutter horror film.

My final judgment - I feel that Rotten Tomatoes’ ranking of Romero’s Dawn of the Dead is a little low at 94/84%, but not everyone likes zombie flicks, so whatever.  Their rating of the remake, at 75/75% is, in my opinion, way above what it should be.  I guess if you’re looking for an “acceptable” horror movie, it’s more accurate, but not if you want something exceptional.

Tune in next week when I act and judge, jury and executioner for some other Hollywood remakes.

Photo Credits -           

Lord of the Rings poster courtesy of tvtropes.com

Dredd vs Dredd courtesy of fandangogroovers.com