Top 10 Remakes with Worse Special Effects Than The Original
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 01. 2023
- There's really no excuse for these terrible effects! For this list, we’ll be looking at movie remakes that somehow managed to look not nearly as good as the originals despite being made with more advanced special effects. Our countdown includes "Rollerball", "The Witches", "The Haunting" and more! Did we get this one right or does this list deserve a remake? Let us know in the comments below.
Check out these other Watchmojo special effects videos:
Top 10 Best Practical Effects in Horror Movies: • Top 10 Best Practical ...
Top 10 Worst CGI Effects on TV: • Top 10 Worst CGI Effec...
Top 10 Dumbest Uses of CGI in Movies: • Top 10 Dumbest Uses of...
Become a channel member to get access to special perks:
/ @watchmojo
Challenge friends and family on our multiplayer Trivia!
www.watchmojo.com/play/id/60012
Have your idea become a video!
wmojo.com/suggest
Subscribe for more great content!
wmojo.com/watchmojo-subscribe
Visit our shop for awesome merch!
shop.watchmojo.com/
Your trusted authority for Top 10 lists, reviews, tips and tricks, biographies, origins, and entertainment news
#remake #reboot #cgi #specialeffects #worst #godzilla #poltergeist #tmnt - Zábava
Did we get this one right or does this list deserve a remake? Let us know in the comments below.
For more Remake lists, click here!: czcams.com/video/ouqXLxMh_Cw/video.html
missed the nightmare on elm street remake
WM, 2011's "The Thing" wasn't a remake, it was a prequel to 1982's "The Thing."
Actually the thing (2011) is a prequel not a remake
The new IT movies were not great, especially the second half. Worst ending EVER.
@@yermomdotcom1 we talking strictly as movies or the effects? the IT remake effects weren't bad
The problem with this is The Thing (2011) isn't a remake but a prequel. They should have marketed it as such.
Lesson to be Learned: Some movies do NOT need to be remade.
This! Also. If Hollywood wants to do a remake. Why not a failure movie when it first came out. Try make it better today. Instead of hijacking the already memorable IP.
@@manchesterunitedno7 I agree with you on that (😉). Unfortunately, many in Hollywood have this mindset that if a failed film bombed the first time, it'll bomb again if they attempt a remake. Well, that _won't_ be the case if there's competent, professional, and talented people behind said remake.
@@manchesterunitedno7
Absolutely agree with you. I wish they remake/restart hopeful flops like Eragon, Timeline, Cutthroat Island, etc...they don't have to be mega-budget project, just the well-made from-the-heart movies that those stories truly deserve...
@@LadyVoldemort I thought they gonna try redo Eragon as streaming show. Haven't heard anything for awhile though.
Cutthroat Island perhaps need a remake. But we already have some good pirates from The Pirates of Carribean, to Black Sails show, and more recently, Our Flag Means Death.
@@LadyVoldemort I for one think Cutthroat Island is fine just the way it is.
You should've had the nightmare on elm street remake on here. They took one of the most iconic scenes, when Freddy tries to go through wall as nancy sleeps...and made it a CGI mess. The original was so scary and all it was, was SPANDEX! then the remake screws it up and makes it some crap CGI. Also freddy as a "realistic" burn victim in the remake looked terrible.
Yes the special effects back then were better than the now CGI. Also the scene of the bleeding bed in the original was filmed upside down and looks better!!!
I feel like this video is an example of how our over reliance on CGI has made movies feel less impactful.
Yes you are 100% correct
It can looks amazing with a high budget and time. Not Cheap and rushed
There actually was a push to go with practical effects for 2011's The Thing, but unfortunately it was vetoed at some point during production and they turned to CGI. You can find pictures of the models and puppets that were in development, and it's a crying shame that they were abandoned.
Wait isn't The Thing 2011 a prequel not a remake
@@richardperaza5083 It's a prequel to the original.
The same with Will Smith's I am Legend. It was actually already half way done with practical effect on the undead, with CGI enhancement. But, somehow, somewhere. Out all of the infinite wisdom, they thought full blown the CGI is better. The rest is history.
It was already filmed with practical effects. They actually CGed over it after the studio demanded it
@@SavageP.9000
Actually it's a prequel for the Carpenter's REMAKE of the 50's original
The Old version of John Carpenter's "The Thing" from 1982 is still insanely creepy even though it's 40 years old, but that's just my humble opinion
That's the magic of practical effects.
It's that old?
The scene were the old man lost his arms still scare me to date!!! And yes those special effects are way better than CGI!!!!
@@zachtwilightwindwaker596 yes, in that case I'm too hehe I was born that year
@@mgsxmike yes and more convincing that the CGI. Why they asume is better with that???
Why "Ben-Hur" was remade in the first place is a waste of an idea. How can you remake a movie that won 11 Oscars and have the slightest thought of people possibly going to see it? Might as well be remaking "Titanic".
They probably wanted to profit off a modern version even though the original still holds up. That and Hollywood has run out of ideas or else they wouldn't keep making sequels and prequels and taking books and hoping the next film/tv show hits and makes them a lot of money so they can milk it dry.
@@noyou9379 there's no such thing as an original idea
Can't wait for the pulp fiction remake
Ben-Hur has been remade no less than five times.
Well, there was a Titanic 2.
The Thing, over 40 old, and probably still the best sci fi horror movie ever made.
Well done mr Carpenter
7:44 - To make things even more embarrassing for the producers of The Haunting was that this $80 million epic was upstaged by the $65,000 Blair Witch!!
I'm proud to say that between the two movies, I only saw The Blair Witch Project in theaters.
It proved money is not all is how you make it!!! And Blair Witch Project was way scarier.
I never could stand Blair witch project. I can respect the marketing but never liked the movie
@@shaneriggs6678
Same here. I respect the idea, but cannot stand the shaky camera thing. 😅 I have never watch it whole in one sit, always fall asleep/nauseated or just went straight to the ending... There's only a few found footage movies that I truly liked.
Yeah, I’ll never forget going to see Blair Witch but it was sold out so I was stuck watching The Haunting which we could tell by the trailer that it would suck. The only reason why anybody saw the Haunting on opening weekend was because so many people couldn’t get tickets for Blair Witch that weekend. What made it worse for me was that the truth/mystery of Blair Witch not being based on real tapes was spoiled by the time I got to see it.
Thanks for doing lists like this. It's so cringe, frustrating, and disheartening how so many filmmakers don't understand or appreciate practical effects. And not only rely so heavily on CG. But don't fundamentally grasp it so they can't give direction on how to make the results look better. And when to use or not use it and go with practical effects instead.
A good rule of thumb is if you can do it practically (within reason), do so. Like shooting on location, or with minimal green screen in the distant background of very large sets, small scale, animatronics, prosthetics, puppetry, etc.
And only use CG where you absolutely have to. Don't use computers as a crutch but merely as an enhancement tool.
I call it digital minimalism and this approach is a smarter, much more effective method than these directors and so many others have continued to employ.
money. I still find it crazy that back then they had to go w/ practical cause computers were that expensive. Now the opposite is true.
@@thecunninlynguist Did you mean to say practical effects are more expensive than CGI now?
If so, besides normal inflation, the cost of practical effects hasn't increased greatly. And are usually less than CGI for many effects.
For instance, in the film "Moon" the CGI artists quoted the director at hundreds of thousands to do the moon shots and rover sequences digitally.
But when the small-scale/model designer give his company's quote for the same work, it was literally 10x less remaining only in the 5-figure range.
The director actually thought there was an error and the model effects company had omitted a zero at the end. But ofc this was not the case.
So the director went with them. And those shots turned out to look incredibly realistic and great.
CGI has come a long way and is still an indispensable filmmaking tool. I just wish directors would approach it more intelligently by using it more sparingly.
More Nolan and Villeneuve style. And less DCU and prequel George Lucas CGI gluttony.
one of the reasons Blade Runner 2049 was such a great sequel was due to the huge sets they built and just used CGI to fill out the backgrounds in the main
I wonder if this is a big reason why Aragog from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was more scary than his kin? Aragog was this big, menacing pressence made entirely out of practical effects, while his kin were CGI. And then there is the Basilisk which utilizes both at times. Although... I feel like it's less effective with the Basilisk since, when you see that giant puppet come in as Harry's slashing away at it, it looks kind of goofy.
@@nick4810 Exactly. Villeneuve shot on location in real places and just used green screen in the background to crop out what he wanted to enhance digitally.
Like in the junkyard sequence where he shot at a real location outdoors among real debris as you would in an actual junkyard. Then he just used green screen in the distance to replace it in post with a digital extension of the location.
Nolan does this too. I wish every director was a digital minimalist like them.
They could have left The Witches alone. 🤦🏽♀️
I loved the original and was holding out hope for the new one. As soon as the snake scene came on, all that hope was thrown out of the window... the CGI was atrocious and story lackluster in comparison.
@@39gaythan39 yes Anjelica Huston with practical effects and make up looks way better and scarier!!!!
*Um....2011's "The Thing" was not a remake, it was a prequel to the 1982 version....*
they should've had a better title than piggybacking off of John Carpenter's film
true , but it was still crappy.
Yes the 1982 with practical effects looks way better. That scene were a man lost his arms still scare me to date!!!
@@manueltapia1859 ''CLEAR!!''
@@rustythecrown9317 thanks
The Witches remake facial effects look a lot like MIleena from Mortal Kombat.
Hahaha is true. Hooray for Anjelica Huston original witch way more better and scarier
That's true.
The Omega man was actually a remake of an earlier film called "The Last Man On Earth" (1964) starring Vincent Price. Based on the story by Richard Matheson (also called "I Am Legend" ) it is far more faithful to the book than any of the remakes and was, according to George Romero, one of the insperations for "Night Of The Living Dead." While it has it's flaws (terrible sound and dubbing) it is still worth watching for it's good acting (from Price) and incredibly moody atmosphere.
In defense of the team behind the 2011 Thing prequel, that wasn't their fault. It was Universal's. They CG'd their practical effects behind their back. :/
I heard of this.... from Corridor I think?
Carpenter's version of The Thing was also a remake from - The Thing from Another World (1951) with James Arness as the thing
Yes but really was a good one, as Ben Hur 1959 from a 1920s original, as The Bat 1959 from the 1926 original
The Thing From Another World(1951)👍🏾👍🏾🥰
Jim Henson was the Best [art of some of those films we can't get back.
The Thing 2011 wasn't a remake, it was a prequel
This should be the highest rated comment.
Also, 1982's The Thing is a remake itself.
@@superpaul79 I'm still obsessed with the series, I feel like there should be more. I heard the ps2 game is the official sequel for the thing 1982.
But the 1982 remake is way more better with special effects and practical effects than this bad prequel
I knew it would be #1 on this list, but I actually enjoyed both movies...
Hathaway's Grand High Witch would actually make for a cool cinematic version of the Japanese ghost the Slit-Mouth Woman
Oh yes it looks like that story. I'm keeping with Anjelica Huston original way better and scarier, Jim Henson was better in that effects
Slit-Mouth Woman idea gave me the creeps (when I read it in mangas as teenager), but when I watched the movie (Japanese) I got disappointed. Anne Hathaway's version actually can fill the Slit-Mouth Woman's shoes better IMO...
American Werewolf in London. I’ll never forget my dad showing me that movie and saying, “this is the best werewolf transformation scene ever”. Practical effects are godly. Also the reason i threw up at Hellraiser and will never watch again 🤢😂
The more recent “Witches” looks very creepy. For the record, “The Omega Man” is also a remake: of “The Last Man On Earth” from 1964 starring Vincent Price.
Well technically, 2011 "The Thing" is a prequel to the 1982 movie.
Thank you for the update, WatchMojo..!! There was also a silent movie version of Ben-Hur. 🤣
Paramount should let TIM MILLER direct the next live-action TMNT reboot
He understands CGI like none other
ugly sonic still exists
Sad thing about the thing remake is they actually made a load of real effects but the producers replaced them with cgi as they thought today's audiences would prefer that
Not me, it looks awful like The Rock in the Mummy Returns 2001 so unreal. Hooray for the real effects!!!
"Who goes There?" was a short story by Richard Matheson. The first film version features James Arnes as the titular creature. He would go on to portray Sheriff Matt Dillon in the "Gunsmoke" TV series for about 3 decades.
The John Carpenter film is a science fiction masterpiece, but it's not the original.
Having seen both, I don't understand why another version is necessary.
I actually really like the Broderick Godzilla - it was an interesting take on a man in a corny rubber suit stomping models , dontcha think ??
It was the movie from my childhood, I watched it countless times as a teenager in the 90s. No matter how bad people said it was, I hold that movie dear to my heart. 😊❤ (I admit I have no sentimental feelings for the original Japanese ones, as I never watched any of them).
I do this with most Emmerich movies, even to the corniest ones. Maybe I just like the guy's "disastrous" ideas.
Nitpick: Despite having the same title, the 2011 "The Thing" wasn't a remake. It was a prequel, with the ending leading directly to the events of the 1982 movie.
2011's the thing is not a remake. It is a prequel depicting the events at the Norwegian outpost base that carpenters crew finds in the eighties film.
I wish Hollywood could just stop with all these unnecessary remakes.
How 'bout the well-over-the-top 2005 version of King Kong? Those effect were WAY to flamboyant! I much prefer the jerky stop-motion of the 1933 original! Or even the guy-in-an-ape-suit of the 1976 guilty-pleasure remake...!
Sarcasm?
@@ThePrinceofHisOwnKingdom NOT sarcasm! Dead serious! I thought the 2005 version of King Kong tried WAY too hard. I still prefer the early 3D animation of the original! And, while I admit the '76 remake is corny it's still one of my guilty pleasures... even though it IS a guy in a gorilla costume (70s special FX wiz Rick Baker, to-be-exact...)!
@@l.salisbury1253 Then that's just preferences. You can't say the more realistic CGI effect to look worse than stop motion from the 1930s or guy in rubber suit from 70s.
Thank yall for going back to top 10 videos. The top 20 videos was just a bit too much. I prefer 10 - 13 minutes videos of part 1, 2 and 3.
The Witches was perfect the way it was, so I'm not even going to watch the new one. XD
Just to point out The Thing is a prequel not a remake
"I Am Legend." Starring The Fresh Prince and rejects from the Gollum casting call.
This why that called First Installment Wins that of those works are most well-known or considered the best
👍👍👍.
EXCUSE ME WATCHMOJO: I’m soooo sorry you didn’t enjoy the cg in The Witches. I looooooved the movie, especially having it rooted in New Orleans, it’s a Kenya Barish production, and the main characters felt like family to me, I felt represented. At the end of the day, that was more important to me then perfect practical effects. Sorry you couldn’t get passed it because Anne Hathaway and Octavia Spencer were superb. I’m proud to see what they did with this iteration of the film, the cg just made it fun.
Sigh 😢
It's interesting that the running theme in the list is practical effects over CGI.
Ironically, “The Thing” is a remake
So was Ben-Hur'59.
@@darthpandinus1746 yes! and Scarface
Oh yeah...add in Willy wonka. the remake's reliance on 2005 CGI was yuck.
Gene Wilder one is still a classic
The thumbnail is so creepy to watch!
I like I AM LEGEND and GODZILLA (1998) and I love BEN-HUR (2016). The infected in I AM LEGEND may have some CGI problems, but they’re still scary as hell and I don’t see anything wrong with the visual effects in BEN-HUR.
I liked them too. I bet if these weren't remakes but instead the original, they might have been received better.
Godzilla 98 is hated because it is a fucking disgrace to the Godzilla name. There’s a reason Toho bought the rights to it, renamed that abomination ‘Zilla, and promptly killed it in Godzilla: Final Wars and have declared it will never be used again. And Toho is perfectly fine with Legendary Godzilla and has reinvented Godzilla 3 separate times with success since 2016 (Shin and both anime versions). Godzilla ‘98 was just trash.
Please watch the 1959 Ben Hur and you will see why is a clasic and won 11 Academy Awards!!!
@@manueltapia1859 you spelled classic wrong and the 1959 movie is 5 hours long.
@@JohnSmith-qp7xu to each their own, but the MonsterVerse is way better than the 1998 movie.
At least we got a better Godzilla reboot in 2014.
As far as creature effects are concerned, CGI doesn't hold a candle to practical. Look at the scene from predator where it takes off its mask in front of dutch and tell me different
The worst part of the 1998 Godzilla was that they couldn't even be consistent with the size of the damn thing.
Best part was the soundtrack. By far
Far too often film makers use cgi when practical effects work so much better
The Thing The Special Effects in the original were leagues ahead of the remake.
*prequel.
Terminator Genisys (2015) Saw That Movie On Opening weekend least favorite Terminator and I love Dark Fate regardless of it flopping
not a remake
Killing John Connor as a kid erases Skynet's existence. Dark Fate is one giant plothole filled with lesser plotholes.
I would also put the remake of "Moby Dick" to the list. The CGI-Whale that hunts Patrick Stewart looks way worse (i. m. o.) than the model of the 1950s Original, which had some old fashioned charme so to speak.
The 1998 is the one you are talking about???
Forgot:
A Nightmare On Elm Street,
Ghostbusters, Robocop, Pet Semetary....oh, and Footloose.
what special effects did the Pet Sem remake have? Although when they go to the grave yard or whatever that place was did look pretty terrible...but it's been a while since I've seen it
What special effects would Footloose have?
@@fromthehaven94 It has no Kevin Bacon.
I remember being so excited for "i am legend" and even during the movie I was so happy... until the CGI monsters showed up. Jesus, what the fuck were they thinking?
Too bad The Mummy 1999 vs. The Mummy 2017 isn't on the list. Not even Robocop 1987 vs. Robocop 2014.
But just damn. Now that I have seen Huston 's High Grand Witch as a puppet, I can tell Henson went to the extreme on the creepiness. Luckily his take on the Ninja Turtles were and still faithful but... The Witches '90 is just unsettling but that is what made that film work, but still unsettling and unnerving.
The Thing was little unfair to take in to this because it is not a remake but a explanation how it went down before the dog ended up in US camp
How am I not surprised that number one was the theme 2011 lol. Not a horrible film but like the remake of I Am Legend(I haven't seen the other films) had really distracting cgi. Had no idea Jim Henson did TMNT 1990. That's why I don't care for remakes.
It will be a long time before CGI will ever beat practical effects
The thing 1982 is a remake itself..
0:25 I guess the Disney remake of Pinocchio won't be on this list then. The CG in that sucks.
I don't know why so many movies resort to CGI these days. If it can be done well practically then it should be done that way. The Witches is a good example of that. The Witches look creepier in the original. They just give them silly looking mouths and bald heads in the remake.
I am Legend is a remake? 1:49 That would explain why I didn't know that. The title is completely different and I have not seen it. My mom has.
It's impressive the TMNT was made independently since all major studios turned it down. It was the highest grossing independent film at the time. The turtles in the remake look weird. 3:16 I don't think it's the mask that scared her.
4:29 She sounds like a kid.
The Nostalgia Critic reviewed the new version of "The Haunting". Oh, this is no contest. The old version wins!
Unless I missed it entirely, you didn't show any footage from the original ROLLERBALL in your comparison with the more recent film.
The 2011 version of the thing was a prequel not a remake.
They should make a live-action TMNT movie that has the same treatment as the Sonic movies.
they did
@@jimbo9208 Is it the Mutant Mayhem movie?
While your correct about the thing 2011’s effects compared to John Carpenter’s I don’t think it should be on this list. 2011’s “The Thing” is a prequel that’s ending goes straight to the the opening of John Carpenter’s it’s not a remake
The teaser trailer for The Haunting was better than the movie itself and it shows zero footage from the actual movie.
@9:00 the 2011 "The Thing" was a prequel, not a remake
Just goes to show, you just can't beat the old classics.
P.S. Should've added the Blob movies to this list.
Think this all depends on when you watch the movies. The haunting was terrifying to me at the age of 12. Poltergeist was never scary
Old school techniques, especially in horror films… looked more real than todays cgi. Crazy. For example: the fly is scary because how nasty the visual effects are. Whereas, when u see a movie today…. Although the cgi looks cool…. We CAN TELL it’s fake. It loses its “umph”. The 8:09 cgi is almost too good that we can tell it isn’t real.
i actually liked the tmnt 2014/16 cgi. i thought it was well done.
Yeah, that's what I thought. The design is what's off.
2011’s The Thing is NOT a remake. It’s a prequel, even they knew they couldn’t top the original.
Practical effects > CGI
At first I thought, "Don't you dare do The Thing dirty." and then I realized you were actually gonna talk about the remake(which I haven't seen). You have not made an enemy today.
it's not a remake. it's a prequel. well worth a watch (despite the shockingly bad cgi) as it leads directly into the start of the 80s "the thing"
Ghostbusters 2016 had cartoonishly bad CGI effects compared to the brilliant practical puppetry of the original.
The Thing 2011 is a prequel not a remake but yes the effects don't live up to the 1982 one.
I Am Legend could have been one of the best zombie movies of all time if they had used practical effects (not cartoon looking zombos). It just took the scary away. Always bothers me as a biology major that the creatures get stronger too. I mean maybe a little? These damn things are crawling walls and flipping cars. From a damn virus? Just gives them too much of a supernatural feel. This is why 28 Weeks/Days Later is so good, more real and terrifying.
Ok….. no….. American Werewolf in London should have been on this list, if not number 1. Jeeeeeez you guys
Amazing video of the worst special effects in remake movies then the original movies watch mojo,fantastic job. I kind like enjoy the remake of the fog movie.
11. An American Werewolf In Paris
(Remake of An American Werewolf In London)
The orginal had one of the greatest transformation scenes in film history, without any CGI. The remake looks like a dated computer game.
they looked like goblins instead of werewolves
It: Chapter 2 was full of cheap and laughable CGI. Especially when Bevvy went to see Mrs. Kersh
They’re remaking Casablanca with Steven Seagal and Amy Schumer in the leads.
In this list. There can be WAY MORE THAN TOP 10.
Godzilla 1998 movie is pretty good
I ENJOYED BOTH TMNT MOVIES!
The only WatchMojo lists that need remakes are the one-hit wonder lists; because most of the entries are generally very inaccurate.
do you even know what one-hit wonder means
2014 tmnt don't have heart that early movies had
I'm actually expecting Indiana Jones Kingdom of the Crystal Skull compare to the OG trilogy of the 80's
Most Horror and Sci Fi movies are way too dark. Can’t see what’s going on.
The original make up of Anjelica Huston is better and really scary!! Why they think use so much CGI is better??? Like in the original Nightmare 1984 the wall scene where Freddy is there looks way better than the remake
The thing was actually a prequel. Still no where close the original.
Hollywood thinks THE FANS want a remake of Starsky & Hutch.. with FEMALE STARSKY. smh seems like most movies post-2009 are rubbish
I'm only on number 8 but I'm just gonna go out on a limb and say that none of these movies needed remakes. Just don't remake The Princess Bride and nobody will get hurt.
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) has some really bad CGI
Your # 1 is a remake of a remake so I guess the 3rd time is not always the charm.
The Omega Man is NOT the original to I Am Legend. Last Man On Earth with Vincent Price is.
Some of these remakes, effects-wise, look fine for the time when they were made.
Some movies just shouldn't b rebooted. Although it does have today's generations be aware, by have them all curious that after they c this, they'll look it up and say the og was better, alright then points to that. Some reboots r better, The Omega Man is a remade of The Last Man on Earth 1964 film, and The Thing ta The Thing from Another World 1951, since the alien there was more of a green skinned (when colorized) Frankenstein plantman. Carrie of 2013 was also good as it had the same lvl of violence's as in the book. Some remakes r good and some aren't. It's all a matter of who's in charged and how they do it.
There was a colorized version of The Thing from Another World?
Some people have a thing for bad movies tho.
Poseidón (2006)
Star Trek (2009)
Dredd (2012)
La mosca (1986)
Dune (2021) de Denis Villeneuve
La princesita (1995)
@YTMojo_T.elegram Of course with good visual effects.
NOBODY, AND I MEAN NOBODY CAN REPLACE HEATHER IN MY HEART! SHE WILL ALWAYS BE CAROL ANN FREELING TO ME! It was CGI with a Dash of Practical, You see back in the 80s CGI was a Tool and NOT a Deus Ex Mechina like it is today, just a Tool like CATS 2019.
I'm sure it's already been said, but I want to point out that the thing 2011 is not a remake, it is a prequel to the John Carpenter remake.
Original Witch: Nightmare Fuel Creature
Remake Witch: Mileena