pferreira1983 wrote:The effects were better in the 1960s film. The CG effects in the remake were pretty bad.
They really, really aren't. The volcanic destruction effects were good, but the stop-motion sequence showing the clock and candle changing as George initially travelled through time, the sequence with the store dummy, the erosion of the rocks that encased George after the volcanic upheaval, the decay of the dead Morlock... are all ropey and unconvincing viewed half a century later.
I know you've stated on numerous occasions you're not a fan of CGI, and I think past discussions have proven you're actually rather biased against CGI simply because they're not physical/practical. I've conceded some of the effects in the 2002 film haven't aged well, but the majority have, and it's in the effects especially (although the music is another aspect) that the 2002 movie is the superior article (the depiction of the Victorian era also feels less campy).
pferreira1983 wrote:]The leads had absolutely no chemistry
I thought there was chemistry, and at least Mara felt like an actual person rather than just a convenient, rather personality-light plot device.
pferreira1983 wrote:the plot seems more confused with rewriting plot than the actual adventure shown in the novel and Jeremy Irons appears as the villain about five minutes towards the end of the movie to explain the plot of the film and then dies.
I'm aware there were some changes in the script (as Orlando Jones' character was originally designed to be more like a robot than a hologram), but it doesn't seem that hard to follow. I'm also not sure why it's such a big issue for you that Irons appears so late into things, obviously he can't have appeared from the start (but he does actually offer a reasonable explanation for how the seemingly low-intelligence Morlocks hadn't just devoured all the Eloi in one sweep), he helps given Alexander the closure as to why he couldn't change his personal past.
pferreira1983 wrote:The 60s version is definitely without a doubt more timeless.
I liked the 1960 version, and I went through a trial to actually find somewhere that still sold the DVD of it, but it is far from timeless, it has sadly dated.
It's like the original
King Kong, good for its time, and will always be regarded well, but you're not going to convince me that a stop-motion Kong is better/more realistic than the CGI one (and again, I'll happily concede that there were things with Jackson's film that weren't great, or could've been done better). Just because something's the original, doesn't mean it couldn't have been improved on, or is actually better than the remake (The new
Voltron series is more appealing to me for instance than the original, and the character designs and uniforms look superior to the original).
pferreira1983 wrote:I guess it's like comparing the 1990 Total Recall to it's 2011 remake. It's night and day.
However this is something we can both agree on, the remake was a convoluted, directionless mess compared to the 1990 original.