Does it bother you when they remake one of your favorite movies? Why?

[Dexter2999]

Having seen the original versions of LET THE RIGHT ONE IN and GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, I didn't bother seeing either remake.

And to me Noomi Rapace will always be Lisbeth Salander.

We Americans do take a heavy hand on foreign films. And language is no excuse to be honest. There was no excuse for dubbing Mel Gibson's voice in MAD MAX. There was no reason to make TO WONG FOO LOVE JULIE NEWMAR, when PRICILLA QUEEN OF THE DESERT was a wonderful film already.

Hollywood figures they can just remake a movie (or TV show) that they target directly at American audiences and make a boatload of cash while demonstrating limited creativity. Let's be honest CONTENT IS KING IN HOLLYWOOD. Who has the next hot property? Even if you are a director, producers are asking if you have an idea for a movie. Well, if you are a new director anyway. Once you have made your mark, I'm sure it's not the same. Then again many successful directors and actors have their own production companies.

New ideas do get made. Many of them are low budget, independent films. This is because the Hollywood machine doesn't want to pour tens of millions into unproven ideas/unproven quantities (talent, directors, stories). When you are spending this considerable amount of money you have to be responsible in keeping the return on investment in mind. Or else you would find yourself out of a very prestigious, very well paying job.

And who wants to get kicked out of the cool club?

 

[Deacon]

With the advanced pace of technology, especially CGI for sets and transformations and action sequences of ships/men/armor/weapons/beasts, its surprisingly cheaper for the industry to actually make films, so why not give all those untold stories a shot? Frankly, Im tired of seeing remakes, there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of stories that are originall and still, somewhat unique. Yes, reboots can turn out to be quite amazing, BSG was one of them. Captain America was done in film and tv and finally back to the big screen...simply amazing the amount of effort poured into it. Superman and other Heros rebooted as well, but what happened to the new and untried? I would really love to see INVINCIBLE hit into tv series as well as others. It all comes down to the quality of the production. GI JOE was just sad. So much more could have been done, but it is what it is. Money is the driving force. Im sure HALO and MASS EFFECT movies are a coming. Hell, even WARCRAFT. I guess in the end, you choose what version you want to associate with. Niether version is right or wrong, just a different perspective that is subject to interpretation by the masses. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt.

 

[JD]

Having seen the original versions of LET THE RIGHT ONE IN and GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, I didn't bother seeing either remake.

Your loss. You missed out on some exceptional films due to your prejudices.

It's too bad you doubt your conviction in the originals to see the remakes and (potentially) enjoying them for what they are. It's unfortunate your mind isn't open enough to see what might be different, better or worse.

You can complain about the Americanization of these but that appears to be the only way to get the masses to see these films. I don't blame Hollywood one bit for doing this. It makes them money and hopefully it might get some people to check out the originals.

 

[Solo4114]

Your loss. You missed out on some exceptional films due to your prejudices.

It's too bad you doubt your conviction in the originals to see the remakes and (potentially) enjoying them for what they are. It's unfortunate your mind isn't open enough to see what might be different, better or worse.

I can't speak for Dexter, but for me at least, the phenomenon isn't a question of being open-minded, nor is it a matter of "conviction in the originals." For me, it's some kind of emotional tie that I have trouble describing, and which either lessens or goes away altogether when an entry in the series shows up that I don't like. And yeah, I actually really wish this wasn't the case for me. It sucks when you take a chance on a film, and it actually makes you like the original LESS as a result.

This isn't the case with remakes, usually. And I recognize that makes zero sense. Like, why would a remake of a movie I love not bother me as much as a bad sequel/prequel/side story about the same characters starring the same actors? I guess it's the continuity aspect and the fact that this is now the "official" story, whereas a remake is just the same film (or a similar one) with different actors.

You can complain about the Americanization of these but that appears to be the only way to get the masses to see these films. I don't blame Hollywood one bit for doing this. It makes them money and hopefully it might get some people to check out the originals.

I don't really buy into the "And they'll go watch the originals" argument much. I expect most people will ignore the originals altogether, particularly if they don't like the American version, and particularly if they're younger viewers. I mean, that's neither here nor there, of course. Whether they watch the original or don't doesn't really matter much to me. I just don't think it's the case that it happens all that often.

Like, if someone did a movie about a hired gun who pits two rival crime families against each other, and set it in some futuristic sci-fi setting, I doubt you'd have a lot of kids going back and re-watching Last Man Standing, A Fistful of Dollars, or Yojimbo. Or if they did, they'd just be like "Dude, this is boring. There's no sploshuns!" (well, maybe not with Last Man Standing)



Anyway, side question here. For those who are in no way bothered by remakes, what would you think if, say, some absolute classic film was remade? Would it bug you? I'm talking Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Godfather, The Searchers, Citizen Kane, something like that. Would you be bothered by it? Or would you not care?

Personally, I'm on the fence about that. I'd be bothered at the hubris involved in remaking a classic, and I'd be bothered that it was money spent on something that did NOT need to be done rather than something else new and interesting....but otherwise, I don't know I'd care that much. It really WOULDN'T affect the original.

 

[JD]

I can't speak for Dexter, but for me at least, the phenomenon isn't a question of being open-minded, nor is it a matter of "conviction in the originals." For me, it's some kind of emotional tie that I have trouble describing, and which either lessens or goes away altogether when an entry in the series shows up that I don't like. And yeah, I actually really wish this wasn't the case for me. It sucks when you take a chance on a film, and it actually makes you like the original LESS as a result.

What you're describing is a lack of conviction.

If you like one film less because of another film, well... that's just a weak willed, lack of conviction.

I don't really buy into the "And they'll go watch the originals" argument much. I expect most people will ignore the originals altogether, particularly if they don't like the American version, and particularly if they're younger viewers. I mean, that's neither here nor there, of course. Whether they watch the original or don't doesn't really matter much to me. I just don't think it's the case that it happens all that often.

You can not buy into it... but I've seen more more Let The Right One in DVDs after the release of Let Me In than I did before.

 

[Mr Webber]

The only thing that hasnt sat well with me and thankfully, turned out to be only a fad was the colourisation nightmare that was all the go years back, terrible idea.

Alien was a remake of Dark Star, the purists disagree but if the writer of both films calls it a remake, i`ll go with him everyday of the week. The Cohen Brothers True Grit was a masterpeice in its own right. I know my cinema experience would be poorer without them.

 

[Shadow345]

Does anybody have a heart for Jaws fans?

Just look at Jaws: The Revenge compared to the original.

All anybody complains about is Star Wars and Alien even though Jaws fans fared much worse!

 

[Mola Rob]

A poorly made sequel or prequel does not ruin my enjoyment of the original or any good sequels that follow. If that were the case I would never watch anything again. I dislike the SW prequels simply because I thought they were poorly made and targeted for a younger audience than the OT. Did they ruin my ability to enjoy the original theatrical version of the OT? Not at all. I think the phrase "George Lucas raped my childhood" was actually made up by those who like the prequels not those that dislike them.

As for remakes I will watch them just like any other movie although I usually don't run to the theater to see them. Just like sequels and prequels they do not ruin my ability to enjoy the original. If I don't like it I will simply not watch it again.

 

[allosaur176]

Doesn't bother me one bit, because my favorite movies will always be my favorite movies

 

[Mola Rob]

Does anybody have a heart for Jaws fans?

Just look at Jaws: The Revenge compared to the original.

All anybody complains about is Star Wars and Alien even though Jaws fans fared much worse!

Nothing will ever change the fact that Jaws is a terrific movie so who cares if Jaws 3 and Jaws the revenge sucked. Besides they're really funny so grab a beer and go all MST3K on them. :lol

 

[bwayne64]

No, but knowing Vader is really just a whiny b!tch does.

Exactly, LOL,

 

[Dexter2999]

Does anybody have a heart for Jaws fans?

Just look at Jaws: The Revenge compared to the original.

All anybody complains about is Star Wars and Alien even though Jaws fans fared much worse!

What about SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT fans? Or CADDYSHACK fans? Or MEATBALLS fans? Or TEEN WOLF fans?

 

[Jeyl]

It.... depends.

For example, I enjoyed the original Judge Dredd and LOVED the heck out of the new Dredd. Massive improvement. I don't mind reboots/remakes like that. Heck, John Carpenter's The Thing I still rank as one of the best remakes ever, and I managed to see the original before the remake.

Where it gets dicy is when it gets into territory of stories that could still go on. JJ Abrams' new Star Trek for example. I actually enjoyed the Next Generation era for a lot of reasons and I really liked how it managed to maintain a strong continuity as each series progressed. It was a universe I wanted to see continue. JJ's Star Trek on the other hand doesn't want to continue that universe and for better or worse, it worked. For me, it's worse because I don't want to leave that universe that gave us TNG and DS9. When the characters and stories were good, they were fantastic. To have it all end with the disaster that was Nemesis just makes the whole era anti-climactic. It's like if the original crew movies ended with Star Trek V instead of VI. That would have been tragic.

 

[Wickerness]

I think it depends on how things are done. I thought it was lame when they remade some movies just because the original was in b&w. They did it with Miracle on 34th Street and King Kong. Yes they remade them both again, but the first time just seemed like it was due to the whole color thing. I haven't seen the more recent King Kong. I don't know how it fairs against the original, but it does look better than the 70's version.

One remake that I like is Sabrina with Harrison Ford. It was a different take on things with it updated to present day. I can watch Harrison Ford's version or the original with Humphrey Bogart. They're both good in their own way.

One remake I never bothered with watching was the 1998 version of Psycho. They bragged that they shot it just like Hitchcock did in his 1960 version, shot for shot. I just couldn't see the point of watching it when it was more of a copycat than a remake. Not to mention I didn't care for their cast choices. Though I'm not sure if I would have watched it if it was a re-imagining either. I just think it would be hard to top Hitchcock, but at least a re-imagining I could have more respect for.

Most of the time sequels don't bother me. If I don't like the sequel, I can still watch the original. Though when I saw Superman IV in the theater it soured the franchise for me and I didn't watch the earlier movies for quite awhile. Granted I was 14 when it came out and I'm a bit more mature now. I still think it was the worst of the first four. Superman Returns would top it though in being bad. I didn't like the idea behind it. I felt like Singer was cherry picking by making a sequel to II and ignoring III and IV. I think they would have been better off rebooting it. I do plan on giving the new movie a chance, Superman Returns didn't sour things for me like IV did.

I am a big Star Trek fan (TOS, TNG, DS9, Voy, & Ent) and at first I didn't know what to think about the idea behind Abraham's Star Trek. Then I saw it and I liked it. Sure it rebooted the series, but they did it within the show instead of just pushing it all aside like they did with Battlestar Galactica. Does it undo the original universe? In a way. Though the way alternate universes or timelines work in Star Trek, it just means that in some alternate reality the old universe is still chugging along. Some like to blame Nemesis for what happened to the old universe. I just think that they should have let Star Trek take a break and then came up with something. Though the reboot was definitely something. I'm looking forward to the next movie.

One problem with prequels is that you know which characters are not going to die when you are watching it. Kind of spoils things in a way. So some of these prequels had a built in flaw. Then you have the problem of not living up to people's unreasonable expectations or preconceptions.
I liked the Star Wars prequels. I think of it as a saga instead of two trilogies. Sure people watching Ep 1 - Ep 6 won't have the same surprise in 5 that we had when originally watching it. As far as Anakin being so whiny, now we know where Luke got it from (some bad genes from the chosen one). Luke was way too whiny in ANH. At times you wouldn't have blamed Solo if he had shot him first instead of Greedo.

In the long run though I try not to get to riled up about movies. I try to apply the MST3k song to watching movies, "it's just a show, I should really just relax". We can always turn it off and ignore what we don't like. Isn't it like arguing Coke vs Pepsi?

 

[Solo4114]

What you're describing is a lack of conviction.

If you like one film less because of another film, well... that's just a weak willed, lack of conviction.

"Conviction"? I didn't know this was a matter of religious faith and that we were all playing the part of St. Augustine or whathaveyou.

It's not conviction or a matter of will. I dig a movie. A lot. I watch a sequel. Now I can't put that sequel out of my mind when I see the original movie, or at least it takes me a while to do so. That's not a matter of "conviction." Are you exercising "willpower" to blot a bad sequel from your mind? I'd bet not. More likely, you just don't think about it to begin with. It probably doesn't really pop into your head at all because it's fundamentally an unconscious response to watching a film. You ignore the sequel. I don't. Just two different ways of experiencing film.

You can not buy into it... but I've seen more more Let The Right One in DVDs after the release of Let Me In than I did before.

You mean sitting on the shelves right next to the remake? I don't think that necessarily means anything other than the folks at Best Buy trying to move stock. Doesn't mean anyone's buying 'em. I'm not saying you're wrong here, I just don't think that's evidence one way or the other. Sales or rental numbers would be more on point, I'd think. Might also depend on the film and how "foreign" the foreign version is -- as in how dramatically different from the original the remake is, and how...hmm...tinged by the other culture the original is.

I think it depends on how things are done. I thought it was lame when they remade some movies just because the original was in b&w. They did it with Miracle on 34th Street and King Kong. Yes they remade them both again, but the first time just seemed like it was due to the whole color thing. I haven't seen the more recent King Kong. I don't know how it fairs against the original, but it does look better than the 70's version.

Yeah, the "well, now we can make it with color" thing I see as being pretty similar to "Well now we can make it with CGI." To me, that in and of itself isn't a good enough reason to remake a film.

One remake I never bothered with watching was the 1998 version of Psycho. They bragged that they shot it just like Hitchcock did in his 1960 version, shot for shot. I just couldn't see the point of watching it when it was more of a copycat than a remake. Not to mention I didn't care for their cast choices. Though I'm not sure if I would have watched it if it was a re-imagining either. I just think it would be hard to top Hitchcock, but at least a re-imagining I could have more respect for.

Classic example of my "Why bother" angle. Seriously, what in the hell is the point of doing a shot-for-shot remake? If you think the original is that good.....why are you remaking it? Just to put new actors in? To show it in color? BAD IDEA.

By contrast, if you want to take a different approach to the same material, that at least has SOME value even if folks don't like the new approach. For example, while it doesn't change the brilliance of the original, I actually really enjoyed Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween. I liked the more psychological examination of Michael Myers, and particularly the impact his youth had on him AND the impact his life had on those around him (e.g. his mother). I thought it was an interesting take. The remake of Nightmare on Elm Street, on the other hand, didn't really change as much for me, so it felt a bit more pointless.

In the long run though I try not to get to riled up about movies. I try to apply the MST3k song to watching movies, "it's just a show, I should really just relax". We can always turn it off and ignore what we don't like. Isn't it like arguing Coke vs Pepsi?

Kind of. In that it's difficult to explain to a Pepsi drinker why you prefer Coke. You just...do. One tastes better to you than the other. If I say "I dunno. Pepsi's too sweet to me," your response might simply be "What? That's ridiculous. Pepsi isn't too sweet. Coke is." And then we're just going in circles.

Some folks can't ignore the sequel/prequel. "What? But...you can just...like....ignore it, right?" No, you can't. Or at least not everyone can. Or at least it takes a while before they can. I don't know if it's a matter of maturity, exactly, as much as it is a less emotional connection to film as I've gotten older. But I will say that for films where I have that emotional connection (which maybe came easier to me when I was younger), a bad later entry into the franchise harms my enjoyment the way Superman IV did with you, and it takes me a while before I can "just ignore" the bad ones and watch the good ones. Not sure why (and no, it's not being "weak willed," JD), but there it is.

 

[JD]

"Conviction"? I didn't know this was a matter of religious faith and that we were all playing the part of St. Augustine or whathaveyou.

Not sure what religion has to do with your doubt about a film. What a poor attempt to skew a discussion.

The lack of conviction statement was geared towards those that have the inability to separate a film from it's sequel/prequel/remake (henceforth s/p/r) - those that say movie B ruined movie A for me.

"You can't go home again" - you can't watch a movie the same way after you've seen it, I'll agree with that. But to say a s/p/r just shows doubt or the inability (weak will) to separate the two. There's no reason for 'guilt by association.'

Does S. Darko ruin Donnie Darko for me? No. Does Jaws 3D ruin the original? No. Does Star Trek III ruin the impact of Spock's death in II for me? No. Does Anakin acting like a hormone raging teenager who has this power and skill (ie, a "whiny *****") in Episode II change the impact of Vader's arrival of the Tantive IV? No.

...and if it does, you're doing it wrong. You lack the conviction in these movies that you might've had at one point.

 

[Knightjar]

In some cases prequels can undermine the original. I feel sorry for the kids who saw Episode 1 before Star Wars. Vader should be seen for the first time with no idea who or what is under the mask. I'm making damn sure my son starts trip into the Alien universe with the original. I hate to think of the diluted experience people will get if they see Dallas, Kane and Lambert discover the remains of a big man in a spacesuit instead of an enigmatic alien fossil.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

"You can't go home again" - you can't watch a movie the same way after you've seen it, I'll agree with that. But to say a s/p/r just shows doubt or the inability (weak will) to separate the two. There's no reason for 'guilt by association.'

While for the most part I agree with JD I would say that in the case of a sequel/prequel there is every reason for 'guilt by association'. Not for the quality of the film but the interpretation of the story.

Consider it like the recent Lance Armstrong issue. Those wins were exceptional but not are tainted because of everything that's going on right now (whether true or false). That is a continuation of his "story" that affects how you view previous instalments of it.

Star Wars is a fantastic movie. For me nothing will ever affect that. However the story is VERY hard to view in any context other than that of the entire series unless you haven't seen the others. You can't have a discussion about Star Wars (or many other franchises) without including everything in that universe's canon.

People are wired to solve problems and look for answers. To say the first Star Wars stands on it's own is to completely go against our core programming. There is more to the story, there is more context, it is official, it does affect how the original is viewed.

Some of us are able to shut that off and others aren't. Live and let live.

 

[Solo4114]

Not sure what religion has to do with your doubt about a film. What a poor attempt to skew a discussion.

Yeah, that's what I was up to. Curse you, Dudley Dooright! You've discovered my nefarious plan to skew the discussion. Excuse me whilst I twirl my handlebar mustache and laugh maniacally. :rolleyes

The lack of conviction statement was geared towards those that have the inability to separate a film from it's sequel/prequel/remake (henceforth s/p/r) - those that say movie B ruined movie A for me.

"You can't go home again" - you can't watch a movie the same way after you've seen it, I'll agree with that. But to say a s/p/r just shows doubt or the inability (weak will) to separate the two. There's no reason for 'guilt by association.'

Ok, well, you're wrong.

It's not about weak will. Do you "will" yourself to ignore films you don't like in a series? Is it an effort on your part? Or do you just unconsciously not even think about them when watching the original again? Do you have to consciously think to yourself "Ok, just pretend [bad film] doesn't exist"? I doubt it. I'd bet you don't even think about it. You just...pop the movie in, watch, and enjoy. The bad sequel doesn't really enter your thoughts. That's not an exercise of willpower. It's just how you experience film, and hey, bully for you for that.

For me, if I watch an original film that has been (for me at least) tarnished by a bad further entry, it actually IS an exercise in willpower to ignore the bad entry. Why? Because the thought of that bad entry comes unbidden to my mind, and then I have to work to get it out of my head. I can do it, if I try, but I can't stop the "Ugh. Thank the 'maker' huh? Guess that's thank Darth Vader then..." thought from popping up in the first place. That's because of how I experience film -- which is different from you, because you and I are not the same person and operate differently. Imagine that.

Does S. Darko ruin Donnie Darko for me? No. Does Jaws 3D ruin the original? No. Does Star Trek III ruin the impact of Spock's death in II for me? No. Does Anakin acting like a hormone raging teenager who has this power and skill (ie, a "whiny *****") in Episode II change the impact of Vader's arrival of the Tantive IV? No.

...and if it does, you're doing it wrong. You lack the conviction in these movies that you might've had at one point.

I'm sure your mom's proud and the Green Lantern Corps will be firing off a ring to you any day now, Mr. Willpower.

Your way is not the "right" way. My way is not the "wrong" way. And none of this is a matter of choice or willpower. They're just how each of us experiences film. I've tried explaining my position to you, but either you don't get it, or you're just in the mood to be contrary. Either way, I don't think we're gonna make any headway here.

While for the most part I agree with JD I would say that in the case of a sequel/prequel there is every reason for 'guilt by association'. Not for the quality of the film but the interpretation of the story.

Consider it like the recent Lance Armstrong issue. Those wins were exceptional but not are tainted because of everything that's going on right now (whether true or false). That is a continuation of his "story" that affects how you view previous instalments of it.

Star Wars is a fantastic movie. For me nothing will ever affect that. However the story is VERY hard to view in any context other than that of the entire series unless you haven't seen the others. You can't have a discussion about Star Wars (or many other franchises) without including everything in that universe's canon.

People are wired to solve problems and look for answers. To say the first Star Wars stands on it's own is to completely go against our core programming. There is more to the story, there is more context, it is official, it does affect how the original is viewed.

Some of us are able to shut that off and others aren't. Live and let live.

Exactly.

All I'm trying to do is explain the experience of someone who can't shut out the other entries, or who can but has to actually think about it when they do it. I actually CAN shut out, say, the Prequels or the later material (books, TV shows, games, etc.). I can still enjoy the originals. But I have to actually think about it to do so. I have to put the PT out of my mind as a conscious effort. What I can't do is keep it from popping up in the first place. It does, and then I have to choose not to think about it, or play "jedi mind trick" with myself and say "That never happened." But I can't not make the initial thought occur to me in the first place. With some movies, I can do this more easily than others. Probably due to the underlying emotional connection, and my proximity to having viewed the bad entry.

But I don't think that not having the thought pop in your head at all is any more right or wrong than my approach. It's just how people experience film. Understand your own experience of film, and go enjoy it that way. Don't want a crappy sequel or prequel ruining your enjoyment of the original? No problem! Don't watch the sequel or prequel if you're worried about that. Have no issues blotting out bad films from your mind when you watch the originals? Super! Watch whatever you like.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

I can ignore movies I don't like if I want, but it doesn't change the fact they are there and litter an otherwise good experience... + when being in conversations the others are brought up as an argument for this and that and you're considered rather foolish when saying you don't care for them or don't count them as being part of the whole - THEY ARE.

The prequels are for better or worse part of popular culture and you cannot really just ignore them when talking Star Wars - you can't go into talks anymore about how cool it would be to see the young Anakin and what lead to his fall. The prequels have now shown that he's a whiny ***** who deserves no redemption and is nothing like the character talked about in the OT. All the actions and the Clone Wars are no longer this fantastic thing only hinted at and would be cool to see - it's nothing but a diluted mess about a mass murdering idiot yammering about how unfair life is and absolutely have no moral or ethical ground or remorse or regret about what he's doing. And his fall... is hardly a fall from grace... but more... falling on his ass of being selfish. That's not what was hinted at, so that means those people were lying through their teeth and stupid for remembering Anakin in that way... and the PT crap spreading across the whole of the OT making Luke's struggle to save his father from himself when everyone else had discounted him all the more pointless - there was simply nothing worth saving and the PT Anakin character turned a glorious redemption from the wrong course for the right reasons - to preserve peace through force in a time of turmoil and then being corrupted by the power - into just another selfish act.

You can ignore these remakes and sequels... but the fact remains that they exist and they hinder a proper telling to either retell the same story or continue an already existing story.

War of the Worlds is a good example. Spielberg absolutely ruined the possibility of a faithful adaption to be made in the Hollywood system, by his mediocre, updated version. There's no way another adaption can have the intro or exit narration, as it has now been tarnished by Spielberg's film. People will just say "what's the point of a remake" if someone tries to make a more faithful adaption, as they will still have the Spielberg version in mind. He ruined the chance of it getting made correctly, for potentially decades to come.

Another gripe of mine is the Terminator franchise. I can somewhat accept the second movie, as it is James Cameron being responsible for it, but it is so detached from the original film that it is jarring and annoying to me. The other sequels don't exist for me, but whenever I talk about the 600-series, people visualize that oversize LEGO brick version from Salvation, whereas in the original movie the terminators were described as being the newest and the worst - meaning: AT THE END OF THE WAR! Not all throughout the war. A few select lines in the original movie completely negates the whole of T3 and T4 - heck, even T2 - but because of those sequels, a proper sequel to the first movie WILL NEVER BE MADE. And the people in charge of the franchise just keep piling on, on top of the garbage that is T3 and T4 instead of just ignoring those and getting back to basics and actually make a real continuation of the first movie, following the rules set up in that movie. We will NEVER see the future war that Reese described in the first movie, because the movie makers are completely ignoring the continuity Reese talked about and just throwing in idiotic things not worth mentioning. At least I can enjoy the first movie and then dream about how the future war would have worked as a movie, but I know I will never see it because of the crappy sequels that makes no sense continuity wise, when they should have just jumped to the future war for T2 where Terminators didn't exist until at the very end of the war and most of it would have been a concentration camp movie.

The fact that the crappy remakes and prequels/sequels are out there does litter and tarnish the originals.