I watched the older version..boring. This was better and funnier, even though some things didn't add up. I'm reading the book now and it's quite good. Anybody agree with me?
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think they're just two totally different movies that happen to share a source novel. The remake is basically a comedy with some mild satire & a suggestion of horror to it, the original is a straight-up nervy horror film addressing the women's rights movement. Personally I don't see much point comparing the two- they're trying for different audiences and different messages.
shareJust finished watching the original movie... and that was a str8 up psychological horror with a grim and nihlistic ending. This one was just a light hearted comedy fantasy. You cant really compare the two films coz they are both in two different genres.
I know one thing baby...you will survive.
In its day, the original was a good film but like many, many horror movies, time hasn't been kind to the '75 version of The Stepford Wives. It's very much a product of the '70s -- the women's lib stuff is outdated, all of the characters smoked cigarettes(!), the movie creeps along at a snail's pace and it feels like a TV movie (though much of the film's content that we wouldn't think anything of today couldn't have made it past the TV network Standards & Practices censors in '75 -- and the film was heavily edited when it aired on TV until the '90s). Still, the original is littered with memorable one-liners and the finale has never been outdone (despite the fact it deviated from the source novel quite a bit).
There's something oddly likable about the remake -- but it's a bad movie. The cast is stellar, the direction and cinematography is exquisite, and much of the campy comedy is pitch-perfect. Unfortunately, they tried to stay true to the original film (like "Willard" around the same time, they merely borrowed from the original movie instead of returning to the source novel) while simultaneously jutting off in a new direction -- which might've worked, but it just doesn't work the way it was executed. I was with it up until the "it's a computer chip implanted in their brains" explanation immediately followed by the appearance of a Nicole Kidman android. If they'd committed to a singular explanation for the behavior of the wives, it would've been a better film, but as it stands it's annoyingly illogical -- and not in a "I can suspend disbelief" sort of way. The flippancy of the screenwriter ruined the film for myself and many others... which is a shame, because there's a lot to admire.
Reportedly the original script intended for them to be robots all along, but there were many last-second rewrites and reshoots giving it an ending that was out of sync with how the rest of the story was presented. Kidman supposedly almost walked because she hated the changes.
Kidman, Midler, Broderick, producer Scott Rudin, and director Frank Oz have all publicly disowned this film. Kidman regards it as an embarrassment, and Oz freely admits that he screwed up royally and feels the finished product is a mess.
Facts need to come before certainty.
I recently watched the original (after having seen the remake first and never reading the book), and while I didn't think the first was boring or bad, I quite liked the remake more.
But I agree with what everybody else has said- the remake is most definitely a comedy, and since I pretty much love comedy more than other genres, it makes sense I like it more.
But it's just WRONG. THE WOMEN DIE. They are replaced with perfect androids. It is a movie that plays to a sick fantasy about replacing your wife with the perfect servant. In the remake, it has this happy ending. They made the remake for women. With a flip of a switch, all the women are back to what they were. But the orginal story is that they can't be brought back. These men sold out their love for a robot. And their wives can't be brought back because they are all dead. That is what made the movie memorable in the lore of horror cinema.
If you make a remake, leave the story alone. And do it the way it was intended.
The original: a classic Ira Levine story movie.
The remake: a very average comedy, with a few brilliant moments (of course, because they are from the original story) and a stupid, disastrous ending.
Any one think the remake is better than the original can be a candidate to be/to have a Stepford wife!
Anyone who likes the remake better is simply a product of modern movies that all have to have happy endings.
This is a dark and disturbing subject and it should have a dark and disturbing ending. But no. Everyone lived and everyone learned a lesson and they all smiled. That's just bad writing and lazy.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
The original is rememberable. The new one will be forgotten just like other remakes of great movies like Poseidon, Assault on Precinct 13 and so on...
sharePoseidon was abysmal. Assault On Precinct 13, whilst not nearly as good as the original, was at least respectable, and quite enjoyable.
Life is just one damned thing after another - Elbert Hubbard
The original movie is okay, but I will proudly admit I like the remake better. The original was too slow and too quiet, especially for a horror movie. Brian Forbes, the director, often made his dramatic movies like that. But, I thought that kind of style was too peaceful for a horror movie.
Frank Oz' remake is zany and energetic, in comparison. Never once did I feel bored or that it was losing my attention. The jokes were hilarious and the cast (no matter what behind-the scenes fighting there might have been) looked like they were having a great time. As icing on the cake, the photography, sets, and costumes were much more state-of-the-art.
And no, I'm not a Stepford Wife for liking the remake better...nor do I want one. The fanatic fans of the original shouldn't push the original down everyone's throat.
funny thing is that by just deleting a few scenes here and there you could make this one just as sinister. Especially if you delete the end and end it in the same place as the old one. :)
shareEmmywins305 you really didn't get the underlying theme of the original did you. The remake is a complete shambles that should have been shot at birth as it panders to those viewers who a) wouldn't know a good movie if it bit them on the arse, b) have the attention span of a sponge, and c) are about as shallow as a tiny tot swimming pool.
The remake is a plastic movie made for vapid tweens who no doubt went on to gush about the "Twilight" movies.
www.scaryminds.com - horror's last colonial outpost.
"Emmywins305 you really didn't get the underlying theme of the original did you. The remake is a complete shambles that should have been shot at birth as it panders to those viewers who a) wouldn't know a good movie if it bit them on the arse, b) have the attention span of a sponge, and c) are about as shallow as a tiny tot swimming pool.
The remake is a plastic movie made for vapid tweens who no doubt went on to gush about the 'Twilight' movies."
Scaryminds: I did understand the original. I never said it was bad, I just said that it was very slow and quiet compared to the remake-hence, not as exciting.
I've only seen the 1st Twilight movie, and while I thought it was okay, I'm not a big fan of it or anything.
You sound like a really arrogant, pretentious a-s who thinks that just because someone likes a remake better than an original that automatically makes them stupid. There are some originals I like better than remakes, but I don't push my opinion down ANYONE ELSE'S throats. YOU may not have liked the remake, but no amount of bullying will get those who love it to change their minds. So, why don't you go watch the original, post on the original, and if you're going to post here, STOP SOUNDING LIKE SUCH A PRETENTIOUS A-S, or keep your mouth shut, please?
And another thing Scaryminds: just because you have your own website doesn't make your opinion anymore valid than mine-so stop trying to imply that it is.
shareKCantu^ "But it's just WRONG. THE WOMEN DIE. They are replaced with perfect androids. It is a movie that plays to a sick fantasy about replacing your wife with the perfect servant. In the remake, it has this happy ending. They made the remake for women. With a flip of a switch, all the women are back to what they were. But the orginal story is that they can't be brought back. These men sold out their love for a robot. And their wives can't be brought back because they are all dead. That is what made the movie memorable in the lore of horror cinema.
If you make a remake, leave the story alone. And do it the way it was intended."
Agree with your comments, especially the last two statements :)
And, in my opinion, if you can't do the story/movie the way it was intended, it is NOT a remake, but a rip-off.
Add to that: Less than first-rate humor, THE major plot device handled incoherently, and the plastered on 'happy ending'...
No way this movie was better than the REAL version.
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois
I agree, IMO the original was a dark and sinister thriller, brilliantly twisted. The remake was a pathetic cuddly insipid mess of a movie.
Life is just one damned thing after another - Elbert Hubbard
Having seen the remake first, then the original - the original is miles better. I'd even say it was better than the book.
While yes, as a general note, the 70's one is dated - the concept still holds true to something I think is even important for us to take care of now: the institution of marriage, and equal rights, for *beep*
I really wanted to like this one... but there were just countless mistakes that ceased to make it good.
Such as...
*SPOILERS!*
*SPOILERS!*
*SPOILERS!*
*SPOILERS!*
*SPOILERS!*
*SPOILERS!*
*SPOILERS!*
*SPOILERS!*
They should've stuck to killing them and making them robots instead of brain chips, Going through and making Joanna a robot, and had the gay couple be split up and given new Stepford Wives. The straight-acting gay thing didn't do it for me. It would've been so much creepier if they gave them new Stepford Wives. Also, they should've stuck with the original names - that really bothered me for some reason
My Imdb, bitch! http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3654116
They should've stuck to killing them and making them robots instead of brain chips
"I'm a hero with coward's legs." - Spike Milliganshare
[deleted]
[deleted]
You must have the attention span of a mouse to say something like that.
I love both. But in terms of real quality the original is clearly superior. I love Nicole Kidman and without the all star cast I probably wouldn't have bothered with it. The original stands on its own whilst the remake revolves around mainstream pop culture appeal. Any idiot could notice that.
The problem with the remake is simple, the story made no sense whatsoever, when writing a script that's the first thing you should do, know you plot, story, and the 3 acts. Yes this one went through changes and re shoots but unless the team were first time film makers (which they were not) you still have to make it make sense.
I’m 32 and love the original, i feel many under that age would not enjoy it because films today move at a much faster pace (especially horror/thriller). The great thing with the original was it captured a time perfectly, women’s lib, the film hung on that movement, and was perfect for doing so.
Of course times have changed thank god so a lot of the social message of the original will be lost on young people today (not their fault). The film also played the build up very well, slow burning but sinister, undertones of something bad happening in Stepford, many of the films from this time period did this, some worked, some did not, Stepford Wives did.
The idea to make the remake a camp parody was not a bad one, i was excited to see what they did with it as i think comedy was the only way to go with it (especially after the dreadful sequels to the original). The problem is though that they spent so much time making it look wonderful and adding so much humour (muh of it worked) that they forgot to mend the story.
I don’t find the remake the disaster that many critics made out, it has much to love, but for all the good it just can’t get past it's problems (robots or micro chips is the biggest one, how they didn’t spot that is beyond me).
On a side note i was lucky enough to see a rough cut of the film before it came out (from its test screening) which i thought was far better (it was very clear that the Wives were robots), its a shame editing and reshoots destroyed it so much.
I think they are just two different films with a theme in common. The original was spooky and sinister and made you feel sorry for the poor victims in it. The newer version tries to pass itself off as a lighthearted comedy but is still a bit sinister.
I think the new film does have the power for converting people. When you see the well-groomed women with their well-groomed houses it makes you feel like a slob who lives in a pigsty. It makes you want to have a bit of a tidy-up even though their standards are unachievable.
And there are men in the present day who try to create this type of lifestyle for themselves. In England there are men who will buy women on the internet from other countries because the women are thought to be more submissive than English women. They don't seem to even care that the woman doesn't speak a word of their language, in fact it's probably seen as a bonus because she can't talk back. Beware! They walk amongst us!