10 Most Insulting Changes To Movie Remakes
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июл 2024
- Really Disney, did you have to do King Stefan dirty like that?
For more awesome content, check out: whatculture.com/
Follow us on Facebook at: / whatculture
Catch us on Twitter: / whatculture 
Развлечения
Mulan being a magical genki-girl from the start instead of _earning_ her prowess.
...also the Witch not actually being in charge.
Where the cartoon showed that a woman can be as good as, or better than, a man on their own merits, the remake makes this possible only through exceedingly rare mystical means.
it's almost as if Disney deliberately ignored every reasonable bit of criticism directed at Rey...
Also, the witch joins with Mulan in the end because "girl power"
@@05dturner Well not just girl power but it was more I can be more than just a woman or a witch.
@@05dturner They just don't get that if you create strong, compelling female characters and put them in an entertaining movie girl power comes naturally with it. The original did that. When you make girl power your primary agenda you get Mary Sue crap like the remake.
In Germany we call this "verschlimmbessern", which means to make something worse by improving it.
Germans always have a word to perfectly describe something
You mean the word isn't "farfignewton"???
Cheers for the new term you taught me!
Shiesse Kino when Oma is not around
I love how many great German words there are, like this.
Disney doesn't own fairytales, the original stories are very dark indeed.
Dark is different than good. Crappy story
Indeed. In the original sleeping beauty story, the darkest origin, didn’t Aurora give birth to the prince’s children because he violated her in her sleep? Like, that is something😟😟😟
@@paulac.munoztorres it wasn’t a prince In the book, it was a king
Stfu.
Normally true... but Maleficent was DISNEY making a prequel to a DISNEY movie.
They weren't remaking the story according to the original fairy tale, they were rewriting a classic villain to get some "yas queen" likes from feminists.
Funny how Disney in their movie remakes portray the villains as misunderstood and good guys like villains.
To be fair, it gives more depth to the villian. But it could be a cash grab to eventually give the studio a way to milk their cash cow by giving the “villian” a spin off lol
Could be. Same with cruella from 101 Dalmatians in the new movie they're making.
I hate when they "transform" bad guys in good guys, and good guys in bad guys. It's very disturbing.
disney is woke..that why i boycott them
@@freebee8221 yeah because being inclusive is an affront to white supremacy
The writers of The Reboot of The Karate KId should have titled it The Kung Fu Kid.:-)
I was thinking the same thing
And replaced him with a panda.
Exactly! Karate and Kung Fu are 2 different things.
Movie executives are definitely responsible for not changing the title
@@rjlack1975 And changed the title from kid to panda. Oh wait...
The plot of "Maleficent" has a lot in common with Robert Zemeckis' 2007 adaptation of "Beowulf." A hero wins the crown to a kingdom by claiming he killed a supernatural Angelina Jolie, but he actually didn't kill her and years later she returns to seek revenge with a dragon.
I hated the animated Beowulf.
I mean it was Angelina Jolie though, lol I can kind of see somebody lying about that one, especially if they instead managed to get a nut in her. That movie was goofy as hell.
@@sajohnson09 It's based off an epic poem. I think even in the poem Beowulf bangs Grendel's mother instead of killing her.
Maleficent was still a villain in this story, she could've taken back her wings at any time but she chose to drive the King mad for decades with threats to his life.
Sorry but the whole 'metaphor for rape' thing doesn't apply when looking at the bare facts of the story. In real moral conundrums you consider people's actions, not the narrative context.
Also, the King was willing to humiliate himself in front of his whole court to protect his daughter, hardly the move of a bad guy
@@oftenseen22 No he doesn't.
They could have fixed the "Karate" issue with two lines.
Mom "How's the karate lessons?"
Kid "It's Kung Fu Mom."
still doesn't fix the title.
@@lucaswinsor4469 "The Kung Fu Kid". There, fixed. :)
@@ichigoeater sure it could. Have his mom address him as HER karate kid. You get title drop and of course its the mom who not asian who think kung fu is karate
I never actually noticed tbh like it’s titled karate kid but he learns Kung fu I learned this today
@@Marveryn It WOULD make more sense that way, and even be cute, but the argument would still persist.
You missed "Clash of the Titans". In the original, Perseus goes on his journey to save Andromeda because he loves her and wants to marry her. In the remake, Perseus goes on his journey because.... Um..... they make him? His family does get killed but he doesn't seem really torn up about it.
Nailed it!!
Critics and audiences alike hate passive heroes. Another example of such a protagonist is Hellboy in the recent reboot. He doesn’t do anything unless the plot demands it.
and making fun of Bubo the Owl... Just tossed him aside like junk. I was nothing but disappointed by that "movie".
I hardly remember that I saw the remake but I do remember when he tossed the owl, despite seeing the original years, many years, after it was originally made.
I liked the remake tbh, I like it because it wasn't the same old "so here's the hero, he saves the princess cause she's pretty" plot and they don't end up together. I also loved the Medusa.
Remaking 'Psycho' with Vince Vaughn and the 'Omen' just because the release falls under 06/06/2006. It felt not very fleshed out.
Yea, Omen - I will never forget the story how the boy was cast :D
The problem with Psycho is that they didn't change anything at all except the cast and filming it in color.
@@fnsmike the psycho remake gets a lot of shit for being a literal shot for shot remake
Still Vince Vaughn was a choice
Maleficent turned a truly great villain into that woman who raises her ex's kid.
Maleficent was still a villain in this story, metaphor aside, she could've taken back her wings easily but she chose to psychologically torture the king for a lifetime.
The whole 'metaphor for rape' doesn't matter when you consider the literal events. In this story someone mentally tortures a thief for decades instead of just taking back their property, Maleficent is a monster here.
@@AeneasGemini Thief? Property? I know there's magic and she can reattach them but still. I'd be pretty outraged if someone had mutilated me as well.
@@Jenacide So much so that you target a innocent child rather than the source of your anguish. This story tries to make you sympathetic to Maleficent but on closer inspection it just falls flat. It's basically "My neighbor wronged me so I'm going to kill his child to get revenge". My heart always goes out to those who exact revenge on the innocent.
@@MainerdLoyd Yes she was twisted and bitter after being betrayed and gravely wounded by someone she loved but you forget that through the story she realises her mistake and does everything she can to try and right it. It's called character development.
@@AeneasGemini Seemed pretty hard for her to get her wings back in the story when she did try?
Maleficent tried to bring at least some mild elements of the actual story lesson back into being. There are several versions of Sleeping Beauty. The original, like many fairy tales, was a very severe rape/abandonment story. They're horror stories with object lessons. Warnings.
The witch in Hanzel and Gretel was going to put them in a pie and eat them, in other words. She's a cannibal and that's pretty dark for a kids story.
P.S. Have you seen Exosquad? Don't let the bright colored outfits fool you. The story it tells doesn't get much darker.
The problem is they made a perfectly glorious villain into a weak anti hero. It feels like comics in the 90s trying to be dark and edgy but really just showing a childish appreciation to the material.
Disney-philes already loved & worshipped Maleficent specifically because she was the most unrepentantly evil Disney Villain after the Horned King and Chernabog (who is almost literally the god of evil). I think "Mistress of Evil" was a slight improvement, since it portrayed her more of an extremist willing to do anything to protect the Fae Folk from human aggression, instead of just a broken hearted sob story
@@readhistory2023 Exosquad is a remarkably underappreciated show. It and Captain Power are both kids programs with phenomenal writing and subject matter that were overshadowed by a need to sell toys.
sometimes a movie or a cartoon doent even need a deep story, besides, the audience that was watching cartoons back in the day were younger, with different mindset... you can make a fresh cartoon with the moral you want to teach without altering what was already made... this change was amde because men bad
For all of those defending maleficent the movie on the grounds that Disney’s sleeping beauty is itself a retelling I have a thing to say. Maleficent is not a retelling of the original sleeping beauty. It is a retelling of Disney’s retelling of sleeping beauty. The original fairytale is dark and contains things that in current culture are perceived as utterly horrible. In that fairytale there is no king Stephan. There is no maleficent. Those are characters created by Disney. So saying that the movie maleficent is not a remake of the movie sleeping beauty, is inaccurate. And justifying the changes to the characters based on the original fairytale is unfair. Especially since in the original fairy tale sleeping beauty’s kingly father isn’t a rapist and the evil fairy, is actually just an evil fairy who tries to murder people because she’s upset she didn’t get invited to a party. In the darkest versions of the story the rapist is the prince who comes across a woman sleeping that he can’t wake up and decides to sleep with her. Which is horrible and also not the story of maleficent. Maleficent is not the story of sleeping beauty from the fairy tales. Because in the fairytale, maleficent is an unnamed evil fairy with no backstory at all. The king is an unnamed father with no back story at all. And also, she probably never had wings because most fairies in fairytales don’t.
I get it you like the movie Maleficent, maybe you don’t like the movie Sleeping beauty. That’s cool. You like what you like. But his argument was that the character of king Stephan from the original sleeping beauty got done dirty. And I agree because in the original Disney sleeping beauty, he was a loving husband and father. Willing to make sacrifices for his family. Also he was super gracious towards maleficent and apologized for not inviting her to the party. Now should he have invited her? Maybe. But then again when she showed up all she did was curse a baby so I’m gonna be honest I think he was correct in thinking she’d be a bad influence. Anyway that’s my two cents on the subject. I make no judgements about which movie you should like, but I wanted to defend his point. As a remake of the characters created by Disney, King Stephan got done dirty.
Very true on all counts. They needed a villain to make Maleficent look sympathetic. It was curious that they would do this knowing how evil a witch she was
No offense but you really think people are gonna even read this
"Should he have invited her"?
Like, the original tale was a CAUTIONARY TALE about faeries. The answer to that question is an unequivocal YES. Do you realize how RUDE and DISRESPECTFUL it was for the king and queen in the original to not invite her? And the reason she cursed the child wasn't because of not being invited, it was because of being disrespected, even when he turned around and tried to extend the invitation (because the rest of the faeries were gifted with plates of solid gold, but she didn't receive one). Faeries are incredibly capricious creatures in lore, and if you disrespect them, you are GOING to pay the consequences. Like, this was an ELDER fairy, one of the oldest, and wisest. They thought her dead and didn't invite her, so when she arrived, found that she wasn't gifted the same as the younger fairies, she responded in kind. Like? How many fairy stories start with a fairy being disrespected end with the person who disrespected them being intact after, lol.
I could go on about events of this sort of thing in fairy stories for days. One story, a girl treats a fairy with kindness, and is gifted with gold and gems falling from her lips as she speaks. When the mean sister goes to try to get such gifts, she's disrespectful and ends up with frogs and toads falling from her lips.
@@Fightingforthelost Facts, Fae are in essence fickle deal makers who made modern day politicians look downright generous and beneficent to the common people, these are creatures who find joy in fucking people to such a degree that you would never trust a living soul again because you don't trust that an errant word or an unintentionally binding word or phrase of thanks will cause one of the faefolk to think that you somehow owe them a debt of gratitude
@@Fightingforthelost In the version I read everyone had assumed she was dead...like no one...no fairy even...went to check on the elder Fae?
I confess. I watched The Haunting remake as a teen without even knowing about the black and white version.... it was years later that I realized that it was supposed to be a horror movie.
Same
I'm not gonna lie, I love black and white horrors, but I hated the original Haunting. Great atmosphere, but boring af. From what I've read, while she never lived to see the remake, Shirley Jackson agreed with my assessment. Apparently, she hated the director's obsession with making Eleanor crazy, as she had written it as a straight forward ghost story.
As Paul Simon now sings: "Everything is BETTER in Black-and-White."
Disney making Cruella De Vil [someone whose name is literally supposed to mean "Cruel Devil"] a sympathetic anti-hero/Harley Quinn wannabe because now every villain must be sympathetic.
This person wants to skin dogs to make clothes......and they want us to be sympathetic.
Have u watched the movie?
@@MsGwendolyn2011 why do I need to? I know what she turns into. I cruel heartless monster that kills innocent puppies in the name of fame and fashion. There's nothing this movie can show me to make me like or feel sympathetic towards this character at all. It's simply Disney letting their woke writers get away with bullshit that they pray will sell and it's thankfully starting to affect their income. Emma Stone may be a phenomenal actress but the writing for the movie looks cringy and forced.
@@sirraf23 From the reviews I’ve seen, it seems like they’re keeping her pretty evil, but giving her an even more evil antagonist to play off against.
Considering the fractured fairy tales that I read in school, I believe the idea is that the story changes based on who’s telling it; basically, the villains are only made out to be sympathetic because they are acting as the narrator. Do you sympathize with Alex from A Clockwork Orange? Absolutely not! But he’s the one telling the story, not his victims.
No different from all the other animals slaughtered for food and clothing
The problem with making Stefan the villain is that he wasn't an interesting character in the first place. If they made Aurora the villain, or the three good fairies, that might be interesting -- not necessarily *good* but interesting. But instead they went, "Hey, you know that guy who had that one scene where he got drunk and argued over some blueprints? Yeah, he was totally evil the whole time and everything was his fault."
Maleficent 2 is a MUCH better film - sure, it's very Avatar/Dances-With-Fairies - but it's tonally consistent and entertaining throughout
@@princessstomper8068 yeah I really prefer the second one
@@princessstomper8068 Wait, they made a sequel?
@@repzgaming5 yes, it was released in 2019
I'm fairly sure Aurora is technically a sociopath (she can't feel any unhappy emotions, including guilt and likely empathy), so her being a villain would make a lot of sense
Turing one of the funniest characters in Cinderella that wouldn’t take Lady Tramane’s BS into an evil duke who only cares about the prince marrying royalty and not his happiness
Killing off John Connor in Dark Fate.
Several movies saying he was one and only hope for humanity and they just replaced him with a Mary Sue that in the end didn't really do anything.
To be fair john was as much a Mary sue hes important beacause it should have ended with 2
The only way to redeem the terminator franchise is for Skynet to send a terminator back to kill everyone who worked on the series after T2 was made.
@@tsarfox3462 Well the Sarah Connor Chronicles was actually REALL good. Still not sure what the hell they cancelled it.
@@ryanatorryanson9535 dude the show was terrible a teenage john falling for a female terminator what were they thinking
@@matthewjones2095 Sounds weird at first, but remember John also saw a Terminator as a type of father in T2. Not a big stretch that he could see a female one as a type of bizarre love interest given his psychological damage.
How bout the Mulan live action remake where they change Mulans Character from a Strong Indipendant Woman impersonating a Man into an ancient Chinese Mutant.
Still waiting to see her pop up in the X-Men Reboot.
She independent in the original? Wasn't the point, that she can stand alongside her fellow warriors despite being a woman?
@@legendaresn6983 yes but considering how the rest of the women are depicted in the movie, she acts completely independent compared to the typical norms of female actions and mindsets for that era.
@@ragingsloth2846 Huh, never considered the comparison to other characters.
@@legendaresn6983 well if she wasn't independent, she would have just conformed to what was expected of her as a women in that society.
Boom, movie opens up with scene of her at the matchmakers, it goes bad, she marries a poor standing individual and movies over.
No Reflection by Christina.
No reason for her to run away.
No Joining the Army.
No saving China.
No "A girl like that doesn't come around every Dynasty."
Pretty much like I said, No movie.
@@ragingsloth2846 Would it though? The only scene that needed her being independent, is the one were she joins the army.
I was kind of expecting this video to be mostly about a live-action "adaptation" of a certain cartoon directed by M Night Shyamalan.
@TheGamerOnWheels what are you talking about? There is no live action movie of our beloved cartoon in Ba Sing Se!
@TheGamerOnWheels we do not speak of that. Not one mention of the thing that should not be named. It does not exist in Ba Sing Se!
I actually liked that movie. I saw the movie first, and it was due to that that I went and watched the animated series. Granted, the animated series was better.
@@total2blue But knowing how good the show is just makes me angry at the movie now. They managed to ruin everything!
Ot netflix death note...but he would need an entire video to explain everything they did bad.
Red Dawn killing off Jed. The brotherly bond to the end was one of the most memorable parts to that movie for me.
Agreed
Indeed, you might say...
it's the f***ing point.
...and turning Malificent into a "likeable anti-heroine" instead of the villain we all loved in the first place.
Then please, don’t waste your money on Cruella. I’ve seen the ‘twist ending’ leaked and it is horrendous. How any of that got through the cutting floor is beyond me.
@@LoneSilverW0lf What’s the ending since it came out?
@@xano3189 Dunno. I already saw it and there is no twist ending. Aside from two very specific plot twists mid way through, the ending is as straight as it gets
She's still a villain though. When you examine the bare facts of the story you see that she spends decades psychologically torturing a thief instead of taking her wings back. Her actions are monstrous.
When you disregard the 'metaphor for rape' thing and just look at the actions of the characters, Maleficent comes across as a sociopath.
Also sidenote: but the King legit humiliates himself, in front of his whole court, to protect his infant daughter. Guy should get massive props for that
@@LoneSilverW0lf Honestly Cruella was pretty good! The cast was fun and energetic, it had an awesome esthetic, and it felt more like the backstory to the 'myth' of the horrible Cruella Da Vil, not the character herself.
Although it's a movie remake of a TV show, I'll never forgive them for what they did to Jim Phelps in the Mission: Impossible franchise.
That was the movie that made me realise that Tom Cruise was a bad actor and a bully who demands that he is the only star
And killing most of the team, making it about Cruise, when the original was all about the teamwork needed to get the job done.
Now it's basically Tom Cruise can do everything, he just needs a little bit of help.
The 1st mission impossible is a continuation of the show and not a remake
@@tshelby5212 True, it’s more of a revival. Still horrible what they did.
I love the first Mission: Impossible movie.
One simple thing that Infuriates me to this day. Turning Anakin Skywalker's ghost into Hayden Christensen at the end of Return of the Jedi! There was absolutely NO reason to replace Sebastian Shaw!
Anakin got Nothing on compaired to Luke, from a Jedi Master with a Family, to a Crazy Old Man trying to kill his Nephew.
That pisses me off so much.
There was a reason tho.
-more emotional impact
-logical in context of the 6 films
-consistent with the lore
I disagree but respect your opinion
Agreed! Anakin/Vader died as an old or middle aged man. No reason to make him young as a force ghost. Obi Wan didn't become young as a force ghost.
The end of Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes" remake is *slightly* reminiscent of the ending of the original book, but nothing could top the surprise ending of the Charlton Heston movie. (Thanks, Rod Serling!)
Fun Fact; Serling never intended to suggest humanity had destroyed itself in a nuclear war in his ending, either. That was one one three adlibs that Heston did when given the direction to "just react in character" on the beach, and they chose that one.
Serlings script followed the Boulle book in suggesting that humans who used apes as workers, in a parallel with societies using AI and robots, might rely too much on them and "devolve" to a lesser state, leaving their servants to grow past them.
The top 3 reasons remakes, in my humble opinion, fail:
The director wanted to "make the story their own."
They tried to answer solve a mystery, that was better left to viewers imagination.
They tried to update/change the historical characters/events, to be more "interesting/entertaining." (Especially when the original people/events were more interesting.)
As always thank you so very much for the video.
Turning king stefan into a villain really cemented me not even bothering with malefescent. Literally, I thought she was a cool villain before they screwed with her. Villains don't need a lot of back story much less changing an established character into a villain to substantiate a villain becoming a villain.
Or she could just be an unreliable narrator? Villains tend to distort the truth to justify their evil deeds.
@@therealCrazyJake While I like that idea, we don't really see much evidence for it in the film.
They just didn't have the balls to have her be a true villain.
This is largely I think because modern writing is dominated by nihilists and moral equivalency junkies. Evil is the new good because it subverts.
Disney's Hercules should have made the list. They made him the son of Zeus and Hera when, so the story goes, Hera was not his mother and hated Hercules. So much so that she made him kill his family.
I thought Hera was his mother in the original tales for years because the Disney version was my first introduction to the character.
At least it‘s understandable that Disney didn‘t wanna go with the „bones-every-female-he-can“ version of Zeus.
I wonder if she'd have hated him as much if Zues didn't rename him "Pride of Hera" despite being proof of his infidelity. Gotta say, that was a stupid move.
@Jacob J4746 what about perseus?
That’s an adaptation, my dude... not a remake...
@@therealCrazyJake You're right but I still hated it.
You forgot 'Clash of the Titans' for removing the owl, adding a slew of uninteresting characters, and giving Perseus a weird grudge against the gods.
Well clash of the Titans which is based on Greek mythology they changed quite a bit in the first one
I was waiting to see that mentioned. The original is dated, but it still looks better than the modern remake, because the original actually had a soul.
Also making Hades evil for no good reason we he's easily the chillest guy in the pantheon.
@@stevenclark5173 are all Stevens into Greek mythology?
removing the owl was the best part of the remake.
Uh. I disagree. Klaatu had a message. They switched out nuclear armament for going green. And then they proceeded to bludgeon you over the head with it.
The idea that Earth would matter that much is silly. If aliens have faster than light travel, they probably know there are many planets that can sustain life, and wouldn't care about us. And, if humans disappear, Earth would be green again in a 100k years.
It was the most anti-technology sci-fi movie I've seen since The Matrix.
@@louisduarte8763 The Matrix struck me as more anti-human than anti-technology.
The Machines go to a lot of trouble to keep humans alive - especially if you realize Morpheus isn't a reliable source for why they're keeping humanity alive.
And when you have a "villain" whose entire motivation and plan can be shown up as hypocritical and ridiculous in a few sentences by a character played by John Cleese . . . Well, it's not a great plan is all I'm saying.
"oh no they say he's got to go go - go Godzilla, oh no there's goes Tokyo go - go Godzilla"
I loved how Godzilla crushes Zilla
Shin Godzilla was not all that great either.
@@tetornow I felt it was ok, but the CG was terrible
Don’t forget turning Larry Talbot’s father into a villain in the Wolfman remake!
Say what?
@@realjoemavro don’t believe me?
@@srstriker6420
I certainly don't want to...but somehow I'm not surprised.
@@realjoemavro well the original Wolfman is way better than the remake
The worst insult to the Sleeping Beauty movies is the mispronounciation of King Stefan's name repeated a dozen times in this video 😭😭😭
Yeah, cause is " estefano" in reality.
The Burton Planet of the Apes is closer to the original book by Pierre Boulle, which inspired the original movie in the first place. In the book it's made very clear from the beginning that the planet of the apes isn't Earth. The ending twist is similar to the Burton movie, but better and less confusing, and the book has also a second twist ending that's almost unfilmable. Anyway, the book is better than all movie adaptations, it's short, like 200 pages, and an easy read. I highly recommend it, one of my faves. Satyrical SF at it's finest.
I gotta ask. What's the alternate ending?
I disagree but eh i like films and books and each can fit in there timeline
@@rustyshackleford2792 It was Florida all along...
@@akaok2060 *laughs in Florida Man*
I think I'll stick with the films: Original 1968 one and the Andy Serkis movies. TBH I prefer the "It was Earth all along" twist, and not that it was just some other planet.
The Thing (2011) isn't a remake, but The Thing (1982) is
@@jmmypaddy no, John Carpenter's film is a remake of The Thing From Another World
My god! Thank you! John Carpenter's is a remake not original
@@jmmypaddy The 2011 movie is a prequel to the 1982 movie, which itself is a remake of a movie from the 50s I think.
Technically the 82 version is not a remake either it sticks to the book where as the 51 version doesn't
@@Meta1head100 wrong it is not
The Thing "2" is not a "remake" in any way shape or form its just the story of what happen to the first research team that found the alien (and yes the CGI was shit)
Yeah people seem to not understand The Thing 2 was a Prequel to the original and not a re-make.
Also John carpenters the thing was actually a remake of the 1951 movie the thing from another world which was one of his favourite movies
While technically being a prequel, it was marketed as a remake. They didn't even bother giving it a dumb suffix title like "The Thing: Origins" or "The Thing: the Beginning" to distinguish it from the 82 version.
Technically. But in actuality it played out as a remake of the Carpenter film just with a female McCreedy. The plot beats were super similar. The characters were the same.
I was really excited for it. It had so many opportunities. But it really just felt like a remake. And I’m not a movie snob (I love the Doom movie). But I was so bummed while watching it.
It's sad because they actually did a lot of practical effects work that didn't make it into the film due to reshoots and heavy amounts of CGI forced by Universal. The team really had the right idea and had some great creature design, it's sad what happened. I wish the team got more recognition for their hard work, but all anyone talks about is the bad CGI that got released.
Look up behind the scenes footage, there's not much video of the finished monsters but what is there is really impressive.
In The Thing prequel swapping out the practical effects for the CGI was a huge mistake. The effects clearly look animated and very unconvincing. The original 1982 effects hold up better because they were done practically by geniuses Rob Bottin and Stan Winston who are masters of their craft.
They apparently shot the film with practical effects but the damn studio interfered and forced them to reshoot it with CGI. It's always the studios, who have no idea how to make a film, intefering
@@joebloggs6922 Yes Definitely. I saw behind the scenes practical effects they were actually really good way better than the CGI effects, I think they re-worked the effects for the movie Harbinger Down.
The original The Thing was made in the 50s and is better than the recent remake
@@kirkmorrison6131 There are 3 versions the 1951, 1982 and the most recent 2011 movie.
I wonder it's studios ever blame themselves when a movie doesn't make money because of their idiotic ideas because they had the practical effects and yet the doofuses at the studio was like no no ucgi which really sucks because the movie was really good like they took so much detail into trying to make it line up perfectly with the other movie that it kind of sucks that a lot of people just write it off as trash and it really wasn't it was just the CGI was bad in it I enjoyed the movie but the other movie is far more superior because the practical effects still stand up even today.
As a teenager I loved the book “Blood & Chocolate” and I was so excited when I heard they were gonna make a movie…. I was soo disappointed. If you wanna see see a movie mess up a book, watch this. There were many things it did wrong, the most egregious was taking the guy she ends up with in the book and having her shoot him with a rifle in the movie.
Maleficent had even worse character assassinations for what it did to the good fairies. Those were frumpy looking woman who in the original film were for all intents and purposes the protagonists of the story. They were feminist characters. They are replaced as Aurora's primary caregivers by the conventionally attractive edgelord known as Maleficent.
I hated what they did to the fairies, they were so sweet and charming in the 1959 movie before they got turned into dingbats in the live action remake.
Total Recall isn’t a remake, it’s another adaptation of the short story ‘We Can Remember It for You Wholesale’ in which he doesn’t go to mars.
And much closer to the story than the original film, which was a poor vehicle for Arnie's wooden acting, just because he was famous.
Yeah. Sometimes people forget that these aren't reboots. It's someone else giving a shot at adapting something. The newer version isn't as fun as the Arnie one, but I think it's visually very pretty with a a lot of fun sci fi ideas. As opposed to the Arnie version which is kinda dated these days
Yes it's an adaptation but it's still a remake
@@Mobysimo OK, they aren't reboots, but if you use the same title people will compare the 2 movies against each other.
@@daniel-zh9nj6yn6y Yea, if they wanted to make it clear it's meant to be closer to the book, why not call it by the book's title or something similar? But then they had to add insult more by having a lame cameo of a three-breasted woman... Like there are no other Martian mutants in the entire movie, what is she even doing except as a lame fan service to people who remember the first movie?
The planet of the apes remake ending was actually closer to the original book, so I can’t be mad at it
100% agree. Was it badly handled.. sure (but so was most of Burton's film)
Right, I got after I thought about it. Thade got to earth in the past and did what generals do. The wormhole moved them through time as well as space
Sure, you have read the book stop with that shit
Plus to be honest I would of hated the movie if it just copied the original films ending. The original film didnt have an explanation to what had happened to Earth so why was such a big deal made about Burtons version not have a twist ruining explanation?
@@SpringtrapLover2010 Nuclear war happened. It was the 60’s, you didn’t have to spell out for people how civilization got destroyed (although I believe the sequels, which I didn’t watch, went into it anyway).
3:59 I still have a soft spot for Zilla. I love the original Godzilla, but I'd be lying if I said I hated Zilla.
Zilla was my first exposure to Godzilla so they will always have a special place in my heart.
The thing with Jaden Smith's character is that he already knows Karate at the start of the film but he was completely out matched by his Kung Fu bullies. So he starts the movie as the "Karate Kid" that needed to learn Kung Fu to beat his bullies.
Basically saying Karate is garbage against Kung Fu. I wonder how the Japanese took that?
Welcome to the new world.... where China owns literally everything. I am not surprised by this plot twist.
Karatebaited, we were.
@@TampaCEO Yeah, pretty much sounds like the CCP paid for that movie. America is really outsourcing everything these days, huh? Even using its popular culture as a vehicle for propaganda.
the entire ghostbusters reboot.
every second of it.
At least that one doesn't take itself seriously and has a mostly parodic tone.
@@nessyness5447 If a comedian doesn't take his jokes seriously, why should I laugh?
@@raymondbrasuell2564 i mean it doesn't intend to be a serious accurate reboot of the original, it's more of a pardoy
@@nessyness5447 and it failed because it didn't take the jokes seriously. It wasn't being funny, it was being obnoxious.
The Thing 2011 isn't a remake, it's a prequel. Also saying it wasn't shot with practical effects is a flat out lie. It was shot with practical effects, but the studio made them cover it up with CGI months before it released.
The video literally explained that the film was originally shot using practical effects.
It doesn't matter what is changed before, all that matter is what gets released. Any changes made throughout does not matter to anybody else barring a few nerds. I'll refer you to the three nerds in The Simpsons as the type I mean.
@@jmmypaddy It does matter that it's a prequel and not a remake though.
They weren't made to do it
@@speedmastermarkiii My mistake, the way things were phrased in the video makes it sound like they were referring to the change from practical effects from the 1982 movie rather than the change mid production.
The entire idea behind Disney changing their stories to put new sympathetic twists on villains is insulting, especially when they turn one previous "good" character evil to allow their previous "bad" character a noble arc. I wanted to see Maleficent act the way she had in the animated film, calculating and cold and interesting, not misunderstood (like every other character that the general public hate in Disney movies)...
Honestly, I don't get the trend of villain movies. "Let's spend several hours watching someone become evil" is just not an engaging premise to me.
All original fairy tales are dark. Sleeping beauty was actually raped while she slept by a married king in the original after her parents abandoned her alone in an empty palace in the woods. He impregnated her and left her to give birth to twins in a coma. So, if anything, Maleficent at least brings a little bit of the lesson back- which was the point of fairy tales in the first place. They were warnings.
@@itsmainelyyou5541 why would you tell a story about sexual assault just for shock value? to satisfy your fetish kink? there is a 3 version of sleeping beauty. the first is the sun, moon and talia where the weird sexual assault happen and the later 2 version Perrault & Grimm version do not contain this version because they realize the mess up thing that was. its a delicate subject that should be handle with thought not just for having a virtue point by implying to it. And what is the message from that suppose sexual assault thing, women should just get sexually assault in their sleep cause all men is bad? you are weird
@@lookbehindyourback6910 What's weird is that you're attributing the story to me, at all. You seem oddly subconsciously triggered by societal perceptions of men. Why would that be? If you need clarification on the history, societal reinforcement and moral implication of folk tales and storytelling, I suggest you Google. There is a wealth of information out there.
When you said “Total Recall” I started salivating from the remakes roasting.
What should have made #2 on the list (a very close call for #1) is virtually every remake of The King & I.
The 1956 Rodgers & Hammerstein classic masterfully executed the most challenging type of plot - Man vs Himself. From King Mongkut's (Yul Brenner's) first meeting with Anna (Deborah Kerr), the audience can feel the King's war with himself - as Kralahome states, "Why are you so blind; have you no eyes to see? King tries impossible task - wishing to be scientific man who know all modern things... He will only tear himself in two, trying to be something he can never be!"
1999's Anna and the King was an abysmal tragedy, particularly Jody Foster portrayal of Anna turning the story into a self-contradicting SJW cringe-fest! The 'romantic subplot' is the worst kind of cloying kitsch, so formulaic audiences could almost set their watches by it. Even Chow Yun Fat's outstanding portrayal of King Mongkut wasn't enough to save this titanic disaster. I used to think it impossible to create a worse remake than animated versions, where they turned Kralahome into an evil wizard complete with bumbling sidekick, but this film proved me wrong.
The 1999 Anna and the King isn’t a remake of R&H’s The King and I (the animated version is only loosely based on the musical). Both, along with the 1946 movie Anna and the King of Siam, are all based on the book Anna & the King of Siam. The 1956 musical movie is also based on the original Broadway production of The King & I. They are not remakes of each other, but different interpretations of the same source material. The book is based on the actual memoirs of Anna Leonowens.
Disney’s original Sleeping Beauty was a remake to begin with and was toned down to make it kid friendly so I can’t agree with that one
I don't remember anything in the original story about a dark anti hero that is justified in putting a girl into an enchanted sleep. I do remember an evil fairy.
Sunshine Bee Disney's animated "Sleeping Beauty" is a film adaptation of the fairy tale, but it's not a remake of another film, as "Maleficent" is.
@@brentparker7359 except Maleficent isn't a remake of Sleeping Beauty, it is more of a reboot or a villain story which includes the other story.
Sutarikun That's true, but it's closer to being a remake than the animated film is. Maleficent's costume evokes the design of the animated character and the scene where she curses Aurora is extremely similar to the corresponding scene in the animated film.
MALEFICIENT wasn't a remake of the original story, it was a reimagining telling the story from her point of view. The pettiness of the reason given in the fairytale sounds like the patriarchal excuse for why a powerful woman would curse the King's daughter - after all, even in Ye Olden Days his saying, "She was my first girlfriend, so I drugged her, date raped her, then cut off her wings so she couldn't retaliate!" Wouldn't have gone over well....
why is it that Disney has decided that female villains need a reason but the male ones are still just evil?
Solid question and my best guess is that Disney is on the women empowerment side.
I don’t obvious see them trying to make us sympathize Jafar or anyone, just Maleficent and Cruella. Even in Mulan 2020, that bird lady was “redeemed” while the other guy wasn't.
I’m sensing some serious issues with that.
Woke Kultur.
Hmm that's interesting I didn't notice that before. I know people do like to see villain backstories so don't know how much that factors into it as well.
It just seemed like the only reason was to make a new film just to make the villain good. I don't really see the point.
The Once Upon A Time series (which clearly draws heavily on Disney) does make you sympathise with both the male and female villains, although it starts to get too preachy on making everything nice and sweet.
To be fair, the female ones are honestly both more common and more interesting in Disney Movies. Would love to see a ‘Scar’ though. What I really wish they’d remake is the Black Cauldron in some form, though I know that’s extremely unlikely.
In the MALEFICENT movie, King Stephen was reimagined as a tyrannical PARANOID King.
And she doesn't turn into a dragon.
I actually don’t mind King Stefan being reimagined as a villain. He was really bland in the original film anyways.
@@hunterolaughlin That moment when being a good person is "bland"
Ye and it was sick and crap.
@@TheR3d3mpti0n as usual these days
You called John Carpenter’s “The Thing” an original, but it was a remake of 1951’s “The Thing from Another World”
No, its an alternate adaption from the book "Who goes there?" None are remakes. we have 2 idependant adaptions and a prequel. It's like with I am Legend/Omega man where some are remakes and some are readaptions.
@@kyleellis9177 Thank you.
Basically every Disney live action remake
Yet another reason Disney sucks.
Totally agree
Dumbo and the jungle book where good. So not every.
@@lunakingsley.7247 - I personally don’t like remake Dumbo, i don’t even remember what happened except remembering Danny DeVito was in it as the guy owning the circus.
And that the kids was super bland and boring. Everything else. Pretty much forgot.
I don’t see how the Maleficent betrayal could be a metaphor for rape. It’s an example of ambitious outweighing friendship. It’s like stabbing a coworker in the back (metaphorically), regardless of the consequences, to advance their career despite being great friends.
Couldn't agree more. Stephan's betrayal was based entirely on ambition. Rape is a very different thing
I'm a little late, but this is the comment I was looking for. They seemed to be reaching quite a bit. I definitely just saw it as a thieving, power-hungry, greedy fool taking advantage of someone who thought he was their friend in order to move up in the world.
He drugged her and did something heinous to her body that she wanted nothing to do with. It's not exactly a big leap.
@@j.a.george9229 put it that way and I can see it. But I still believe it was the betrayal of a friend is what their original idea was
I love the Rob Zombie remake of Halloween. Growing in the decades that had Gacy, Bundy, Dalhmer, and other serial killers on the loose, Zombie’s made sense and it worked.
Thx
I agree, I liked it too.
I'd forgotten how awesome the original Total Recall was.
Just name it The Kung Fu Kid!!!
Yea. I'm pretty sure the >Martial Art< "Kid" naming convention would make most people think of the Karate Kid anyway.
Plot twist: he gets a cold, brings it back. Movie called "The Kung Flu Kid" 😜
The total recall remake is actually closer to the source material than the Arny movie. I actually liked em both.
I like them both, but prefer the remake. I haven't actually read any book about it. You recommend?
Sometimes movies end up being better than the source material. Just take a look at Planet of the Apes. The 1968 ending deviated considerably from that of the book. The 2001 movie copied the book ending and left the audience with their heads scratching as a consequence.
@@darthvader0219 Sadly you really need to explain everything for the general audience. There were several clues that the planet Walberg landed on was not earth and the the wormhole enabled travel through space and time while amplifying the time difference of people and objects entering. LabApe went in 1st, appeared 3rd, Walberg 2nd+2nd (minutes amplified to a week or so), space station 3rd and 1st (? amplified to decades at least). The villain found probably tech on the station after Walberg left and went after him years later, so he and probably some other smart apes landed on earth centuries before walberg and changed history.
No mention of The Stepford Wives? The original with it's beautifully choreographed supermarket scene ending was so horrifying in it's implications. Whereas the remake with it's reversible microchipping was ridiculous.
The Walking Tall remake with The Rock. The original was written, directed, and starred in by the man the story was about, and it got rewritten quite heavily.
What about the insulting remark pointed at Ray Harryhausen in the "Clash of the Titans" disgrace, ejem, I meant "remake"?
I actually liked Halloween by Rob. The thing “prequel “ was
The ok I guess. Every other thing you nailed it right on the head.
I liked Zombie's Halloween too, only thing I didn't like was that the backstory part was way too long for what it showed
Really love Rob Zombie's Halloween. Thought I was crazy after hearing it wasn't well received (which confused me), but watching it again last October proved otherwise. Also really like Orphan, which also wasn't well received.
Lol, after I saw the new total recall a friend asked me if they go to Mars and I said, "nah, they go to Australia." the puzzled look I got was awesome
Correction on your segment about "The Thing". The John Carpenter version was _NOT_ the original, that was directed by Christian Nyby and Howard Hawks back in 1951 with a full title of "The Thing from Another World" based on the story "Who Goes There" by John Campbell Jr. It starred Kenneth Tobey, Margaret Sheridan and James Arness as the monster.
THANK YOU! I couldn't stand how Rob did Michael!
I don't care what anyone says. "The thing" prequel was a good movie.
fun, but I didn't like the woman surviving at the end
The original Haunting is still the most terrifying movie I have ever seen. About the only movies that comes close imo are the Japanese movie Cure and Session 9.
I think the most insulting part of Maleficent was the ending where the narrator says, "You see the fairytale you knew was fake and this is the way it ACTUALLY happened, cause I'm Sleeping Beauty." The fact that they said the beloved classic was fake and Angelina Jolie's glorified vanity project was the ACTUAL story comes off as being really disrespectful to what came before.
True. It's a bad and shoddy version of the old Chinese storytelling technique where the narrator either says this is just a version of what happened, or that while the characters went through something, it didn't happen this way - this is just a metaphor for what actually occurred.
It's used best in English in the work of Cordwainer Smith in his SF stories of the Instrumentality. Since Smith was IRL a scholar of Asian literature and Kang Chai Shek's godson among other things, no surprise.
So basically this list should be called never ever remake a Charleston Heston movie ever lol
Or a Robert Wise movie (The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Haunting).
I enjoyed Rob Zombie's first Halloween. The sequel got a little um, strange though.
I agree completely. Adding a backstory made the character more realistic, and a believable monster is much scarier.
I agree. Some of his movies, meh. Loved devils rejects it tried to watch house of a1000 corpses twice and didn’t finish. The lords of Salem one did get far in that one.
Thank you for including The Haunting! My Mom and I were so disappointed with the remake. We loved the original!
The original ending of _Planet of the Apes_ is so iconic that Mel Brooks parodied it in a scene in _Spaceballs._
I was sorta expecting to see the newest Ghostbusters on this list.....
Wow, this has got to be possibly the best top ten video I've ever seen👍👍.
I can always argue a couple points, I cannot argue with even one on this one, absolute perfection, and you took the words literally out of my mouth on each and every one.
Thankyou for the honesty on each review, totally agreed on all of them, you nailed them all perfectly, huge thumbs up👍👍 .
In the old Sleeping Beauty story, Aurora is woken up by true love's kiss by her twin children.
The children conceived while she was asleep due to the curse, birthed with no one around, survived by crawling their way to her ches then after they were done eating they crawled up and unintentionally kissed her.
I am guessing Malificent's intro was disney's way of incorporating the older story and still have a happily ever after, still using "true love = between mother and child" and not some strange man that "kissed" a sleeping woman.
Evil Dead (2013) - says they don't want to have an 'Ash' type of character while explicitly modeling the Mia character after him in the end.
Technically it's more like an alternate universe where Ash's sister Sheryl winds up being the sole survivor/badass hero....only they changed her name to Mia
Nobody replaces Bruce Campbell.
OK, I think whoever made this list may have gone off the deep end with the last entry. The King didn't rape anyone. He did a chickenshit thing to gain power, sure, no doubt about it, but rape??? NO!!! Again I loved the reimagining of the Sleeping Beauty story! In fact, this version even addressed the creepiness of the original story, when the unconscious 16 year old girl is kissed by a guy she met once!
It was a metaphor for rape. Angelina Jolie has confirmed that
@@leenycallahankhan6966 Angelina Jolie confirmed it? Well, I guess that settles everything...
@@_XR40_ if you’re looking for it to be settled Linda Woolverton said so as well....but she’s only the writer so it’s not like she would know either I guess.....
@@mama-saymama-samamama-ko-s4238 Damn. And here I thought the Brothers Grimm wrote it back in the early 1800s...
In fact, I'm not arguing about the nastiness of the original story (as compared to the Disney version). I'm simply commenting on the absurdity of using a dumb actress as a source for anything...
@@_XR40_ why would it be absurd to cite a source who was actually part of the creative process. Not only did she read the script, not only did she act as the lead character she was also in constant contact with the writer and director of maleficent who knows more than anyone the feelings, thought process and the motivation behind said character. Clearly you don't like Angelina that's on you, you don't have to lord knows I don't care if you do or don't and I'm sure she doesn't either, but that doesn't mean that she's wrong or that what she says doesn't have merit simply because of who she is and what she does. To imply that it does matter because she's a dumb actress honestly says more about you than it does about her.
"About as subtle and scary as a puppy ripping up a roll of toilet paper." Devastating. Also accurate.
In the Halloween remake he was already messed up. Hence the back log of dead animal photos with an added messed up environment. What really ruined it was the way he escape the institute in the director's cut.
The only thing I didn't like about Rob zombies Halloween was the unnecessary s*xual assault scene.
9:10 yeah because usually Keanu shows alot of emotions when he acts. Wink* wink* 😉
I've heard him described as having the emotional range of a fence post. Johnny Silverhand emotes better than Keanu. He seems like a really great guy, though.
@@christopherparks2987 yeah I never thought he was an actual good actor . He just always sounds like stoner Ted. I do enjoy some of the movies he is in regardless of his acting ability.
I swear I’m the only person who liked Godzilla when I watched it as a kid. I was even disappointed when there was no sequel. I even remember the Taco Bell commercial lol
Oh good, I'm not alone lol. You are admittedly the first person I've ever seen admit to liking it.
I liked it as well. I do not understand the hate.
Mainly because the film is trash that was just trying to cash in on Jurassic Park rather than actually making a Godzilla movie...there’s a reason fans refer to that creature/movie as GINO...
The problem is that it _isn't_ a Godzilla movie. Even if people wanted a remake of _Beast From 20,000 Fathoms,_ - They didn't want it when they paid to see Godzilla. It's an okay movie by itself, but it isn't what it claimed to be. People don't like that. Not from politicians, car salesmen or movies...
The original story of The Day The Earth Stood Still has a great twist at the end. Klatuu dies and Gort reveals that he’s not a robot to serve Klatuu, but was Klatuu’s master all along.
Karate Kid was one of those movies made just for Will Smith to try to get his son into movie making. By making him the lead at the cost of making a good movie.
Amen for that
How did Mission: Impossible not make this list?
Because none of them are remakes doofus
The Thing wasnt a Remake.
Isn’t the 2012 Total Recall based more on the original material(book) than the 1990 one.
Karate (空手: Empty Hand) actually stems from the Fujian province's White Crane Style (百鶴派) Kung Fu adopted by Ryukyu islanders.
I'd rather they try new things in a remake, than just straight up copying the original. Where's the point?
I completely agree with you I think people have opportunity with the reboot or remake to add some ideas and some viewpoints that weren't available back when the original was made and I think if people would go into it with open eye and open mind to that fact that they cannot only enjoy it for what it was but also enjoy the new things that's added to it unfortunately so many people get lost in nostalgia that they are looking for the exact same thing that was before but just in a new setting and a true remake or a true and good reboot can take things from the past work and then also incorporate good and wonderful things from the present from now and mash it together to make something really extraordinary and a lot of people just seem to miss that boat and don't appreciate that certain things don't have to be word for word theme for scene for it to be a remake and yeah ironically enough when someone does that then it's also criticized for the same thing hence psycho or ring the ring and things like those that they they heavily almost there's actually a lot of movies that they've done that that almost completely follow seeing by seeing the original movie and then people are just like oh well it's just not as good or why did they make it it's the same exact thing they didn't add anything to it so it's it's trash so I guess that's the whole point of it you damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Why do people ruin most original films by changing so many things in remakes or reboots that have nothing to do with the original stories? Stick with what made any original great in the first place. Though, some remakes are better.
I say just don't do remakes full stop.
@@joleen1463 Exactly. For example, I like some of the Disney life action remakes more than others but the worst by a long shot is lion king cause it's almost a shot for shot remake, which ads next to nothing new. Gimme Mulan any day over that, at least they tried to do something different.
I look at remakes the same way I look at cover songs. There are two directions one can take: go identical, or go completely different.
If you're doing a remake because the tech has finally caught up to the plot, great, do that and stay in your lane.
If you're doing it because you think you can "improve" it, then you need to go wide instead of just like "okay, these two characters aren't related anymore."
I loved the Total Recall remake... Pretty sure they were basing the new version off of the book.
Omg Carpenter's The Thing is one of my all-time fave movies. I had no idea there was a remake. Thank God lol
carpenters thing is a remake of the 50's version, the one shown in this vid is actually a prequel to john carpenters version
8:20 It actually does make sense that General Thade got there first. They showed that the people travelling through the wormhole arrive in reverse order. So the chimp was the first to enter and the last to arrive, and the crew that went through at the end were the first. So, after MC travels through the wormhole, it is implied that thade travels through much later (allowing him to arrive significantly earlier than MC). Now, why does this happen? Who knows. But it IS shown in the movie.
I enjoyed Maleficent. The purpose of the story was to view what could make her evil and want to curse a child. Not all people are born evil. I think they did an amazing job with the story. Honestly, the original story of Sleeping Beauty is much darker like a lot of the other fairy tales that many of these classic movies are based off of.
Like how the king/prince rapes Sleeping Beauty thus impregnating her
Have you read the ORIGINAL Sleeping Beauty? That shit is dark. Aurora gets raped IN HER SLEEP by the Prince. She only awakens AFTER giving birth to twins. Maleficent, in thid way, was MUCH closer to the original story, as opposed to Disney's animated version of Sleeping Beauty. Only instead of Aurora getting raped, it was Maleficent.
She wasn't raped, though. Her wings were severed. Calling it rape is just a lie.
@@christopherparks2987 it's a metaphor for rape
@@jpbaquir5943 a shitty metaphor
Rapunzel got raped, not Sleeping Beauty. Get your stories right before you make dumb comments
@@jpbaquir5943 Metaphor - A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
There's a difference between telling part of a story and then backtracking to provide context, and telling a story and then retconning a backstory that is supposed to change how you view the original story. The first is a legitimate method of story telling, the other is cheap theatrics.
Some of these "remakes" are actually movies that actually accessed the original source material so its different because the first movie was based on the idea and the reboot was based on the actual source
It was titled ‘Karate Kid’ because the ‘Kung fu panda’ studio wouldn’t let them use ‘Kung Fu Kid’. Research?
Omg is that true??
@@alim.9801 I am trying to find the source, it was in a Jackie Chan interview where he said something to the effect of 'I pushed for it be called Kung-Fu Kid but there was another movie series with a similar title and so we couldn't'
This was in response to somebody implying that HE doesn't appreciate the difference between the two martial arts.
Admittedly, I am assuming kung-fu panda because it was around at the same time.
@@alim.9801 No its not true.
Nope
@@alim.9801 no it's not
Everyone complains about the new "Planet of the Apes" ending, ignoring the fact that it is MORE ACCURATE TO THE ORIGINAL BOOK!! Check your sources, WhatCulture! Sheesh!
That doesn't change it being rather... meh.
The books don't matter
That don't matter because we are talking about the movies in this video not boks.
@@loke72 As it is a book adaptation, talking about the source material is entirely relevant to the conversation.
Honestly as a movie buff abandoning practical affects hurts me every day
CGI will get better, and some smart people will use them both in effective combinations before long. Have patience. I trust that CGI will eventually be a good thing, and not utilized at the exclusion of practical effects.
What I learned from this list. Between The Haunting, and The Day the Earth Stood Still, just watch the Robert Wise originals. They still hold up.
Have you read the original “Total Recall”? The remake stays true to the book.