Remakes... are they really that bad?

Jon Starr

Jon Starr

Veteran
I hear many times on these boards how people are disgusted by remakes. Especially when something is so perfect already that a remake may only ruin it.

Now it's obvious that remakes are wide and popular because Hollywood is scared to try new things. Mind you they've been doing it for a long time. Look at how many times the Maltese Falcon has been remade, almost every five years for a few decades.

However, I argue, that remakes are more to introduce new generations to old stories. Much like a storyteller around a fire telling you a story that his father told him. Yes movies are always going to be around and you can show your kid this old film, or that old film... but lets be honest, aside from film buffs like us, who really watches old films?

I know I never saw Star Wars and probably would have never seen it had it not been 'digitally remastered' and put into theaters (and I'm a huge fan of them). Look at Karate kid. It was made when I was born... I may have been the last generation to just happily stumble upon it. Anyone younger than me may have never seen Karate kid before seeing the new movie. I'm hearing about a possible Dune remake, and people are saying ''why is it nessecary?" Well to this day I've never seen the original film (too young, but hope to correct that soon) and I saw the miniseries at a young age. However, I argue, that it's a story that's worth retelling.

While you could see it as people possibly ruining a good story, or Hollywood businessmen trying to profit in cheap ways, and you may be right. However I beleive that it's also just a form of retelling of a story that's worth retelling (presumably).

Thoughts?
​
 
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have no problem with re-makes.

I only get concerned when someone is trying to cash in on a title without figuring out why a film was successful in the first place.
 
That is a perfectly valid argument. For example, I like the Universal "Frankenstein" and "Dracula", but also like the Hammer re-telling of those stories, and will always see Peter Cushing as Dr. Frankenstein and Van Helsing. However, when it becomes the driver of the whole industry, which appears to be happening now, I think there is a problem.
 
David G. Smith said:
However, when it becomes the driver of the whole industry, which appears to be happening now, I think there is a problem.
Click to expand...

That's true, and I do think it's a bit excessive at the moment. Though some remakes re worth re-doing. Some argued Karate Kid shouldn't have had a remake. Now while I think the title was taken to cash in (it was kung fu), the recent remake was very decent in my opinion and I'm sure will introduce a lot of kids to the story that I loved as a kid myself.

Another case in point is the remake of batman. While it's more of an adaptation, they took a new spin on things. They told an old story in a new way. IMO the Dark Knight is one of if not THE best Batman film to date.

*hmm, maybe this should have been in film discussion forum, mods feel free to move...*
 
remakes aren't bad in and of themselves. what is bad, i think, is that every so often the writing of the remake seems to ignore the essence of the original work.

also, most people consider remakes bad because they remember a movie from their childhood, and the remake just ruined the experience/memory for them. in all honesty, as far as production value goes, remakes are better. the thing is, the remade movie was pretty cheesy to begin with. but, if you were 12 years old when you saw the original, of course you're not going to like a remake of that same movie when you're in your late 20s, 30s, 40s, whatever.

my gripe with remakes is that there's so much fresh content out there that's not being produced. remakes and adaptation have become hollywood.

in fact, i was just looking at my local theater movie show times, and i was pissed, to say the least. this is the list of movies showing right now, none of these movies are original. they are either adaptations of an existing work, or a sequel:

Eclipse (twighlight something)

Grown Ups (not original concept, but this is the most original film on this list)

Knight and Day (mr. and mrs. smith, true lies, blah blah blah... the killers seems to be the same thing)

The Last Airbender (adaptation)

Toy Story 3

The A-Team

The Karate Kid

Prince of Persia (adaptation)

so..... why should i go to the theater?

but... i guess i'm just not in the demographic.
 
That's very true. It's all about how you handle the story. It gets mishandled so often.

I remember glancing at next year's summer line up. I think there's not a single film title without a 2, 3, or 4 next to it... from what I remember.

I'm just frustrated when I hear about a great old film that's being remade, and someone says 'does it really need a remake?' But then I ask, 'if it was really that great, doesn't it deserve one? For the generations that will never watch it?' Assuming it's done properly that is...
 
Jon Starr said:
Assuming it's done properly that is...
Click to expand...

this is very rare (i think).

i think the main problem is that remakes are culturally disconnected from our times. something that was cool and relevant a few decades ago, isn't so relevant anymore.
 
I understand that it can be fairly profitable doing remakes. In the horror community there have been a whole bunch lately. People keep complaining about it, but the numbers obviously don't show enough people seeing the original content. Or maybe it's too risky with new horror ideas.

Either way, take the Nightmare on Elm st film as an example. I thought that remake was really average. Borderline useless. Problem is, they're taking a film that's about one thing and basically turning it into something else. The original Nightmare film was not a film about Freddy Krueger. Okay so it wasn't exactly the Godfather but at least there was more to it. And I like how passionate Wes Craven was/is about that movie.

Then you get guys like Platinum Dunes hiring some hacky director who thinks the movie's all about "dark, freddy krueger, violent! blood! young audience! thirteen year old girls! ". It ruins the whole thing. Hacking and slashing isn't scary anymore. Nobody is frightened by jump scares with over-compressed sound effects and score. And it looks like they just sprayed a Magic bullet "green" preset all over the whole thing. The retelling of this story could have dived way further into the concept of blending dreams and reality. That was the whole point of the film.

Furthermore, this director/&producers thought it could be a good idea to make a little homage to the original films without any sort of context. Case in point, the bathtub scene. Yeah, let's reshoot that scene without any real reason and just shove it in there for the fans! Not to mention the whole film was directed like a TV commercial without any sort of dramatic tension or development. That's a bad remake.

On the topic of Platinum Dunes...look at Friday the 13th. How could you possibly screw that up!? Come on! The original obviously wasn't that incredible - there was room to do pretty much anything there...and this is what they do. The sex scenes in that film were some of the dumbest I've ever seen. This is actually a line in the film: "Your tits are stupendous". That's how out of touch these remake producers are. Who the f**k says "Stupendous"?

Some remakes I've really enjoyed. But they have been remakes that have simply kept the essence of the original films. It could be a completely different plot but as long as it keeps the heart and soul of the original movie.
 
Last edited:
ChrisHurn said:
Some remakes I've really enjoyed. But they have been remakes that have simply kept the essence of the original films. It could be a completely different plot but as long as it keeps the heart and soul of the original movie.
Click to expand...

i do share the same sentiment. it's as if a lot of remakes are 'written' by business executives.

personally, i think typical hollywood 'blockbuster' type movies focus on spectacle more than everything else that makes a good movie. but hey, if the money's a flowin', you can't really say they're 'wrong' in doing so.

none of the movies i listed from my local theater are going to loose money. none. so... why bother with something 'risky' and original. ticket sales, dvd/br rentals and sales, in flight movie, cable tv, etc. nothing (i think) that most of hollywood produces will loose money. nothing.

and it's pretty sad, because that means there is no incentive to produce something 'fresh' and 'daring'. as long as everything is familiar and safe, all is well.
 
I think the problem is also that with all of these remakes, that becomes the norm for audience members. They won't go out to see a new original film when they can see the adaptation of their favorite book, or remake of a favorite film of theirs.

In fact making a film with an already pre-existing fan base will hold it's own buzz. A few press releases and the internet is buzzing about the remake. You don't get that with a new, fresh, original film, unless it's something really mind blowing like District 9.
 
Jon Starr said:
I think the problem is also that with all of these remakes, that becomes the norm for audience members. They won't go out to see a new original film when they can see the adaptation of their favorite book, or remake of a favorite film of theirs.

In fact making a film with an already pre-existing fan base will hold it's own buzz. A few press releases and the internet is buzzing about the remake. You don't get that with a new, fresh, original film, unless it's something really mind blowing like District 9.
Click to expand...

yup. and don't forget the marketing/distribution budget!

it's like the difference between a bud and your local brewery.

your local brewery might make the best beer in the world. but dang, if you want a bud in bahrain, you'll find it.

bud is ok, but nothing compared to your local brewery.
 
Lord knows, I really am not one to talk about popular current movies, actually. I didn't care for seeing the first "karate Kid" (I didn't care for Ralph Macchio until I saw him in "Beer League") , and never did, and am not interested in seeing the current version. I became a movie buff a long time ago, and with the advent of home video, and then spending a long time living in a relatively large city (Detroit), I could take a little effort and see films that were outside the mainstream, and more to what I consider "Better" movies. (I know I am a movie snob). I mean even "Movie date night" is a way to initiate someone else to quality movies, either at a local art house theatre, or via home video. I mean, come on, throw "Cinema Paradiso" or "Amelie" into the DVD player and your in like Flynn! Sh*t, I even had intimate relations in the balcony at a revival showing of "Barry Lyndon" (The print was faded, so we could turn our attention to other things, ya know).

What I am getting at, I am not sure that I agree with part of your argument, Jon, about about a "Generation who will not watch" certain older movies. I kind of think that part of our "Duty" as film buffs, is to turn on younger folks to older, high quality movies. With the prevalence of high quality home video, which is getting better and better all the time, this should not be that big of a deal. I also think that we should encourage patronage of art house and revival cinemas.

Another issue I have with the prevalence of remakes now is an issue with the change in the way that movies have changed, in relation to our society, and their cultural relevance. (in agreement with Fahad) Actually, it as a lament as to the degree in which movies have moved from being culturally relevant. You look back at the history of movies and you can see there were times when cinema was culturally defining. I am not saying that films made the times they produced in, but they, in the way that films can, distinctly reflected the times they were produced in. Off the top of my head, I am referring to such examples as the Busby Berkley musicals, and cafe society dramas of the 1930's, as a reflection of the need for escape from the desperation of Great Depression, the films of the WWII war years and their reflection of patriotic values associated with the war, at the Film Noir period, and it's reflection of post war cynicism, the Douglas Sirk melodramas, the rise of paranoid Sci-Fi and youth rebellion films of the 1950's and their refection of social changes of the times and cold war fears, up to the rise of the counter-culture, anti-hero films of the late '60's and early '70's, when, I believe, cinema was "Jacked in" to the current culture of the times the closest. Even films of the early '80's, like the "Karate kid", which was directed by John G. Avildsen who also directed "Rocky" and one of the archetypal "'70's films" "Joe", were a reflection of the times, in the need for a post Vietnam War, post Watergate re-affirment of the dignity of the little guy and his ability to best the stronger opponent, through individual effort, and a strict adherence a traditional code of conduct and belief. I will give a little bit of the benefit of the doubt, and admit that the re-telling of the "Karate Kid" maybe the sharing of a "Universal Truth" and is worthy of re-telling. (I do think that too much of our popular culture involves stories where beating up the bad guys is the redemptive climax.... but that is another story).

My problem is that we are are in very unique, historic times right now, and because of the risk adverse nature of the multi-national corporations that run Hollywood, our most talented story tellers, in the greatest art form ever devised, cinema, are not being allowed to absorb the current events, transpose them through that magical artistic process, and come up with new stories, and new ways of telling them that reflect the times we are living in. I am afraid that when cinema historians look back at our current cinema output, they will not see a reflection of the dawn of the 21st century, but an affirmation of the power of the spreadsheet, and the bottom line.
 
Last edited:
Movie remakes.

Proof creativity is dying.

If you can't come up with something original, sell insurance.
 
David G. Smith said:
My problem is that we are are in very unique, historic times right now, and because of the risk adverse nature of the multi-national corporations that run Hollywood, our most talented story tellers, in the greatest art form ever devised, cinema, are not being allowed to absorb the current events, transpose them through that magical artistic process, and come up with new stories, and new ways of telling them that reflect the times we are living in. I am afraid that when cinema historians look back at our current cinema output, they will not see a reflection of the dawn of the 21st century, but an affirmation of the power of the spreadsheet, and the bottom line.
Click to expand...

good post, dave. this actually ties in with your coppola quote in your sig.
 
Fahad said:
good post, dave. this actually ties in with your coppola quote in your sig.
Click to expand...

Thanks Fahad. Movies have been such an important part of my life, for so long, that I am very concerned about current trends. Now, there are very good movies being made, but the problem is, you have to look beyond your local cineplex to find them, sometimes.
 
Fahad said:
most times, man. most times.

this is why i've been trying to come up with a viable, sustainable business model for filmmaking via the interweb.
Click to expand...

That is the hope. Honestly, I get more encouragement, for the future of filmmaking, from Vimeo, then I do from what is showing at the local cineplex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top