Same here. Samara had a Creepypasta-like vibe to it and was actually twisted, demented and sadistic like she should be. I don't see any of that from Sadako and to me, Sadako was a bit of a static character with nothing special to her (except for that eye scene). The Ring was also visually aesthetic and had the appropriate music and sadistic monologues to go along with it, which there is none in the original.
Also, why are people comparing The Ring to The Changeling?

The original was laughable and it almost feels like the people who claim it is better are just being your typical internet person who parrots "foreign original = better" because they read it on some blog. What is good about the original at all? The acting is terrible, the psychic subplot is stupid and the only thing that happens is the very final scene where she comes out of the tv. It should have been a 10 minute short film, the american version took the good stuff and ran with it.
I have a feeling people who say original japanese versions of movies are better have either A. never seen the original movies and as I said before are just trying to be parroting snobs, or B. they are trolling.

i agree that the american ring was perfect, but i didn't watch the japanese movie. as for the changeling, i think it's good, but i wasn't impressed.

Oh do stop it. The Changeling is a very good film and I've seen it many times since I first watched it as a teenager in the early 1980's but apart from the body in the well, it has very little else in common with The Ring.
And the US version of The Ring is far superior to the original Japanese version with a much better, almost detective like feel.

it's ironic, since the ring story is obviously taken from a denver colorado real story made in the changeling movie, but as usual the japanese steal the american things and make them much better!

There are a lot of Americans who worship Japan, to the point where you can't dare say anything the West does is better, no matter how goofy or impractical the Japanese way of doing something is. I really like Japan also and recognize the aspects that make it better. But a lot of Americans go overboard with their fascination of that country to the point where it is laughable . No country is perfect.

rubbish, ringu is kind of remake of the changeling, an american movie.

American remake is inferior in every way.
*Bad acting
*Cheesy cgi effects
*Typical in your face/lack of subtlety Hollywood garbage

Gotta agree here. Hats off to the original and to Japanese cinema in general. But the original just cannot match the
dread-soaked cinematography and foreboding atmosphere that fills the remake. The entire thing makes you feel uneasy, which I didn't get with the original. This is really strange: normally, remakes are pale comparisons of their original source material. I don't think Verbinski's an amazing filmmaker overall (he did do Pirates of the Caribbean, after all), but he definitely hit all the right notes with this one. There are a few laughable parts, but the original is quite dull compared to this.
Hell is other people
-Sartre

I don't know.The only positive thing I can say about the original is that it is original and without it, there would be no remake lol.
Sorry, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
There really wasn't anything I liked about the original. It just wasn't effective to me.
I felt the same way about The Grudge. (Not that the remake was any better)

The remake was superior in some ways, but inferior in others. Just because you personally prefer it doesn't mean the original didn't accomplish some things better.
Also, I'm going to have to see some sort of statistic on that "vast majority of film buffs" claim. I'd hate to bring up rotten tomatoes scores, but the original does have a much higher score on that website. Then again, RT is total beep
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

Disagree with every single word of that lol.
EVERYTHING was done better in the remake. The acting, directing, cinematography, the scares were more effective.
Just because it is a remake doesn't mean it isn't allowed to be better.
It is lol. And the vast majority of film buffs will recognize this fact.

I'd say the remake was slightly superior to the original, if not for one part where it fails:
The scene where Samara comes out the tv in the remake was done much more poorly than the original.
The scene in the original has a real slow build up, and never cuts away. The remake ruins it by switching to Naomi Watts's character driving through the street like in a typical action scene.
The remake also has these cheesy effects where Samara sort of teleports towards Noah as though she's in a scratchy vhs tape, and her face wasn't scary at all. The original wth the single eye was much more effective, and no cheesy CGI effects in that one either.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

This message has been deleted.

Ringu defeats The Ring on one big important part: the videotape.
How much of the running time does the tape take up in either film though? Five minutes maximum? Even if the original tape was better it doesn't speak that much to the overall quality of the film.
In contrast, the positive qualities you mentioned about the remake like the art direction and cinematography are present throughout the running time.

This message has been deleted.

Not everything is subjective LOL.
The acting was in no way better in the original film.

"Not in a million years. Honestly, it just wasn't lol, whether you preferred it or not." Lol I love after beoneofus reacted to the first reply and chastised that person for not appreciating opinions being subjective and then says this to another user.

Agreed, while the scares in the original weren't laughable nor boring, this remake definitely out-did the original. It's been a couple of years (two, maybe three) since I watched The Ring and just yesterday night when I watched Ringu. the scene where Sadako comes out of the TV wasn't as scary as I had anticipated. In fact, I sat there, in my room, breathing as calmly as ever, as if I were watching a regular TV show.

It's ironic you complain about the lack of darkness in the original, seeing as the pivotal scene in the remake takes place in some brightly lit studio apartment. The original is in near claustrophobic darkness.
Personally, I think the brightly lit scenes in the original lend a false sense of safety where you think everything is going to turn out all right; the remake went a little overboard with the overcast skies and blue tint.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

As much as it pains me to say that a remake is better than the original, in this case it is so.
The remake is deeply awash in heavy and effective atmosphere. The images on "the tape" are not only disturbing but also actually matter within the story.
The mystery is as equally disturbing and puts one on edge and always puts the world of the story on continually uneven and ever-morphing ground. As such there is nocertainty.
The original is disjointed and almost random in these realms. As such there is little to no creeping terror.
The remake shoves us along a horrific path. The original relies on too many randomness and nigh-eye-rolling tropes to help itself drunkenly ramble towards its own end (such as the ex-husband/boyfriend? I don't remember. being semi-psychicpleaseso corny).
Much of the original takes place in highly populated areas, apartments, brightly-lit scenes, sunny daytimes, etc. There's no sense of impending darkness or doom. Indeed there is little actual darkness to be had in the film. Hell, even the ending scene takes place in the middle of a bright sunny day.
And, no, this doesn't have the effect of a juxtaposition of a horrific conclusion countered with an otherwise normal day. It's just has the effect of something crappy that is realized and it's a sunny day. That's the way it's filmed. That's the way it feels.
The remake FEELS as if the events take place in a dark and dim world in which Samara holds at least some influence over ALL THE TIME.
The original looks and feels like sometimes she does some stuff and the world (however nearby, however otherwise could touch her in some way) is still a simple and happy and sunshiney place.
Atmosphere MATTERS. The original has little to none. The remake has it in spades. So much that much of the creepiness comes from the atmosphere alone.
"The last man on Earth doesn't miss anyone at all!" -Faith In Chaos, Haujobb

We hear way too much from Samara and she just sounds like a little girl, not scary.
This all down to personal preference but Samara's humanity makes her more scary to me. She's a real person who suffered something terrible, and now is causing pain to others based on her experience. Sadako is just a typical animalistic movie monster. People are much more scary to me than monsters. Just to give another example, the kid from "We Need to Talk about Kevin" will always frighten me more than mute invincible Michael Myers.

the remake has a huge budget even for horror movies at 48 million dollars
all the same i still think its better

This message has been deleted.