Your stance on film-remakes

[LegendZilla]

Film remakes have been a presence in the film industry since the early days. In more recent times, they've become a subject of controversy. Many view film remakes with skepticism, while others like me believe they're not inherently a bad idea. If you don’t mind, I will give an argument why.

Film remakes offer a chance to reintroduce beloved stories to new audiences, breathing new life into classic narratives. They can leverage advancements in filmmaking techniques to enhance visual experiences and captivate modern viewers. Remakes also provide an opportunity to adapt stories to reflect contemporary issues, fostering relevant and thought-provoking discussions. Moreover, they can reignite nostalgia and engage existing fan communities, creating a shared cinematic experience.

A key to a successful remake is when they are approached with genuine love and passion for the original work. When a filmmaker embarks on such a project with a deep appreciation for the source material, they often strive to honor its essence and capture the magic that made it beloved in the first place. This dedication can result in a remake that not only pays homage to the original but also brings something new and exciting to the table.

The debate surrounding film remakes is multifaceted, with valid arguments on both sides. While film remakes can reintroduce classic stories and leverage technological advancements, there are concerns about originality, missed opportunities, and cultural sensitivity. Engaging in thoughtful discussions allows us to delve into the complexities of film remakes and their impact on the cinematic landscape. By considering different perspectives, we can gain a deeper understanding of the evolving nature of storytelling in the film industry.

[Mac Daddy MM]

I can understand the anger when certain remakes suck, but there's also so many damn good ones such as The Thing, The Fly, and The Blob. And it's not like every other form of story telling doesn't do the same. How many times have comics re-told the same stories? How many times have bands remixed songs? How many times has a different author re-told a classic tale in their own way? How many times has a video game been remade? How many times has an artist done a copy or put their own spin on a classic piece? See the point?

Things have been getting remade in every form of entertainment, I imagine since the dawn of when humans decided to start entertaining each other. People only get pissy about cinema remakes because of some reason or belief that a new version of a classic story will replace the original, despite that never happening in the past. They both exist.

[Jetty_Jags]

I'm probably more for remakes than I am against them (huge asterisks). The topic understandably gets discussed a lot in modern film discourse, but as Legend pointed out, this is far from a new trend, just look at the 3 Maltese Falcon films produced in the span of 10 years, https://www.kozaksclassiccinema.com/the ... 1931-1941/. However, when remakes allow for a directorial vision to shine through (or the vision of the production team as a whole), they can be a testament to the dexterity of film as an artform. By no means an unfamiliar example, but a poignant one nonetheless is that Alien and It! The Terror from Beyond Space are functionally the same plot, but watching one is in no way a substitute for the other. With Ridley Scott at the directorial helm, Dan O'Brian writing the screenplay, and of course H. R. Giger bringing the atmospheric and techno/ecological terror to the film's aesthetic, Alien bursts out as a completely different beast from the mostly standard 50's sci fi fare of It!.

The strength of a remake really depends upon the ability of the filmmaking crew to have the production stand on its own. Carpenter's The Thing bears little resemblance to The Thing from Another World outside of the obvious shared DNA, and yet it's no surprise many are familiar with the former and unaware of the latter. However, the remake need not surpass the original either, as we all know with the case of Shin Godzilla as opposed to the original. Shin lives, breathes, and exudes Anno's artistic style and idiosyncrasies, between his clear reverence for old school tokusatsu, his continual use of similarly framed shots, to his fascination with machines of both flesh and steel. At the same time, we can look at '54 and see Honda's DNA through and through. Even if a remake doesn't live up to the original, as in the case of Herzog's Nosferatu, I can appreciate the film's artistic vision and the many distinctions it makes from Murnau's 1922 classic. While I don't think the '74 version of Nosferatu is as cohesive as it could be, and have many issues with the film overall, I can respect how it adapts the story (not just Bram Stoker's original text, but Murnau's influence as well), while becoming its own artistic entity.

So, what truly separates the profound remake from the awful? In part, there is a consequentialist component active here, if a remake displays ample artistic and technical expertise, it is likely to be well received. Many of the remakes I have referenced here can be considered great examples of film without even recognizing the adaptational qualities within the work. But there also must be a sense of ingenuity, and as I have outlined in this post, some newfound artistic spirit within the work. While I have yet to watch it myself, many consider 1998's color remake of Psycho to be one of the worst remakes in film history. In part because it has large shoes to fill (I imagine there is a crowd who would reject any and every Hitchcock remake as celluloidal blasphemy) but also because it is a shot for shot remake of the original. While it is performed by a new cast, and brings the addition of color, it is almost exactly a carbon copy of Hitchcock's. Whether intentional or not (some like to argue this was an experiment of sorts planned by Van Sant all along), it serves as a great boundary condition of when a remake fails to become a new artistic experience on its own.

In part, this is where many find issue with Disney's "live action" adaptations of their animated classics. While not nearly as mechanically recomposed as the 98 Psycho, the clear intent is for a simple translation of the animated form to computer animation with digitally imposed actor likenesses live action. Yet any and all the changes present here no longer feel like distinct artistic choices, but rather soulless corporate decisions to increase the box office performance. As a result, these films are perceived as artistically inauthentic, with many claiming Disney has resorted to recycling old material. This is certainly true, but also forgets that Disney has had a business of doing this since its inception, from Snow White to the Little Mermaid, Disney delt in adaptations. Yet in the past there were clear artistic forces present, here they are muted at best. I personally would have little issue of the Disney remake machine if it allowed for truly new experiences with these stories, but as time has shown, this is not the case, and based on box office performance, I don't expect it to change anytime soon.

In short, I'm all for remakes if they can use the creative forces of a film production team to make something artistically distinct from past adaptations, even if the final product doesn't quite live up to its predecessors. At the same time, I have little tolerance for simply remaking the same film so people can pay for it twice (especially when said remake is less competently crafted then the original).

[SpiderZilla]

In short, I'm all for remakes if they can use the creative forces of a film production team to make something artistically distinct from past adaptations, even if the final product doesn't quite live up to its predecessors. At the same time, I have little tolerance for simply remaking the same film so people can pay for it twice (especially when said remake is less competently crafted then the original).

I would add a 3rd category: remaking a film that has been lost to history. I would be more tolerant of a shot-for-shot remake if that was the only option available for new generations to be exposed to the work.

[Gigantis]

In short, I'm all for remakes if they can use the creative forces of a film production team to make something artistically distinct from past adaptations, even if the final product doesn't quite live up to its predecessors. At the same time, I have little tolerance for simply remaking the same film so people can pay for it twice (especially when said remake is less competently crafted then the original).

I would add a 3rd category: remaking a film that has been lost to history. I would be more tolerant of a shot-for-shot remake if that was the only option available for new generations to be exposed to the work.

That in itself happened not long ago with that Great Buddha Kaiju movie.

[HedorahIsBestGirl]

Here's the thing: I'm fine with film remakes if they improve upon the original in some way but that so rarely happens. Usually, remakes fall into one of three shitty camps:
1) The remake is so faithful, to the point of being almost shot-for-shot, that I wonder why they even bothered. Example: Psycho (1998)
2) The remake is so drastically different that it would be better if it was just its own movie. Example: Godzilla (1998)
3) As is often the case with sci-fi remakes, they're primarily concerned with showing off improved special effects, to the detriment of storytelling. Example: The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

Off the top of my head, I can only think of two remakes that I consider net improvements on the original: The Thing (1982) and King Kong (2005). John Carpenter's The Thing is one of the all-time sci-fi/horror greats where the original 1951 film was just passably good, and less faithful to the novella that inspired them both. I wouldn't call Peter Jackson's King Kong an improvement on the original in all ways but I do think it did a good job retelling the story for a contemporary audience and creating an actual dynamic between Kong and Ann, rather than her obnoxiously shrieking away every time they're onscreen together. It's the version I prefer overall. Beyond that, most remakes I've seen are either underwhelming or outright terrible.

[SpiderZilla]

I wouldn't call Peter Jackson's King Kong an improvement on the original in all ways but I do think it did a good job retelling the story for a contemporary audience and creating an actual dynamic between Kong […]

The 2005 version is certainly the better introduction to the story for a first-time viewer over the 1933 version given what is now regarded as the racial insensitivity of the original film. I don’t know that we’ll come to a day when the 1933 version is considered too intolerant to be shown in public but I’m glad that we have the 2005 version to pass on to new generations.

[LegendZilla]

I'm glad to see the constructive responses and diverse perspectives you've shared thus far. Now, let's move forward and delve into some potential issues that others may have raised regarding film remakes. It's important to consider these viewpoints and explore the complexities surrounding the topic :

1. One common criticism of film remakes is that they prioritize profit over artistic innovation. Critics argue that the film industry relies too heavily on familiar properties, leading to a lack of creativity and original content. Instead of creating new and unique stories, remakes are often seen as a safe bet for studios looking to capitalize on established brands.

2. Another concern is that remakes can trivialize the significance and impact of the original work. Regardless of the intentions or passion behind a remake, some argue that it may diminish the unique qualities and cultural impact that made the original film special. The fear is that the remake could dilute the legacy of the original, leaving audiences with a diluted or inferior version of the story.

3. Times change and societal values and perspectives evolve. This leads to the argument that older films may not resonate with modern audiences, meaning certain themes and ideas can't connect with contemporary viewers. Adapting these themes and updating the narrative for a modern context can be a challenging task, and there is a risk of losing the essence and relevance of the original in the process.

4. I've heard people argue that films such as John Carpenter's The Thing or David Cronenberg's The Fly are not technically remakes, but re-adaptations of pre-existing literary works (i.e short stories). When a story originates in books, retelling it is seen as a natural process of adaptation. However, there is often a different perspective when it comes to remaking films. I believe this difference in perception is that film is a unique medium where actual human beings put their efforts into realizing an artist's vision. Retelling a past film may be seen as undermining or dismissing the efforts of the original filmmakers, potentially rendering their work meaningless.

Could anyone come up with good reassuring counterarguments to the concerns above?

[Tyrant_Lizard_King]

A reason why I can't bring myself to hate the RoboCop remake. It's nothing special but the story is significantly different enough from the original to justify it's existence to some extent. In fact outside the basics it's very much a different film than the original. I don't usually consider remakes of films based on books true remakes. Especially if the remake sticks closer the the original text. It's merely a readaptation which as LegendZilla pointed out is what John Carpenter's The Thing is. The new upcoming Thing film will reportedly be truer still to the original story.

[Vakanai]

I went with "As long as they're well made, I'm fine", but the truth is they don't even have to be well made because if they're not you can ignore them and rewatch the original after. Remakes can not cause any harm, even the bad ones, even the worst ones, if someone lets a remake affect how or whether they can still appreciate the original classic, that's very much a them problem.

[SpiderZilla]

Remakes can not cause any harm, even the bad ones, even the worst ones, if someone lets a remake affect how or whether they can still appreciate the original classic, that's very much a them problem.

Not to disagree, but a remake can have an impact on your appreciation of the original if the original was a drama but the remake was a comedy. Take Young Frankenstein for example. It borrows a lot of plot points and characters and sets from Son Of Frankenstein. Even though Son Of Frankenstein is a serious movie it’s hard not to chuckle at times when I watch it. The same applies for Zero Hour and Airplane!

[LegendZilla]

I went with "As long as they're well made, I'm fine", but the truth is they don't even have to be well made because if they're not you can ignore them and rewatch the original after. Remakes can not cause any harm, even the bad ones, even the worst ones, if someone lets a remake affect how or whether they can still appreciate the original classic, that's very much a them problem.

I guess I should've included an "I'm Oblivious" option.

[Gojira18]

If they genuinely improve a flawed original movie, provide a cult classic a second shot at success, and/or are able to stand on their own 2 feet, I don't have an issue. IE Jungle Book 2016 or King Kong 2005

[LegendZilla]

If they genuinely improve a flawed original movie, provide a cult classic a second shot at success, and/or are able to stand on their own 2 feet, I don't have an issue. IE Jungle Book 2016 or King Kong 2005

Prophecy from 1979 could be an example of such. I am referring specifically to the mutant killer bear movie.

[LSD Jellyfish]

A reason why I can't bring myself to hate the RoboCop remake. It's nothing special but the story is significantly different enough from the original to justify it's existence to some extent. In fact outside the basics it's very much a different film than the original. I don't usually consider remakes of films based on books true remakes. Especially if the remake sticks closer the the original text. It's merely a readaptation which as LegendZilla pointed out is what John Carpenter's The Thing is. The new upcoming Thing film will reportedly be truer still to the original story.

While I prefer the original, the Robocop remake did some interesting things with recontexualizing the story to fit a more modern interpretation of the future. Examples include the limit of drones/machines in war. I also love that really horrific body horror scene where Murphy is just an arm and a head.

To me, recontextualization, more than justifies another take on something. It's what the Godzilla franchise, and many other countless films have done well.

[HedorahIsBestGirl]

1. One common criticism of film remakes is that they prioritize profit over artistic innovation. Critics argue that the film industry relies too heavily on familiar properties, leading to a lack of creativity and original content. Instead of creating new and unique stories, remakes are often seen as a safe bet for studios looking to capitalize on established brands.

Many of them are more concerned with profit than artistry but the same could be said of sequels, and there's a hell of a lot more of those. I'd have to look it up again but I'm pretty sure at least 40 of the top 50 highest grossing films are sequels. I think the only remake in there is The Lion King (2019). It's true that sequels have to come up with a story that's at least somewhat original, but an innovative remake can be just as inventive as a sequel can.

2. Another concern is that remakes can trivialize the significance and impact of the original work. Regardless of the intentions or passion behind a remake, some argue that it may diminish the unique qualities and cultural impact that made the original film special. The fear is that the remake could dilute the legacy of the original, leaving audiences with a diluted or inferior version of the story.

In general, I disagree with this one. There are circumstances where a remake overshadows the original in popularity, but they seem to be few and far between; also, the rare times this happens, it usually feels deserved - I'll use The Thing (1982) as an example once again. But I don't really think it's possible to diminish the quality or uniqueness of a work of art by remaking it. At best, a remake will be seen as an interesting update; at worst, it will be seen as a pale imitation and quickly forgotten.

3. Times change and societal values and perspectives evolve. This leads to the argument that older films may not resonate with modern audiences, meaning certain themes and ideas can't connect with contemporary viewers. Adapting these themes and updating the narrative for a modern context can be a challenging task, and there is a risk of losing the essence and relevance of the original in the process.

Recontextualizing a story and updating its narrative to reflect change societal values is something that any good remake should aspire to do. Certainly, there is a risk that essential qualities of the original may be lost in the process but, if done right, it can make for a great remake. Let's look at the two films that have actually (more or less) tried to remake Godzilla (1954). The Return of Godzilla and Shin Godzilla are both essentially anti-nuclear films, arguably more blatantly so than the original - for better or for worse. But both updated the subject matter for its audience. Where G54 parallels the bombings of Japan during WWII, RoG parallels the Cold War and Shin parallels the Fukushima disaster. Moreover, each film places increased emphasis on Japanese/American relations and more scrutiny on the Japanese government's ability to respond to a crisis. By doing so, all three films, each released roughly 30 years apart, manage to stand on their own quite well while telling a very similar story. They're all among the strongest Godzilla films, at least in my opinion, and proof that remakes can update the themes of the original film while staying true to the essence of the story.

4. I've heard people argue that films such as John Carpenter's The Thing or David Cronenberg's The Fly are not technically remakes, but re-adaptations of pre-existing literary works (i.e short stories). When a story originates in books, retelling it is seen as a natural process of adaptation. However, there is often a different perspective when it comes to remaking films. I believe this difference in perception is that film is a unique medium where actual human beings put their efforts into realizing an artist's vision. Retelling a past film may be seen as undermining or dismissing the efforts of the original filmmakers, potentially rendering their work meaningless.

Again, I really don't see how making a new movie based on an old one can ruin the meaning of the original. A story that was important 30 years ago doesn't lose its importance because the same story is retold in the present. I don't really distinguish between multiple adaptations of the same book vs. the same movie, either.

So to recap, I don't dismiss remakes on the grounds that they're remakes, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe they undermine a prior work just by existing. Unfortunately, most remakes don't seem to have much merit but there's a few gems in all the shit.

[Major sssspielberg!]

A great story or concept can root multiple adaptations, like LSD said that's why we have 30 Godzilla pictures.
My only beef is when a remake is so vastly different on a fundamental level (or so mediocre as a remake compared to what it's based on) that it would have been better as its own thing.
I know people roll their eyes at this, but that's how I feel about Godzilla '98.

And I absolutely agree that a lousy or limp remake won't "tarnish the legacy" of what came before.

[edgaguirus]

There are many who feel the original will always be better, but that's not always the case. I enjoy remakes/reimaginings as much as the original sometimes. The original The Thing is a great film, but the remake brought back the raw fear and mistrust that the novella had. The remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still isn't as good as the first, but the idea of wiping out humanity to save the world and the nightmare version of Gort were interesting touches to update the film. They're still entertaining movies.

The only way I don't enjoy a remake is if it's plain bad. It conquered the World is a B movie, but I enjoy it. The 1960 made for tv movie version follows the original closely, but the film isn't very good.

[Vakanai]

Remakes can not cause any harm, even the bad ones, even the worst ones, if someone lets a remake affect how or whether they can still appreciate the original classic, that's very much a them problem.

Not to disagree, but a remake can have an impact on your appreciation of the original if the original was a drama but the remake was a comedy. Take Young Frankenstein for example. It borrows a lot of plot points and characters and sets from Son Of Frankenstein. Even though Son Of Frankenstein is a serious movie it’s hard not to chuckle at times when I watch it. The same applies for Zero Hour and Airplane!

Still feels like a "them/you" problem. I love both Young Frankenstein and Son of Frankenstein. I still love the OG Robocop despite the mediocre remake. If others let remakes change how they enjoy or don't enjoy older material, that's sad but it's on them I feel. It's kind of similar to bad adaptations - my favorite comic book story was The Long Halloween for Batman. DC made an animated adaption of it, an adaptation that I consider a bad butchery of the source material, just absolutely hate the film, second worst movie I've ever seen personally. And after that I still love The Long Halloween comic books as the best Batman story.

[Mothra_Virgo]

For me the problem isn't so much to do with the remakes themselves. I love a good remake. Dawn of the Dead. The Hills Have Eyes. The Fly. The Mummy. There are a ton of remakes the world would be worse off without. My problem with remakes is how they can effect the legacy and film industry as a whole.

With regards to the legacy issue it reminds me of when you go to a bookshop to buy a novel and the cover is decked out in the film versions of the characters. When a new version comes along, though it might be inferior in quality, for a number of reasons it can hijack the trajectory of the franchise. New lore can become solidified and before you know it the inferior version can become the "definitive".

The other issue for me is the way constant remakes effect drown out creativity. Its a similar problem with superhero movies. I love them too. But because its a safer bet that trying something new they are swamping the market. Give me more remakes, just not at the expense of creativity.