Thanks rubyfruit76. Totally didn't realise I did that :O Nice to be a part of the club though. I've changed it to public now.

As for creative writing, I'm a primary school teacher so model creative writing fairly routinely :)

What do you expect from a guy who picked George Clooney over Frank Sinatra?  I'll bet he didn't see either of the originals.

@TheOldJalapenoman​ 

Stve McQueen was way better. But the Ocean 11 thing (I guess that's what you're talking about):
I think the movie with Clooney was way better. The heist had a better plot. Older is not always better.

@Breumaster​   I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree on that.  I liked the original Rat Pack in the original movie.  The actors were all friends who had worked together and performed together off and on for years and had a relationship and friendship that was visible through their characters.  The recent Oceans Eleven didn't have anything like that.  

@TheOldJalapenoman​ 

I hear where you're coming from, and the camaraderie of the original cast is a fair point. But I'd push back gently: the original Ocean's Eleven relied heavily on that off-screen chemistry because that's what filmmaking and society were like at the time. The Rat Pack era was all about personal connections, charisma, and surface-level cool. That was the cultural lens - and it worked for its time.

But Western society has shifted dramatically since the 1960s. Social norms, communication styles, what audiences care about - none of that is the same. So it makes sense that newer films tell stories differently. Modern heist movies convey character and tension more through visuals, pacing, and action than through banter and star personas. That's not worse - it's a reflection of how storytelling evolved alongside culture.

Nostalgia for the old style is totally valid, but dismissing newer approaches as "lesser" just because they're different overlooks that every era shapes its own cinematic language. The Clooney version works on its own terms.

Btw.: I agree some movies shouldn't be redone. Like Shawshank Redemption, The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, The Godfather, ... You also wouldn't repaint the Mona Lisa because of fresher and enhanced paint. But these are outstanding movies which can oly be damaged by that. With Oceans 11 I don't see that. I also don't like the remakes of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers from 1978, which also was a remake. But the 1978 remake was good!

@Breumaster​   I generally dislike remakes, but find that a few are great.  1939's The Wizard of Oz is much better than the silent original.  Ben Hur from 1959 is also better than the silent original.  I would consider both of these remakes to be among the greatest films ever made.

I find few valid reasons for remaking a movie:  The original was a silent film, the original is a foreign film, the original was in black and white and it is being remade in color.  Other than those, don't mess with the original!

I don't think it was necessary, or an improvement, to remake Ocean's Eleven.  Regardless of the superiority in modern technology to better special effects or advanced editing techniques or better ways to include background music, there was no reason to remake what was already a good movie (I did not say great movie).  That fact is simply "strike one" for me against the newer film.  The much stronger cast (as I have already stated) is "strike two" against the remake.  It also, standing on its own, is just a mediocre movie (in my opinion) and that is "strike three."

@TheOldJalapenoman​ 

To be honest, I don't think the cast was better, just because of big names and providing stereotypes. Big names sold better in that time than today. There wasn't a question, if Sinatra and his buddies play good. Just write their name on a ticket and people buy it. If the cast of the remake would have been worse, the movie wouldn't have had that impact like it had. 

In fact I did like the remake better than the original, because of the trying to hard to make a cool impression and the posing of the characters in the old movie. It was a caleidoscope of outdated standarts. From point of nostalgia, it's ok for me. If someone today would bring out such a movie script, the audiences would run away. Audiences are too elightened and sober to buy such dialogues today. What was fun in that times isn't fun today. The Rat Pack's swagger and suits still look cool, but that tough-guy masculinity is pretty dated by today's standards.

@TheOldJalapenoman​ I'll be honest, I haven't seen either of the Thomas Crown Affair movies, but they have the same IMDb ratings of 6.9. The Pierce Brosnan one though has been rated a lot more times so thought would be more relevant to users.

As for Oceans 11, it's no contest. IMDb rates the 1960 original as 6.5 whereas the 2001 remake is rated 7.7. The consensus is pretty clear. But of course other opinions are available.

I find it difficult to be snobby or fed up with movie remakes. Stories have been being retold since the dawn of time. How many times has there been a Sherlock Holmes, Alice in Wonderland or A Christmas Carol?

The more a story is retold, the more opportunities there are for people to discover it and then even seek out the other versions. Originals are always still there for those that love them.

@Stubey​ 

You said it best. It's personal taste. I say Audiences change, but showbusiness stays showbusiness.