Movie remakes.

[Awson]

Whenever people complain about remakes, and how they tarnish the name of the originals, the common response is that the originals are unaffected. That the remakes didn't go back and change how good the original was, or how much you liked it.

That side of the argument seems to win most often. Why? Because the other argument isn't easily quantifiable.

Yes, new things don't literally change old things. But they do change perspective of old things in culture and eventually in history.

War of the Worlds, to me, is 90% a Tom Cruise movie and 10% some older movie that people have reminded me existed first.

Every black and white movie that was remade with color barely exists to me. And they'll exist even less for the next generation. The people who care about them and care that we know how good they were are dying.

Soon, these multitudes of movies will be condensed to tiny sublists with the years they were made being the only thing seperating them from each other.

It won't be clear which is better at a glance. People will assume that these identically titled movies will be similar enough to not make a difference. So a large chunk of people will click on the bad one. And then what? Then they tell all of their friends that they watched Ghostbusters and that it sucked.

"Which one?" isn't a part of the conversation 100 years later. It's assumed you mean the one with the right mix of new and popular.

So that is why it's understandable that some people don't like the idea of remakes of their favorite movies. Remakes really can damage the legacy of their favorite films. And it's perfectly reasonable to care about the legacy of something that you're passionate about.

[Vilageidiotx]

If it weren't for the Tom Cruise remake, would you have been more aware of the original? Or the radio broadcast that was based on for that matter? I don't know of any cases where there was a movie that was consider great, and then was made completely forgotten by a shitty remake. The only example I can think of off the top of my head where a remake might have tarnished the reputation of the original is the Wicker Man.

[Awson]

If it weren't for the Tom Cruise remake, would you have been more aware of the original? Or the radio broadcast that was based on for that matter?

@Vilageidiotx

Possibly. You learn about the radio broadcast factoid in school or on the Internet. The latest popular version is then easier to find.

I don't know of any cases where there was a movie that was consider great, and then was made completely forgotten by a shitty remake. The only example I can think of off the top of my head where a remake might have tarnished the reputation of the original is the Wicker Man.

But a lot have been mostly forgotten. Give it a hundred years.

[Vilageidiotx]

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Possibly. You learn about the radio broadcast factoid in school or on the Internet. The latest popular version is then easier to find.

<Snipped quote>

But a lot have been mostly forgotten. Give it a hundred years.

@Awson

I contend they would have been forgotten regardless of remakes.

[Dinh AaronMk]

What admittedly rustles my jimmies are movies set in the world of an earlier work, supposedly within the same time-frame, but they totally destroy the whole stylistic integrity of the original work in order to make it more contemporary, as opposed to embracing what was at the original's time contemporary but now would be part of its art form and image.

Like anything set in the Alien universe. The original Alien movie leaned on the late seventies interpretation of the future and is in part related to the sort of sci-fi futuristic vision as 2001: A Space Odyssey. It's a sort of thing where the visual design can be described as being "fiber glass and plastic".

And then the aesthetic is altered and divorces it from the original completely. Like Prometheus' space suits compared to the 1979 Alien spacesuits.





And if Prometheus is supposed to be a prequel somehow to Alien, it seems to carry more of an upgrade aesthetic to its "sequels".





It's honestly why I liked Alien: Isolation. The game managed to re-capture the late 70's aesthetic as opposed to new Star Trek.

[NotAMouse]

"Hollywood is making a lot of re-makes because they're running out of ideas."

... no.

"Hollywood is making a lot of re-makes because it guarantees a certain amount of viewership (prior fans), and they don't have to pay a writer to come up with something brand new, just alter what's already there to fit the new budget/cast/aesthetic."

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Awson]

<Snipped quote by Awson>

I contend they would have been forgotten regardless of remakes.

@Vilageidiotx

I disagree. We'll have to wait 100 years and see.

[Antarctic Termite]

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

I disagree. We'll have to wait 100 years and see.

@Awson

<Snipped quote by Awson>

I contend they would have been forgotten regardless of remakes.

@Vilageidiotx

Here's a site that might be right for the two of you

It makes for fun casual reading, too.

[mdk]

You know, remakes get a bad rap. Did you know Ocean's 11 was a remake? What about 3:10 to Yuma? What about True Grit? And a hundred others. Truth is, remakes are fine. The problem with a shitty remake isn't that it's a remake -- the problem is that it's a shitty one.

But, maybe I'm wrong about that. !RemindMe: 100 years

[Heat]

You know, remakes get a bad rap. Did you know Ocean's 11 was a remake? What about 3:10 to Yuma? What about True Grit? And a hundred others. Truth is, remakes are fine. The problem with a shitty remake isn't that it's a remake -- the problem is that it's a shitty one.

But, maybe I'm wrong about that. !RemindMe: 100 years

@mdk

To add to the listed, Scarface was also a remake, as well as John Carpenter's The Thing.

I personally have no issues with remakes of films as long as the remake tries to separate itself from the original.