For starters, its hard to call the newer one a remake. Yes it has the same plot and all, but things are totally different in the newer one. There is no dad, she isn't into water skiing, shes into music. So really, its hard to compare the two and really call the newer one a remake. I do think the newer one is better though. It was interesting to see Jodie Foster as a kid though.
http://www.beatmydrum.com/ ... check it out
I haven't seen the original in a long time. I have the original book in the house.
I also like the 2003 remake. I didn't see the 1995 remake. I love the family especially Lindsay Lohan, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Christina Vidal. (Lindsay Lohan is my celebrity crush who is a great actress and singer.)
Hard to say. Maybe the 2003 remake because I'm more familiar. I've seen the original version. I think it was boring but you never know? I would want to try to see it again.
OLD THREAD
www.beatmydrum.com/. check it out
www.myspace.com/lastshotmusic
i was raised with the original, so when the remake came out- i refused to see it, and have stuck with it.
as far as i'm concerned, nothing could beat it, and i won't waste my time seeing a poor attempt at it.
The 2nd remake was best because its more relative to this day and generation and because its more extreme than the originals.
shareI was hoping Jodie Foster would have been in the remake instead of Jamie Lee Curtis.., just so she could say the line, "Oh, no. Not again!"
--or--
"Here's a switch!"
So many people I speak to who have seen both films (I've actually seen both films and the TV version with Shelley Long and Gaby Hoffman) wonder why I prefer the original Jodie Foster film. As in why do I think it's the best out the three?
Well I watched Freaky Friday when I was about eight or nine, and that's when I became a fan of Jodie Foster. It's not that I didn't like the other two versions of the film, and Lindsey Lohan and Jamie Lee Curtis both turned in fantastic performances, I just happen to think that, despite being dated and all the obvious errors, no remake or TV version can compare with the original. It's funny and endearing and so what if the characters are all a bit dopey and the plot's not up to much? I love this version of the movie and I think if you truly appreciated what comedy and family is about you'll prefer this one too.
I have to say that I've watched both films quite a few yimes and I can't decide between the two. I just think that they are so different (not in the underlying concept) but in the way things pan out, in the interests and what happens (eg with the stepdad and the music thing). If you put a gun to my head and told me to choose a favourite I'd have to say it would be the original mainly because I love Jodie Foster. I think that both versions are very funny, very different and fab in their own way.
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
oringal: 1000000000000000% better!
shareOk usually the original ones are the ones that i like most times but i think i would go for the remake on this movie
The original one is MUCH better. I saw the original as a kid, and I saw a good portion of the remake on television and I thought it just sucked.
I don't want realism. I want magic!
I liked the Original better.
shareJamie Lee Curtis was very funny in the new one but I say original because come on you've got Jodie Foster and then you've got Lindsay Lohan. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who is better in every way. And also Lohan was so not convincing when she was acting adult. Jodie is more talented, smart and mature and the best child actor ever! And she was way cooler than Lohan is in the movie.
"I've always depended on the kindness of strangers"
I prefer the original, no doubt. But I have to say the remake got a better script, neater, funnier and without incestuous potential(it is embarrassing to see how the wife, with the daughter inside, couldn't even kiss the husband in the original).
shareThis whole debate is kind of silly, because movie-making and acting have changed so much over the years. Both movies are valid for their era. The actors in both versions do a great job. If the older one seems a bit tame and dated, it is no worse than any of the other Disney movies of the time.
As a teenager I loved the original. As a parent of teens, I adore the new version. I have to say I identify more with Jamie Lee Curtis than Barbara Harris, but they both did a fine job of channeling a teenager.
Furthermore, I would not call the 2003 version a "remake" so much as an "update". A story about a mother-daughter relationship in today's world must reflect the changes in society. Besides, I can think of nothing duller or more pointless than a faithful copy of a movie. What would be the point? Vive la difference, I say!
[deleted]
I like them both alot but I prefer the newer one.
It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.
First, I like how about half of the posters just said, in not so many words, "Omg the original/remake was better, you're stupid if you disagree"
That's nice. Contributes so much to the dialog. Thanks for that. You're the reason the internet sucks.
But to move on to relevant issues...
They are so different, I don't think you can judge them on the same plane
I think the main difference is that remake came in the era of movies geared specifically towards the tween set. Back when the original was made the market didn't really cater to that demographic. It was either for adults, young adults, children, or "fun for the whole family," the last of which the remake fell into. "fun for the whole family" wasn't meant to be 'hip'.
The remake, however, while being a family movie, was specifically geared towards tweens. So, it was a lot hipper, bringing in elements such a rock music, fashion, a lot more emphasis on the whole boy thing, etc.
Long story short, the remake earns points for style, while perhaps the original earns more points for substance, being the original and all. It is rather lacking on style, but that was the era.
As far as the mother goes, a housewife really isn't so relevant today. While I thoroughly respect full time mothers (god knows I would never want that job, I'd never be able to handle it), this is the age of girl power, we can do everything men can, screw traditional gender roles, and as such it makes sense that the film-makers would put the mother in a "successful career woman" role. We really are living in a time where many of the aspects of society is geared towards (sorry I'm using that word so much) empowering girls, and a house wife isn't generally viewed as an empowering role.
Which one is better? Can't say. I do however think I had more fun watching the remake. With either one, I don't think you'd pick it up looking for a truly meaningful cinematic experience, but just for some light entertainment that won't make you think too much. As far as light entertainment goes, the remake wins, especially in todays world. The music aspect is really what makes it a win in that sense.
And if any of you brilliant people want to take a jab at my stupidity and poor taste in movies, just quit while you're ahead. Some of my personal favorites include The Graduate, Bringing Up Baby, Mr Smith Goes to Washington, the original Star Wars trilogy (hey, I won't deny it, wookies rock) MASH, Life of Brian, both Producers (original with Gene Wild and the musical with Matthew Broderick)...
The remake is enjoyable as well, but it can't touch the original. I just saw it today on TCM and remembered why I love this movie so. I wasn't even born when this version came out, but I relate to it so much more and I love the relationship between Anabelle and her mom. Also, all the supporting cast is a hoot too. I mean John Astin is too funny.
shareI think the original is great, but I honestly prefer the remake.
share