Why do people get upset over movie remakes?

[MonkeyFunk]

I've never understood this.


It doesn't affect the original movie in the slightest. It doesn't replace it, it doesn't alter the original. Hitchcock's "Psycho" is still a great movie, regardless of what Van Sant does.

Nobody complains when a play is revived. Patti Lupone is now on Broadway as Gypsy Rose Lee. Nobody complains that Ethel Merman is the only "Rose"! (Or Angela Lansbury, or Bernadette Peters...)

And... some remakes are good! The James Stewart/Doris Day "The Man Who Knew Too Much" was better than the original. So was Jeff Goldblum's "The Fly". Clooney's "Ocean's Eleven" was a better movie than Sinatra's. And of course, the 1939 "Wizard of Oz" was a remake.

I REALLY understand loving a movie, and I guess pretending to be outraged over a remake is meant to show how much you love a movie, but I think it's just silly. My copy of "Psycho" didn't change when somebody remade it.

[petronius]

1. Why not? Now that all the other problems in the world have been solved,

what else is there to get testy about? :shrug:

Actually, my guess is that, when someone really loves a movie, the act of making a remake is taken as a statement that the original wasn't good enough, which calls into question the taste and discernment of fans of the original. That's not worth popping a blood vessel over, but it is worth some online bluster (more for the fun of blustering that anything)...

[LostInAnomie]

2. It's cultural cannibalism.

It take no creativity or talent to make a remake. Movie studios use money and resources making remakes to get a quick buck. Instead of spending the money on something fresh and inventive they spend it churning out a shitty copy of something that was great in the first place.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. But do you have the same complaint

when "Hamlet" is staged anywhere? If not, why not?

And I gave you many examples of remakes that were better than the originals.

[LostInAnomie]

4. Plays are a little different...

... because they are done live and once the performance is over, it's lost to the ages. With plays you also get a different performance every time and by different actors. A play is much more of a living entity than a film. Films are concrete.

Most remakes are made with only one purpose: profiting from someone else's work and the nostalgia attached to it. On the VERY rare occasion that a remake surpasses the original it's usually: 1. A dramatic reimagining of the original film. 2. If the original was sub-par in the first place. 3. The remake is a more faithful rendition of a book.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. But how does it "damage" the original film?

If you don't want to see it, I can't imagine a realistic scenario where you would be forced to endure it.

The original film remains unchanged, unhurt. Why get angry because somebody makes a movie you'll never see?

[LostInAnomie]

7. For a lot of people films are more than the images on a screen.

They take on a meaning, vision, purpose, reputation, etc. beyond the film itself. When a remake is made, in most cases, it detracts from the totality of the film. It's like the movie studio takes a big, steamy shit on the original and everything that it has become for the purpose of making money.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. And I disagree

I don't see how it detracts from anything. Did Hitchcock's "Psycho" get worse after 1998?

[stuntcat]

14. yah

some remakes are great, but when it comes to trying to remake something that was a surprise cult hit then it's just lame to try. Like when the originals of Willy Wonka and Hairspray and Rocky Horror were made- no one knew what they'd turn into and how years later so many people would still love them so much. So when new people remake something that had characters people idolized, characters who can't really be copied, it just ends up seeming desperate to me.
But the youngsters won't mind the suckage, they never really knew the originals! :)

[MonkeyFunk]

35. Interesting point

about the surprise hits.

But "Hairspray" isn't really a remake. And the Johnny Depp "Willie Wonka" wasn't bad at all, but I still prefer the original. They're just very different.

[Heidi]

6. No me.

All art is inspired by _something_. I see absolutely nothing wrong with remakes; in fact, I often enjoy getting a fresh perspective on films I know and love. :)

[newmajority]

8. For some, it's even the IDEA of "fucking with the classics"

For others, it might be a matter of who did the remake and how....

For an example outside of the movie world, when Devo did a cover version of the Rolling Stones Satisfaction, I hated it the first time I heard it (as a Stones fan) but then it grew on me (as a Devo fan). But when Britney Spears recorded her version of the song, it induced projectile vomiting, probably because everything about her is contrived and plastic.

And that's what MTV has turned into, largely due to their promotion of Britney and that ilk. Wouldn't be surprised if she's on the list for their project. Probably Magenta though, not Janet. She might have been their Janet 10 years ago, but not now. They'll probably fucking give it to Miley Cyrus. :puke:

[philosophie_en_rose]

9. Advertising.

I don't care about remakes, as much as I don't want to see Zach Efron singing Sweet Transvestite or Brooke Hogan doing the Time Warp on my television. Considering marketing tactics, it's difficult to avoid suckage like that in commercials. It also affects how I look at the older version, because some things cannot be unseen. :)

I think it's a bit different with something like Rocky Horror, as it's also a fan experience. I've never been to a midnight show, but I imagine a MTV version would affect whatever fan events there are for the old show.

[terrya]

10. It sounds stupid....

but the reason why I don't like remakes is that I don't want younger audiences to forget that there IS an original.

Take the remake of "The Manchurian Candidate". I didn't see the remake...but I had no desire to. Because I fondly remember and I love the original. When that remake of "The Manchurian Candidate" came out, I wonder how many movie goers in their 20's actually knew there was the original 1962 film...and whether they even saw it. In other words, whether those 20 years thought that the only version of "The Manchurian Candidate" was the one with Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep.

Just my .02.

[philosophie_en_rose]

11. That's not stupid.

It's a fact that the new version will be linked to the older version, so there is a chance that people will forget the original or associate the sucky new version with the older one.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. I bet it's just the opposite

the remake clued a lot of people in to the fact that there WAS an original. Not a single review of it failed to refer to the original movie.

I bet a lot more people saw the Angela Lansbury version as a result.

[terrya]

21. I see your point.

As long as the remake DOES clue people in to the original.

There was a remake last year of the movie "The Wicker Man" with Nicholas Cage. Once again, I did NOT see it because the original is so damned good. Plus...ugh, Nicholas Cage. But as long as audiences know that the orignal, with Edward Woodward, Britt Ekland and Christopher Lee, is out there, then I don't want to say that all remakes are bad. There are some remakes that have been excellent....ABC did a remake of "The Music Man" with Matthew Broderick that was excellent.

[Orsino]

12. I understand it completely, I think.

Hollywood is a dream factory, and their stars are like little gods to many of us. They engage us viscerally and give us a sense of ownership of the result. When they turn around and monkey with that dream, it's a little like sacrilege. I get this, even if I don't share the feeling.

It all depends upon how much you love movies. We are jealous of our gods, and don't tolerate heresy.

[DarkTirade]

13. I'm just sick of the lack of creativity in our media.

Occasionally a remake will be as good or better than an original, but that requires the people making it to put some thought and effort into it. So the ones that do have the thought and effort I don't mind. The ones that don't I think are a huge waste of everyone's time and money.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. popular entertainment ...

has ALWAYS been 99% crap. It's no better or worse today than it was a hundred years ago.

Look at Hollywood's "golden age". Do you know how many movies they pumped out at the time? A big star would appear in 5, 6 or more movies per year. Not all of them were gems.

[DarkTirade]

25. And it sucked then too.

:P

[bigwillq]

15. They remake them for all the wrong reasons.

All over money. And there is a lack of creativity. Think of something new, won't you! :mad:

That's my take on it.

[MonkeyFunk]

20. Was there ever a time

when Hollywood wasn't driven by money?

[bigwillq]

26. No

I actually think I am more pissed over the lack of creativity and laziness by the studios than about the money thing.

[Iggo]

16. When I get mad at the remakers...

...I'm getting mad at the industry's laziness.

I realize I don't have to see a movie if I don't want to. But I'd like to see new movies, not old movies repackaged poorly for the new kids.

[WinkyDink]

17. 1. Are there no more original ideas left? 2. Should there be "new" versions of the Mona Lisa, say?

3. Try to find the originals of "Ocean's 11", e.g., or any Steve Martin re-make on TV.

Yes, that's how I watch movies.

[Seeking Serenity]

28. I prefer the original "Ocean's 11"

The Rat Pack were just really cool. George Clooney can't measure up.

Sorry, dude, you just don't.

[kat_kringle]

22. b/c i wouldn't want to see a remake of van gogh's starry night in a musuem. n/t

[hobbit709]

23. The last thing I want to watch is Keanu Reeves in a remake of

"The Day The Earth Stood Still". That would make me want to :puke:

[Spike89]

24. They are often cultural touchstones

I'm not against all remakes, but in some senses a remake does relegate the original to "secondary" status. When we refer to Rhett Butler's "Frankly Scarlet..." quote, we all (ok, all who saw the movie or clip) picture Clark Gable delivering the line. A remake, say with Keanu Reeves as Rhett, even if it somehow managed to not suck would still divide us into "original" vs "new" and the power of the reference is lessened.

We have an "Original Pancake House" restaurant about a mile away from the "New Original Pancake House". Sure, anyone can still go to the older place, but to argue that the new one hasn't diminished the old isn't really accurate.

[Seeking Serenity]

27. I remember hen Elton John recorded his own version of "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds"

As a Beatles fan, I was so upset because I thought that the newer version would supplant the original.

How wrong I was.

[Fran Kubelik]

29. Because now, when I say I like the movie the Out of Towners, I have to say:

"NOOOOOOOOO. Not the crappy remake. The original with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis."

See? It just takes too many extra words. ]

[Forkboy]

30. I don't mind them, but I wonder why people try to remake great movies.

It would make more sense to remake movies that were bad. Did Jackson really think his King Kong would improve on the original in any way outside of the FX? It just rarely works (the remake of The Thing being one rare example of a great movie made even better), and seems pointless if it doesn't come out better.

The trend that bothers me far more than remakes is the mining of old tv shows and cartoons to make into movies. Someone send Hollywood an original idea, please.

[El Fuego]

31. It's infuriating when people think the remake is superior just because it's "new"

For example, there are those who think a movie is inherently defective and unwatchable because it's in black and white. They think a movie like Psycho has to be remade in color so people can actually watch it. :eyes:

Then you have to slap them until the dumbasses understand that the director CHOSE to use the black and white palette to set the mood of the film!!! :grr:

[MonkeyFunk]

36. Well that would be stupid.

I dated a younger guy once who just wouldn't watch any movie that was in Black and White. He was smart, college-educated - just young and just didn't enjoy B&W movies. I never understood it, but then, I practically grew up on B&W movies. I LOVED the oldies when I was a kid, and it never bothered me that they weren't in color. I remember when some TV shows weren't in color.

[Ahpook]

32. I don't mind them all that much..

If it doesn't look like something i would enjoy, i just don't watch:)

I do hear quite a few people complain about no new ideas. It seems most studios rely on the old classics for a quick cash grab.

That i can agree with:)

[fishwax]

33. I like remakes

well, I like them well enough, anyway. Some are good and some suck, just like movies that aren't remakes.

It's certainly not the case that a remake can't be creative or original, anymore than it's the case that a non-remake is guaranteed to be creative or original. And, as with adapting any other source--literary work, history, current events--remaking an early film can result in work of widely varying quality.

[Iris]

37. Well, some stories are worth retelling. But "Footloose"?

not so much. Especially when you put some kid whose already a star in there - then it goes from a cheesy yet delightful teenage movie to a vehicle for product placement.

[MonkeyFunk]

38. oh, I fully agree

that many are bad. Very bad. But I just don't get bothered by their existence.