I’m on-board with The Fly; not only a superior movie to the first adaptation, but also a richer, more complex and moving story than the original novella. I can go either way on The Thing. But Night of the Living Dead? I enjoy the remake, and I respect what Romero and Savini were trying to do, but it has none of the visceral impact of the original, the script is in many respects less nuanced, and it is certainly less skilfully directed.
“The Thing” – I don’t believe it is fair to say that the original has been supplanted and therefore the remake is better. Both of them are good but to say that one is better than the other because people under thirty aren’t aware of the original is flawed logic. They are both good and in different ways. Ask John Carpenter if he thinks the original has “lost all relevancy”. How can the original lose its relevancy when there could not have been a remake without it?
Very well said, Jody! I can’t say I’m a huge fan of either version; I like them both well enough, but neither is among my all-time favorites. The original is not in anything close to semi-obscurity; if nobody realized the Carpenter version was a re-make, why would it be brought up every single time there’s a conversation about good re-makes?