Why Do Some People Hate Remakes?

remakes-why.jpgEvery year they make up a certain percentage of the films that get released, and every time one of them gets announced a lot of people get upset. Remakes. Films that have already been made that some studio decides for one reason or another to make again.

You can’t really blame a lot of people for rolling their eyes when the possibility of a remake gets brought up. After all, the roster of remakes is filled with movies that deserve to be on the dirty end of used toilet paper. I mean with crap like:

-The Invasion (remake of invasion of the Body Snatchers)
-Poseidon (remake of the ‘Poseidon Adventure)
-The Fog (Single Handedly killed the potential movie career of Tom Welling)
-Planet of the Apes (reason #154 of why I don’t like Tim Burton)
-101 Dalmatians
-Godzilla (I like Matthew Broderick and all, but why was he in this?)
-When a Stranger Calls
-The Wicker Man (To be fair, the original sucked ass too)
-The Pink Panther (Steve Martin what are you doing?!?!)-

And many many more. As a matter of fact, even more remakes are on the boards at every studio in Hollywood. Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street for example are being developed for remakes as we speak as are dozens of others.

Now let’s balance this out. There are good remakes out there. Sabrina (hugely underrated film in my opinion), Ocean’s 11 is 10x better than the original, Scareface and a bunch of others.

So while I understand a sense of apprehension many people feel when hearing about a movie getting remade (look again at that bad list above), I’ve never understood the almost militant attitude some people have about the whole notion of remakes. Here are some arguments some people make against remakes:


Without fail, whenever I post about a remake going into production, at least one person will make some variation of the comment “There isn’t any creativity left in Hollywood”. To me, this is a ridiculous statement for a couple of reasons:

1) Source Material
Lots of movies are based on other source material. In that sense, remaking a film isn’t as different as you think from making a movie based on a book, or making a movie based on a video game, or making a movie based on a comic book (why aren’t all these people complaining how making The Dark Knight was just a lazy thing to do by a Hollywood that’s run out of creativity?)

2) Adaptation is HARD
I know a lot of screenwriters, and a many of them tell me that adapting a piece of work can actually be more difficult creatively than doing something from scratch. Doing a totally original work presents no boundaries to you. You’re free to go or do whatever you want, and so running into obstacles is no big deal because you have a million options. However with adaptations, you’re forced to think more creatively because there is an existing framework you need to stay within. I’m not saying adaptations are BETTER, I’m just pointing out that creatively adaptations can be even more challenging.

3) There Have Always Been Adaptations
For as long as the movies have been around, a certain number of them have been adaptations of other works or even remakes. YES there are more remakes and adaptations today than ever before… but that doesn’t really mean anything because there are more movies in general put out every year than ever before… almost triple the amount from just 13 years ago. I would argue that while there are more remakes today, the proportion is still probably about the same.

So there goes the argument of creativity.


I hear this one all the time and to this day I have no idea what they’re talking about. It’s almost as if they believe that if Uwe Boll decides to do a remake of Sparticus, somehow Kirk Douglas’ performance in the original will mystically become wooden. Somehow the original masterpiece will melt on DVD store shelves everywhere and all we’ll be left with is the Boll rendition. The fact of the matter is that if Boll does a Sparticus remake and it sucks… I STILL HAVE THE ORIGINAL! The original hasn’t been touched or soiled or sullied or “ruined” in any way shape or form. As a matter of fact, a remake will get people talking about the original again and maybe even influence more people to check out one of the best films ever made that they never would have thought about had the remake not come along.

The only exception to my argument is when George Lucas comes along and actually starts changing the originals… but that’s a blood thirsty rant for another time.


No, as a matter of fact they don’t. As I already mentioned, Ocean’s 11 is better in every way from the original, Sabrina just ruled, where would cinema be today without Al Pacino’s Scarface? But there are other notable ones too. Cape Fear was fantastic and is underrated for how much it has influence a lot of cinema today, Dawn of the Dead is considered by many to be superior to the original. The Fly rocked and I don’t care who says different! The point here is that remakes can and have worked.

Now… do the majority of remakes suck? YES! They absolutely do. But guess what… the majority of movies that get released in general suck, so why should remakes be any different?

Look, I’m not saying we should all jump up and down in an enthusiastic happy dance whenever yet another remake gets announced (For the record, I have little to no hope for the Friday the 13th or Elm Street remakes I the works). All I’m really trying to say here is that I don’t completely understand the massive presumption that remakes in general are a bad idea.

So if you’re someone who hates the idea of remakes, why do you feel that way? If you don’t hate the idea of remakes, why do you think some others do?

Comment with Facebook
User Review
0 (0 votes)

61 thoughts on “Why Do Some People Hate Remakes?

  1. Refreshing to read a piece that examines remakes in an intelligent manner. I also believe that the hatred of remakes is largely a misplaced extension of the generation argument- “this generation loves artificiality; mine was raw, original, and clever.” It’s completely invalid, and many critics lose me when they start accusing youth of ruining cinema. Truth is, some of the originals sucked to begin with, even some of my personal favorites. Nostalgia is the greatest destroyer of objectivity, next to sports and taxes.

  2. I think a remake can work if the movie is different enough from the original that it amounts to being a different movie- the 1970’s remake of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers starring Donald Sutherland is a case in point. Wasnt the remake of Psycho a disaster due to this reason, it merely forged the original?

    Also, Ben Hur. Enough time and technology had elapsed since the 1920’s version, so that was OK, plus you got Cecil back at work again.

    ( Wasnt there an even earlier version, from the nineteen teens? I have to look that up…)

  3. Remakes do have the strong potential to ‘ruin’ the original. They can and do sully or obscure the memory of the prior great film that came before. Today’s young consumer, on average, will view a remake and be totally oblivious that it was based upon a great film from yesteryear. These kids are dopes, mostly. People live in the moment, etc., so I guess they would never watch the original anyway, so lets stuff their heads with the inferior product- adding some more junk into a junky mind cant do that much harm…The fact that a movie exists that has stolen from the original most of its material does stink to high heaven and is a slap in the face.

    Millions of people are out there walking around after having watched the stupendous second remake of King Kong yet they will NEVER go back and watch the 1933 breakthrough effort…Analogy: Would you want to make a nice painting, have two people look at it, then its taken down and put away, and next month someone rips off your composition enough to be recognizable as an inferior duplication, and then a thousand people in your community pay money to ooh and ahh over it, and only one voice is raised in dissent?? And for years afterward, that clever forgery is used as a cultural reference point, and not the original ? Ive seen this happen…I recently watched a very popular real-life cable tv, and in this show someone came across an old movie poster for the movie Cape Fear- the 90’s remake. The people on the show raved about this find, and told the audience about how neat it was to have a piece of movie history, etc….And not one word was mentioned about how that film is a remake of a truly great film from Hollywoods golden age !!!

    Totally outrageous , its a crime, its a sin, lock them all up right now…So the viewer is left with a very warped impression of film……I rest my case. And guess what, the original Wicker Man did NOT suck…

  4. I don’t like remakes for one simple reason.

    I don’t normally watch any movie a second time. Part of the enjoyment of a good movie is not knowing what is coming next. A joke isn’t as funny when it is told again, a horror scene isn’t as scary when you watch it again, a mystery isn’t a mystery when you know who did it, a tear-jerker isn’t as effective when you know someone is going to die, etc.

    I generally don’t like movies of books which I have read since I know the plot and outcome. I don’t generally like prequels since again, I know where this is going.

    So… of course I don’t like remakes. If someone sat next to you at the theatre and kept saying things like “He is going to do this next” or “In the next scene they’ll do this” you’d want to hit the person. Well… in a remake, you are generally saying this to yourself.

    1. Very few remakes are a scene by scene recreation. Yes, to some degree you know how things are going to turn out, but most films you can predict the ending (good guy always wins, sports figure wins the championship etc) but how they get there is the story, and most remakes do it differently.

      Same can be said about prequels…. yeah we know where the characters end up, but seeing how they get there can be interesting too.

  5. I don’t think people get hateful about remakes in general. Some of the remakes you’re mentioning are way too old to be part of the hatred you’re writing about (Scarface for example). The gripe people have now (including myself) is endless amount of remakes being made over the last five years or so. That’s what’s got people really annoyed. A remake here and there back in the day was fine, but now it seems there’s at least one remake out in theaters every month or so over the last few years. It seems now like every thing that’s ever been made is scheduled for a remake soon. Why remake something like Jaws when it was the biggest movie of all time when it came out. You won’t re-create that same impact. Sure the shark isn’t THE most real-looking of all time but a better special effect does not mean a better story or a better film. Every now and then a remake is fine but not every damn month!

  6. Okay, John, on the argument of creativity…there is NO creativity left in Hollywood. Yes, there are adaptations, blah blah blah, but I think the point people are trying to make here is that no one is doing anyhing from scratch, no one is making up stories on their own anymore. There are remakes because the studios like to play it safe. They already own a lot of the rights to the original, so it saves shit loads of money, they don’t have to pay anyone for the rights. Lastly, you spelled Scarface wrong. There’s no e.

    1. That’s just ignorant. For every remake or adaptation that is put out, there are hundreds if not thousands of original scripts.

      LOTS of people are making up their own stories.
      Every day.

      To think otherwise is just plain stupid.

  7. I’m not against remakes but I think there are too many of them. About a quarter of the films that come out are remakes. Most remakes are unnessary, as the original was perfectly fine. Also, I feel Hollywood has a sensless need to do an updated version of everything.

    Instead of doing remakes on timeless classics like Psycho, do a remake on films that are not so classic, but had the potential to be. Than you can actually have the opportunity to improve upon the original.

  8. I think the reason pretty much all movies suck anymore is that Hollywood found out that they don’t have to make a good movie to make money, they just have to get people to watch. My guess is that they put more thought in making the previews than the movies. Political correctness has alot to do with the entertainment industry being ruined. The liberals that run Hollywood hire people based on their political beliefs instead of their talent. They have to make sure there’s a minority in everything they have creative control over, and make sure not to offend anyone who isn’t white and straight. Every since the mid 90’s the entertainment industry has been going down hill. Someone should start hunting down the Hollywood liberals with a rifle, one by one.

    1. very true. saying it takes more creativity to make a remake is bull. its not just the move industry but most forms of entertainment. originality has gone! writers are lazy and lack the ability to make an art piece. its all about money. how these people get production is astonishing

  9. Well you say that remakes don’t sully originals because you still have the original then add in a Lucas moan. That particular moan has irked me for a while from a great many star wars fans – I mean just like you said you STILL have the originals, so PLEASE stop moaning.

  10. John I totally agree with you, I always welcome a remake there is always a chance it will be good. I especially agree wirth the point you made in section B)

  11. Back in 2003 some swerks (I don’t recall the band) covered The Dead’s Uncle John’s Band. It was pleasant to listen to, sounded great, spot-on. Totally worthless for the same reason I don’t own two copies of Easy Rider.

    I believe there is only one justification for undertaking a remake:
    if the original film was on the verge of accomplishing something/getting at some point, but never quite developed. A thorough revisiting may jar loose the inherent themes. Take the original Rollerball (James Caan). It was full of stereotypical Sci-Fi social commentary, and had enough steak and potatoes to hold and audience.

  12. John, you make a good point in saying that there have always been remakes. For example, the version of The Maltese Falcon that we’re familiar with today was actually the third attempt or so at making that story into a movie.

  13. Remakes are just getting old is what people are usually trying to say but failing to say.
    It’s the idea that while some remakes are good, that doesn’t give all these new directors to hollywood a reason to stop being creative. And what little creativity we do see in original scripts usually leave much to be desired.
    The remakes you have listed that are indeed “good”, are in fact good, but so so many bad ones outweigh these few. And it seems the only films getting made these days are adaptations, sequels that have already been done – being REdone – and just the plain and simple fact that, geeeeeeeesh, can’t any director have there own story to put out there, they always have to copy an existing piece of work, and just change some things?? That is the ideal here, that is the outcry. Don’t simply confuse all the chatter you comment above in your story about as people who just hate the word ‘remake’. It’s not that simple. We hate, SO MANY remakes.
    Search your minds story writers and directors, create something new, is it so much to ask?

  14. I’m with just about everyone on thse unnecessary remakes, but somethimes these 20- or 30-year anniversary remakes are just necessary corporate licence renewals — but, sometimes they produce good things like Ron Moore’s Battlestar Galactica: The show’s licence had lain dormant and was about to revert to show-creator Glen A. Larson from Universal, since a revival had been in turnaround for more than a decade. I’m fairly sure that Universal hadn’t expected the miniseries to be the hit that it was, otherwise, they wouldn’t have had to scramble to the UK’s SkyTV, for additional financial support.

    Yes Virginia, remakes often suck terribly, especially when they’re cynically produced as some sort of pro forma legal deal before some studio’s rights to a project are about to lapse. (‘Galactica’,’Carrie’,’Firestarter’ and ‘The Bionic Woman’ were at the end of their renewal cycle and the studio HAD to crank out a new feature to retain creative control over the property.)

  15. As much as I admire your opinions, John, I just can’t understand your view of the Wicker Man. I adored the weirdness of it, the way in which the music played such a strong part, and the wonderful performances. It’s a film of its time sure, but is brilliant in how it manages to grip you with seventies fear of change. The protaganist represents those of traditionalist values and the islanders the revolutionaries who had overcome them. Even ignoring this the film is superb, casting aside dull horror conventions to bring something new, fresh and exciting. No wonder it Lee’s favourite film he’s starred in.

    Oh and you don’t like Blade Runner either? Have you seen the Third Man?

  16. @ Moviereign

    an earlier version of “i am legend” before “omega man” was “the last man on earth” 1964 with vincent price.

    burtons remake of planet of the apes = lol.

  17. Thanks for such a refreshing look on remakes. At first I thought your arguments were going to be with the crowd giving proof for why most remakes stink, but I was pleasantly surprised to hear your “other side of the road” take on it. It’s always nice to get a new perspective.

  18. I have come to discover that any one person will eventually have an opinion that I come to regard as jaw-droppingly wrong – no matter who they might be. It is a fact of human nature. If I haven’t come across it in some people, it is only because I haven’t spoken to them enough.

    But such is the case here with the statement that the original Wicker Man “sucked ass”. Dean above is right on this one. The original Wicker Man is a flat-out masterpiece. Don’t believe me? See it and decide for yourself.

  19. Burton may not be to everyone’s taste and his style may have gotten too repetitive but Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood are geniunely great films.

  20. I’m so happy that others are agreeing with the suckage of Tim Burton. Planet of the Apes was the worst remake ever produced.
    Also, why is no one mentioning Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? That should be reason #155 to hate Tim Burton.

  21. Why has no one mention “King Kong”? I loved it!

    Yes, most remakes are bad, but that doesn’t rule out creativity. Maybe it’s just what they want to do for now.

    As John said, original ideas are hard to come by.

  22. Hi y’all. As a writer, I have never been all that much for or against remakes. I am more concerned about the quality of the script. After all, a stageplay gets done by different casts and theater organizations every year, yet no-one seems to be screaming that “Hamlet” or “The Crucible” should be shelved forever. There are how many versions of “Superman” available?

    Really, it is more in the story telling. I’d much rather see a well done version/vision of an already used script than a cavalcade of pointless sequals.

  23. question:
    why does some remake sucks?? is it because it deviates from the immortal original? or it just sucks to begin with? Oceans 11 was better, thats true, but maybe thats because the original sucks! besides the remake had a wide range of A-class actors that made it more fun to watch. Then we have PlanetofTheApes remake by mr Burton…. wtf? because the original rocks.

    So i think a remake will always be cursed by the original either in a good or bad way. so remake a original that sucks to be on the safe side. Hollywood, try and remake 2001: A Space Odyssey and see what happens. lol

  24. I don’t have a problem with remakes as a general rule. you have to take it film by film. Hell the wizard of oz was a remake….hitchcock remade his own films…. …sure most are terrible but some are great and the biggest thing that annoys me is that whole “they are ruining the original” I could understand that if everytime they remade a film every copy of the original just vanished from the face of the earth but the original is always there.just take it on a film by film basis as you would any film…I don’t see the point in ruling them out outright. if its good great if it sucks just stick in the dvd of the original and forget about the lazy shitty horrible remake you just witnessed.

    The dawn of the dead remake was great – so much better than I ever expected as dawn is one of my favorite films of all time..it is not in anyway superior to the original but it is a good film in its own right.

    The biggest problem I have is when the film makers take a great film and decide to remake but then decide to take everything that made the original great remove all that greatness and replace it with there “fresh” ideas and make a piece off junk. That happens too often.

    as for saying it shows a lack of creativity in hollywood I do agree with that.
    It really does seem to be sequels, remakes and adaptations a plenty at the moment. They do appear to outweigh films that are completely original ideas created for a film.

    I mean we definitely still get original films but the big blockbustery stuff seems to all be based on something already created….narnia, dark knight, indiana jones, iron man etc etc
    and again I don’t mind but I can’t remember the last time I saw a totally original not based on anything other than an original screenplay big budget event blockbuster film. It all seems to come from somewhere else and when something original does come along it just seems to get buried under the weight of big budegt sequel/remake/comic book adaptation mania.

    the sabrina remake with ford and kinnear is awful. a complete travesty. The original shines class through and through…..and
    The wicker man is a fucking masterpiece. Plain and simple. It is superior in everyway to pathology and while I can’t remember what score you gave it you did say on a podcast after you had seen it that you thought pathology was one of the best thrillers you had ever seen in your life. You can deny it now but that is what you said and if that is truly the case I can only imagine that the you have only seen two thrillers in total because pathology was complete and utter balls.

    but I do agree with most of your points there john.

  25. As far as remakes being far and away better than the originals, you can throw PJ’s LOTR in there as well. It made up for Ralph Bakshi’s craptacular LOTR crapfest!

    Perhaps it isn’t the same since Bakshi’s was animated but still!

  26. I think crappy movies should be remade not good films. That was they can only get better. However, Batman Begins is a remake in my opinion and the original was well received.

  27. I don’t hate remakes dogmaticly, but I think they’re generally a bad idea. The trick is that there are some movies that can be improved on and others that can’t, and there’s no reason to touch the genuine classics.

    What I really hate is when I’m talking to someone and bring up, say The Producers, and the person i’m talking to says somthing like “oh I love Will Ferrel in that.” I then have to roll my eyes and say “No, I’m talking about the original” They then give me a confused look and say “There’s an original?”

    The thought of having a conversation like that about The Day the Earth Stood Still gives me the willies.

    And the comparison between a film remake and an adaptation from a novel is a false analogy. There’s a difference between adapting something from one medium to another and readapting it for the same medium it was famous for to begin with. Could you imagine someone writing another BOOK that was a “remake” of Catcher in the Rye, what would be the point of that, it would be just as pointless and making anohter FILM that was a remake of The Exorcist.

    BTW, it’s spelled Spartacus, with an “a” not an “i.” not trying to be snarky, just giving a heads up.

  28. Its simple,,,,

    I dont like remakes because theres too many of them, and they often remake films that dont need to be remade,,,,

  29. John your out of touch. most of the films you stated where older remakes, done in a time when Hollywood has a clue. All this new stuff is horrible and pointless, its laziness and making a quick buck without much work. They know there mainstream audience so most of the time all they do is amp the source material up and add some heavy metal.

  30. I mostly hate remakes.

    There is no? creativity left in Hollywood – ok, there’s some but making a movie from a book requires a lot more film creativity than remaking a movie.

    example: Compare Nosferatu 1922, Dracula 1931 and Bram Stoker’s Dracula 1992. They’re based on the same book but not only have subtle plot differences – they feel completely different. The Planet of the Apes remake had plot differences but otherwise felt the same.

    There’s a big difference between reusing someone else’s film source material (including direct steals – sometimes referred to as homages) and reinterpreting a book or video game.

    So, I don’t think the source material arguement has merit.

    Adpatation is hard? You’re suggesting that adapting someone else’s work is harder than writing your own. No way.

    Adaptation isn’t simply a matter of story or script. It’s all about reinterpreting scenes and sets too. Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings was particularly satisfying in that he cheated by “remaking” previously existing drawings – ie: the artwork from the books and calendars.

    Compare this to Star Wars, where although many ideas came from other areas, most of the sets and costumes were new to the production. It’s much harder work.

    Anyway, this is getting too long to argue further but I still hate remakes and think that generally they’re lazy.

    I’ll agree that some remakes (the Thing, The Fly etc) are good but the vast majority are simply regurgitations of existing material.

    The sorts of movies that really should be remade aren’t the biggies, they’re the little ones with good stories which didn’t take off because of technical or budget limitations.

    “The keep” 1983 and “the Survivor” 1981 for example.

  31. Ben Hur was an Awesome remake! But that Day the Earth Stood Still looks horrible… as a remake, I think I’d love it if had it’s own title. If they stray to far form the namesake, just give it it’s own title, make it original.

  32. I’m interested: Is there a special reason why you call the movie “Sparticus”? If not, you might search for Sparticus on this blog and correct it to “Spartacus”. ;-)

    And yes, remakes mostly suck, especially if the remade movie isn’t old at all. It happens rather seldom that a remake impresses me like “Batman Begins” did. Ok, not a 1:1 remake, but still. It’s great but doesn’t take away anything from the old Batman movies. Now, I’m more than anxious to see what they’ll be doing with the Highlander remake which is apparently in the working… ;-)

  33. i agree with entertainment^…..im not a fan of remakes for fear of things being changed…but when its done right (the fly, dawn of the dead, king kong) its great….but most of time its only similar to the original by name (imo transformers, i am legend) and things are pointlessly changed

    thats when i get pissed…

  34. This is a really good topic. First let me say I liked the idea of remakes and I do agree with you that some are better than the original. THe FLY is one of the very best films of the 80’s and probably the definitive performance in Jeff Goldblums career. I love the remake of DAWN OF THE DEAD although I would never say its superior in any way to the original. I guess it depends how old you are but Romero’s original for pure scope makes it the Gone with the Wind of the genre. Phillip Kaufamn’s 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a great film and in my opinion better than the original. I also feel that INVASION has its merits and despite studio tampering i like it! As for POSEIDON Ive come to appreciate it as a pure action film. The original The POSEIDON ADVENTURE is my all time favorite film and to me Gene Hackmans rev Scott is one of the great characters in movie history. I still don’t really understand what happened in the editing room with Warner Bros. and Wolfgang Peterson with Poseidon, as its public knowledge that the film was an hour longer in its first test screening. It still stunning to me how quick the wave hits the ship in it’s final cut and how under written every thing is. Having said that, Peterson stages some great action sequences and the Josh Lucas jumping into the flaming water with the fire hose is a tremendously well done sequence! . As for Tim Burtons PLANET OF THE APES- He was clearly the wrong director for the project, and Mark Walberg was definetly the wrong actor for that movie. Even the decision to shoot on phoney looking soundstages insteed of on location is mind blowing! I liked to see Fox give it one more shot with an actor like George Clooney and a director like James Cameron attached. I agree on THE FOG- GOD AWFUL . So yes, remakes will always be a mixed bag but Im still intriqued when a new one is announced!

  35. I want Fox, Paramount, Universal, MGM, Lionsgate, etc.. to get off their lazy asses and actually open up those scripts that they paid for. Don’t let them sit in some vault somewhere collecting dust. Go down to the fucking vault and start reading some of those scripts. I bet some of those scripts are ripoffs and most are not. I bet there are original ideas in some of those scripts too. Let the guys who never ever get a chance to have their scripts made into movies actually get the chance. I know it’s not my money. I am still within their paying demographic though. So I do matter.

  36. Many remakes either suck outright or are a lazy attempt to cash in on a known property via name recognition IMHO.

    And “Sabrina” rocked? Have you seen the original one? It kicks the crap out of the hollow “new” version. No contest.

    One of my rules for remakes is that it’s usually not a bad idea of the movies they are based on are pretty much mediocre (your Ocean’s 11 example fits that category).

    There are always exceptions to the rule, but that’s what they are: exceptions.


  37. I’m glad you mentioned Steve Martin. The man has been in more remakes than anyone! OK, I don’t know if that particular fact is true, but I do know that 47% of his starring roles have been in remakes or sequels to those remakes. That has to be a record. Check it out in full detail:

    I can’t explain Martin’s choices, but I do think that we get so many remakes because studio execs are much more apt to greenlight something they already understand. As a group, they’re not exactly trailblazers.

  38. I dont mind remakes as long as what they are remaking something that sucked in the first place. To take a movie like Planet of the Apes which is still the pinnacle of Sci Fi/Fantasy movies which starred Charleton Heston and turn it into the retarded mess that Tim Burton did! Yea, that is what makes people hate remakes.

    Personally, I would like to kick Tim Burton in the balls for that fiasco. The guy is way overrated as a director! He wouldn’t really be shit if it wasn’t for Johnny Depp making his movies watchable.

  39. “where would cinema be today without Al Pacino‚Äôs Scarface?”

    A much, much better place?

    The only problem I have with sequels is that I inevitably have to explain the movies I’m talking about to my friends. “Have you seen The Hitcher?” I say. “With Sean Bean?” “No, the original.” And so on.

  40. im really gettin tired of the “fanboy” phrase getting thrown around….im not a hater of remakes but most of the time im very disappointed to see the things that made the original source so great be taken away…..i read the book i am legend right before seeing the will smith vehicle…..now i can appreciate a writer or director changing a few things but if they wouldve stayed with the themes and settings in the book i feel it wouldve been a much better movie….so because im a sort of a purist some may label me a fanboy

  41. the original wicker man “sucked ass”?

    i know movies are all about opinions and what have you, but john, that has to be the strangest thing i have ever read from this site. i know you like to go against the grain all the time to be different, but do you really think the wicker man sucked ass but you gave “pathology” 8.5 out of 10?

  42. Everything in point “A” is spoken like a true outsider. No studio goes into the process of remaking a film with the anticipation of broadening creative horizons.

    Most, damn near all of the remakes Hollywood cranks out are cut-and-paste jobs or simply shoplifted creativity from an original work. The decisions are made to capitalize on former successes in most instances and nothing more. And this is the accepted norm.

    So, no, the notion that Hollywood lacks creativity is not a “ridiculous statement.” The exceptions to the rule are far too few to serve as a crutch to stand on here.

    The danger is that lazy creativity breeds the same. If you give a pass to Hollywood in this way, then you run the risk of insularity. I think you’re giving far too much credit to an industry that would just as soon crank out cookie-cutter content because the mouth-breathers will pay for it.

  43. I don’t hate many things John, and the remake is just something that i usually never get excited about, but don’t get angry about either. If i hear they are remaking a great movie which, i feel, doesn’t need a do-over or can’t be improved, i just sigh and get on with my day.

    What I have realised is that we seem to hear about a new proposed remake every week in the movie news and so many of them don’t get made. If we were flooded with remakes every blockbuster summer season then maybe i could get really annoyed but the situation isn’t nearly that bad.

    However, I am really (really really) beginning to hate the terms ‘restart’, ‘reboot’ and ‘reimagining’. They just get used way too much these days and most of the time, its because whoever says their movie will be such, just thinks ‘remake’ is a dirty word and they don’t want to call it that.

  44. Love remakes, I’m always for a new look at old work. I love an updated version, updated technology. And then I love going back and comparing the old. Latest example. I Am Legend with Will Smith, and then went back and saw the original with Charlton Heston. Honestly, loved the New one better but appreciated them both tremendously. It’s fun to compare the similarities and changes. Maybe the reason people don’t like remakes is because they are just like intense fanboys who like change and can’t see anyone disagreeing with the original and “everyone must love this one” “bow to me” “I rule you” you know, nonsensical stuff like that… My opinion, thats just how i feel, I may be wrong. Any ideas gang?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *