|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:18 am
I watched a special on Saddam Hussein (sp) the other night and it said that Hitler was his hero and who he modeled his regime after.
So....who is worse?
The original or someone who has seen the repercussions and tries it again anyway?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:49 pm
the original. the original is always the best or the worst depending on what youre talking about. in this case hitler was so much worse and in terms of movies when people remake movies they're not as good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:23 am
chippbogard the original. the original is always the best or the worst depending on what youre talking about. in this case hitler was so much worse and in terms of movies when people remake movies they're not as good. I think Sabrina was one of the few remakes that I liked better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:46 am
I don't think it's really easy to say who is worst based on originality. And I am sure that Hitler was not the first, or worst, to attempt genocide or world domination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:38 pm
that maybe true but i think the original was worst from the two choices we have. of coarse there were worse and there will be worse but from the two choices... you know.
are we talking about sabrina the witch? cause i cant remember that movie. i think the original dawn of the dead was better than the remake. one character in the remake made me mad. stupid girl and her dog.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:49 pm
Well, I suppose it depends on the meaning cuz the original might be the worst of the lot but, some copycats have been known to surpass the original so, it's not always the case. rolleyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
