Classic Movie or Modern Version?

[humor_me]

I'm a big fan of the classic, older style of movies where the film is made with only the thinnest of special effects (ie NO CG ).
To me, the modern way of making movies is pure blue screen. You see two stars in a scene, and you know that they might not have ever even been in the same room at that point in time making the movie. This is what I think is ruining modern movies. Way too much software hocus-pocus and not enough real acting.

That said, which do you prefer the classic version, or the modern version??

For example, everyone's seen Casino Royale (2006) with Daniel Craig as 007, but have you seen the Casino Royale of 1967 with (don't laugh) David Niven as JB? While very campy but entertaining it is almost like watching a Mel Brooks movie, it is obvious that they were trying to find the direction to take James Bond. I think they chose the right direction.

How about Stanley Kubrick's 1980 version The Shining - No one's a better psycho than Jack Nicholson, compared to the Stephen King's 1997 version with Steven Weber (yawn).

There are so many Miracle on 34th Street versions (1947, 1955, 1959, 1973, 1994) but I love the one from 1947 with Natalie Wood in it.

What do you think? Does modern technology ruin the classics? And what about "colorizing" the films? Is this for better or worse?

 

[Sir Knight]

When I first read the title, even before reading the post, Miracle on 34th came to mind and how none of the re-makes can even come close to the original one.

The reasons should be fairly obvious. Very few people will make a re-make of a flop. The original one had to be pretty good in order to generate interest in re-making it. But if the original one was good, then it becomes that much more difficult to surpass the greatness of the first one.

Since we're talking about "Miracle on 34th St", another Maureen O'Hara film that was de-done was the Parent Trap. While both are fun to watch, the first one has a bit of an edge to it that is lacking in the second one. Besides, Maureen O'Hara at age 41 in the 1961 version is much more attractive (in my opinion) than Natasha Richardson at age 35 in the 1998 version.

As far as colorizing existing black & white films ... while there are some films that should never be colorized (Psycho is one example), in general, I prefer the colorized version.