Remakes are Not for You

Recently there is a new trend about the remakes of beloved 80s franchises. Like the recently announced Footloose and Karate Kid

Clearly everyone from our generation is going to see these remakes as a bad idea and are universally hating the idea. Oh they will scream “Why are they ruining my childhood” and think this is a personal attack against anyone who dared to have a personal emotional attachment to these films.

They are not making these films for me/you.

Yup. They hired the High School Musical guy to do a Footloose remake KNOWING that it wouldn’t appeal to 30 somethings that had that film engraved on their very souls. They don’t care if you want it to happen. They don’t care that you have already decided its a bad idea.

Will Smith is going to remake Karate Kid with his offspring KNOWING that people who learned Karate could be learned by doing yard chores and waxing on could care less about it.

This is pure business, and I understand it.

They are attempting to bring these heartfelt franchises to a new generation. Sure we might look upon them as cheap imitations but remember that 20 years from now my kids and other current preteens are going to talk about how cheesy High School Musical was, and how weird that metrosexual pretty boy was but remember how cool they always thought they were.

Don’t believe me? Go watch Footloose. The dancing is hokey, try that today and you might be in an alternative lifestyle club. The music is poppy and prozak happy, and that love interest that you thought was so hot in those red cowboy boots just isn’t appealing anymore. She’s not all that pretty.

But the movie WAS full of hot girls, and WAS full of super cool music and hot dancing and hip fashions. Honestly they were. I dressed like Ren McCormack all through highschool. And my parents couldn’t comprehend me liking that music and dancing like a fool and wearing a hot pink skinny tie to my grade eight grad.

Our youngest generation who will be exposed to these films will remember this generations most inspiring films, but to us they may not seem inspiring. Footloose was a big part of my teenage years, as was Karate Kid, Star Wars and Indiana Jones. They all played their part in my evolution to who I am, just like my friends and family. The pop culture of my time will always have its special place.

Hollywood can’t try to create those moments. No one made Footloose and said, “I hope this movie MEANS SOMETHING to someone out there” They just wanted to make a movie about fun, and dancing.

Everything can change someone even if it is just a tiny bit. For me the movies, music and books I read were important, but at the time they had no idea that it would be.

So like it or not, these remakes are not for you. They are hoping to bring these stories to a new generation. Will they impact them the same way? Maybe they will.

I know my kids will remember that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie with the same fondness I recall watching Willy Wonka as a kid. And I know my kids are completely obsessed with the Star Wars prequels and the heaps of Clone Wars era stuff, which will likely stick with them for a long time too.

Comment with Facebook

40 thoughts on “Remakes are Not for You

  1. I’m 22 and I’m pissed off and sick of remakes. Come up with some imgination like they used to. Make movies that the oscars can actually go “holy shit we actually have something to choose, not politically pick”. Hollywood is a dried up whore who sells itself to anyone willing to give it money. There are no more legendary, movies that will be remembered, let alone maybe LOTR but not like the 70’s and 80’s. Oh sorry and pixar, becuase pixar is god and seems to have the ability to think up ideas by themselves and not steal what someone already did.

  2. I totally understand the business aspect of remakes and the fact that they’re trying to expose a new generation to an established franchise, however, the cultural and historical significance of the original films are what make them special. They might appear corny by todays standards, but these films are reflections of the time in which they were originally made.

    Like John said, these films are great because they’ll be remembered forever. Adaptations and re-boots are cool, and so are remakes (if done right), but every ten years there seems to be a “remake fad” where the remakes tend to eventually fade out of our memories.

    Rodney, I think you’re underestimating the younger generation’s awareness of the original films. Just like I grew up watching my parent’s favorite classics, I think kids nowadays are at least somewhat aware of the historical significance of the originals. When you try to totally change the essence of a film like The Karate Kid to make money, that’s bad news for films in general. I’m pretty sure the footloose remake will fade into time, unlike the original.

  3. It’s not just that they’re remaking or reimagining these films it’s that they’re doing them so poorly and in most cases so untrue to the original. If they’re not aiming these movies somewhat at the 30-40 year olds why are they using the titles from the 80’s? If the movie is really nothing like the original, just call it something else.

    1. So you whine that they are not original, then complain that they use the same titles?

      I don’t understand your point.

      And who says these will be done poorly? Every film has the chance to be great. You just already assume they will be poorly done, and you prejudge the films.

      They are remakes. And they put their own personal spin on things. If they universally sucked, people wouldn’t make remakes. But people will go see them, so why not?

  4. I can give you 1 VERY good example of remakes gone wrong. An American Werewolf In London and the remake An American Werewolf in Paris…London was EXCELLANT and Paris sucked…

    1. Paris wasn’t a remake of London. It was a stand alone werewolf movie that played on the similarity in the title. The two had nothing to do with each other aside from including werewolves.

      And the topic at hand isn’t how many bad sequels there are as I am sure we could go on all day and name dozens.

  5. Why arent the originals good enough? i really just dont understand. like… it just seems to me like everyone is posing. everybody’s claiming to really dig a lifestyle of vintage and originality and authenticity. Yet people are buying their “vintage style” clothes BRAND NEW made to look vintage. and what is happening to all the Ma and Pa video and music stores?they’re disappearing because its “sooo cool” to like bands from the 60’s and 70’s and yet buy their best of CDs at retail chains who hold no personality. All these mesages of living a healthier lifestyle yet creating and selling products that make it so you never have to leave your home. and so when it comes to re-making movies it just goes to show how unoriginal things are and just how spoon fed people are so that they dont have to think on their own and be their own person. Maybe I am a little crazy but this is how i see things. The movie Wall-e really pointed it out. i guess i really dont have much faith in the human race and remakeing original movies instead of making original movies is just pathetic in my mind. i mean thats what they get overpaid to do isnt it? to be creative? and then people are going to pay to go see something thats already been done before? grrr, i’m done, thats my rant, i’m sure you all will scrap at me for my comment but i stand by it.

  6. People… what is the big deal with remakes? A remake doesn’t mean the original doesn’t exist anymore. You don’t need a remake to feel like watching an old movie. But the point that everyone is missing is that movies are stories told by people performing it in stead of telling it. Who wouldn’t like to be Indiana Jones once? Theatre plays are made and remade everyday. Some plays are good and some are not. Who gives a fudge? Hollywood want’s to make money (big news, ’cause I hate money), if you’re not comfortable with that, just don’t watch the movie, nobody cares. But if there’s a great story like, say Neverending story, and I know kids would really love that one, why should I make them watch an 80’s movie with an actor they have no idea who he is and with the crapiest special FX’s???? NO!!! Remake it!!! Let new kids have fun with it, the other one is obsolete for that matter! Do I love the original? Yes! Can I watch it over and over again? YES? Should the rest of the world see the same movie till the end of times??? WHY ON EARTH????????? REMAKE IT REMAKE IT REMAKE A THOUSAND TIMES!!!! I-STILL-HAVE-THE-FUCKING-ORIGINAL!!!!!!

  7. I really don’t mind remakes at all, as long as we still have the original then I’m fine and if the remake ends up being shit then I’ll just go watch the original again.

  8. I just wish the films being remade were films that maybe had a good premise but had real bad execution maybe a sloppy script or dated/bad special effects that could be improved with todays technology.

    It just bugs me when classics are remade purely because of the franchise name and the almighty dollar one example being the recent Halloween (and a lot of horrors these days it seems) witch pretty much is exactly the same film only unnecessary. I am in no ways a huge supporter of the original but there really is nothing done in the new film that was not/could not have been done in the original.
    The flipside is the Clash of the Titans remake witch i absolutely loved as a child but i do believe in the right hands it’s got potential to be better than the original in terms of SFX at the very least ( i do love the old stop motion but would love to see some of those creatures brought to life with todays standards).

    I guess what i’m ultimately trying to say is if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

    1. They’ve done that from time to time; but for some reason, this younger generation don’t go to the movies to see re-released classics. I went and saw Alien a few years back in theaters and the room was nearly empty. Another theater has a “UA 100 year anniversary” and were playing Rocky, The Good The Bad and The Ugly, The Great Escape, etc…still no one showed up. I think the only re-release I’ve seen in theaters with a decent amount of attendance was the Exorcist back in 2001-02.

    2. They do. On dvd.

      A movie has to be utterly epic if they expect it to have a second run at theaters. Why would you go to a theater when you have the film at home already.

      I know there are some that would love to relive the cinema experience, but that demographic is too small to financially justify a theatrical re-release.

    3. “A movie has to be utterly epic if they expect it to have a second run at theaters. Why would you go to a theater when you have the film at home already.”

      Because I don’t own a 50′ screen. The theatre near me does actually show old movies. Also, the Art Museum down in Philadelphia has had movie nights where they have shown Old Indiana Jones movies, Star Wars, and even other non-George-Lucas classics. They’re a lot of fun to attend, and you can bring your kids, who weren’t old enough or born yet to see it in a big screen the first time around.

      As far as justifying financially, well they still do it, so I guess it is profitable.

    4. I guess I should clarify, they have actually shown footloose. It was 2 or 3 years ago. They also have shown Karate kid movies, Back to the Future movies, Terminator movies and more.

    5. Calviin, there is a BIG difference between financially justifying a theatrical re-release and your local art theater having a classic films night.

      Its not profitable at all for them to re-launch these old films in thousands of screens. You have an art house doing a local event. Completely different thing altogether.

    6. Which also proves my point.

      The studios are not going to re-release these in the theaters. Your local theater does these as events. Not the studio.

      Isolated local events and screenings are not going to justify the financial feasibility of a theatrical re-release.

    7. I dunno if we proved OR disproved anything here. The branch of Regal Cinema’s chain theatre local to me proves that it is financially viable to re-release movies in my area, but does not prove or disprove it nationally and there hasn’t been any other evidence for or against it either. I know you made claims like these:

      “A movie has to be utterly epic if they expect it to have a second run at theaters.”

      “I know there are some that would love to relive the cinema experience, but that demographic is too small to financially justify a theatrical re-release.”

      But at no point has any evidence been used to back up these points. I used the best evidence I have from my area that your claims are not true, but that only really verify things for my area. Kinda like a test market, it’s a good micro example, but it’s necessarily a reflection on how results would match on a macro-scale. I think that until a chain tries it and either succeeds or fails, it’s all supposition.

      That said, my example does more for proving it could work, even though it is not concrete evidence.

    8. Calvin, you proved that your local cinema could have an event and people might go. That doesn’t mean that it would work that way in every city, or that it would work at all for every film. Its not worth the financial risk.

      This is a far cry different from a theatrical re-release and the costs involved in doing so.

      The fact that you don’t get that prove how little you know about how that would work.

  9. Do you think their aim was the same in the 90’s and 80’s with other remakes of the past? Say like how Cronenberg’s vision of The Fly was? I think it’s leaps and bounds over Price’s film and so do a lot of other family members and people i know that were kids when the original came out? Do you think the remakes that brought something new to the table; like that one for example, had a dollar sign motive, like these do today?

  10. I am split with John here.

    Yes, I agree that most remakes are not for those who grew up on such pictures, on the other hand…. Some do it for just “name and brand” purposes. I think that is one of the reasons why most of us who grew up on these pictures dislikes remakes. The other reason is that, unlike the 80’s where we had some remakes ourselves (The Thing, The Fly, The Blob) today, it seems that every other picture announced or in development is a remake of some sort. The most important thing we forget is that not everything will come to pass Are we still waiting the “almost happened” Revenge Of The Nerds? The Warriors? There’s just too many of them. I don’t think anyone’s planning a remake of Wierd Science just yet (give ’em time) but even if it was announced five minutes from now- that doesn’t mean it will happen.

    In other words, We fear the overkill.

    As I stated before, I wasn’t a big lover of Footloose. But I have no problem with a remake. Why? I’m thinking that they are more apt to follow the already adapted Broadway musical than the original film.

    It should be pointed out that a good chunk of the remakes are greenlit by those who did grow up on them, and some are directed by those who loved the original. That’s not always a good thing-the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.

    It should be said that some remakes actually turn out to be gems, like 3:10 To Yuma…but then again, that wasn’t from an 80’s movie…and there was more story added to make it “new”.

    1. Darren J Seeley: If you even knew how often I’ve made this mistake. It bothers me so much because I have a lot of respect for John’s opinion and I hate when I accidentally mistake it for Rodney’s opinion. Maybe if there were a more obvious way of distinguishing between them, like including their user icon next to the Post Title so we see visually who it came from. I was just discussing this with a friend last night who also reads the site and we both made the same mistake of thinking a certain post was from John when it was really from Rodney. That one discovery changed out whole viewpoint on the discussion.

    2. How does it change anything depending on who wrote it? The statements stand for themselves and you either agree with them or you don’t. Its all about discussion.

      If you are going to change your stance on a particular topic just because of who brought it up, that doesn’t say much for your convictions.

    3. Rodney: It has nothing to do with conviction. I can’t have conviction about a movie’s review before I see the movie. Our opinions changed on whether we were optimistic to see the movie. Historically, we have agreed with John’s assessment of a movie. If he likes it, we have found that we have also liked it. Even in cases where we saw the movie before John, he tends to give it a review that corresponds to our own evaluation. 95% of the time, opinion align. Because of this history, when John sees a movie before we do and he says he liked the movie, we go in expecting to like the movie. If he dislikes it, we expect to dislike it. This is exactly similar to the way in which John’s own expectations changes for movies based on the cumulative scores on Rotten Tomatoes. I’m pretty sure this is the primary purpose of reviews. If I trust the reviewer, I will give value to their opinion.

      Also, I think that “convictions” can be misunderstood for stubborness. It’s perfectly reasonable to change your opinion if the person who opens the topic is someone you have a lot of trust or mistrust for. I will treat an article with varying amounts of credibility depending on if it was written by John, Fox News or Jack Thompson. I know which of those are able to make valued, informed and unbiased conversations and which aren’t.

  11. This is a great point, but I kinda see it backwards (maybe a common theme for me). I think they are making these movies with me, a child of the ’80s in mind, but not as the audience per se. They want me to see that they’re making another karate kid and have that magical ‘wax on, wax off’ moment go off in my head and rush out with my kids and my family to remember the glory days, because that will be guaranteed money. I don’t think they care about making a movie that will live on in kids minds for decades to come, I think they are just banking on my happy memories from my childhood to bring in some cash.
    Just my opinion, please don’t kill me! ;)

  12. “Hollywood can’t try to create those moments.”

    But thats exactly what they’re attempting to do here by remaking these films. As you said, the crew behind Footloose couldn’t know they’re making an iconic film. They were making a film they believed in and a story they thought would be fun and entertaining and plugged into the zeitgeist. Highschool musical is exactly like Footloose in that regard.

    But REMAKING these films is a CONSCIOUS attempt to recreate the iconic film by copying it. As you say, impossible. You can’t FORCE something into being iconic.

    And you’re absolutely kidding yourself if you think that these remakes aren’t ‘for us’. A huge part of these films is specifically designed to arouse curiosity in fans of the original films. They’re made to cash in on an existing recognisable brand the same way sequels and franchises are.

    You’re more likely to be curious to see a remake of a film you knew and liked than you are a film you’ve never seen. At the very least, it boosts sales on the original film on dvd (now on blu-ray!). They’re for us. How many times have you gone to see a remake or rented a remake “just to see how badly they’d screw it up”

    Star Trek’s marketing tagline sums it all up beautifully. “Not your father’s Star Trek”. Genius. Dads will be curious and “lets see what the fuss is about”. Sons will take their dads with them to the movies for bonding (I went with just my dad to see the Phantom Menace when it first came out). Dads will tell the kids all about the old star trek and what made it great (lets go buy the dvd and find out). Perfect!

    1. I agree and disagree with what you have said here Mladen.

      They are not making this movie for me. They want the younger generation to see this. Its targeted at them. And yes, they will re-release the original so that they can still take advantage of the people who are reminded how great the original was (who may never see the new one, but they still cash in on dvd sales of the old one)

      The films they are making now might latch themselves on to a popular old film, but I assure you that they are targeting someone who is not me.

      As John mentioned above, these movies may suck ass and it is not a good idea to remake them, but I think that “not a good idea” stems entirely from our own preferences.

      Even without knowing about Karate Kid, do you think that my 11 year old son wouldnt be interested in a movie about a kid his age learning Karate? Yeah, he is going to want to see that.

      And do you think that my kids who LOVE Highschool Musical wouldnt want to see another film made in the same vein about cool music and dancing?

      So they remake Footloose, or they make Camp Rock 2. Doesn’t make much of a difference. Its still the same target.

      So yes, in part they might be making it for you, but at the same time they don’t care if you are not interested. They know who they WANT to be interested.

    2. Rodney:

      Just to clarify, I’m still assuming we’re talking only about remakes of teen, pre-teen and childrens movies. Remakes for the 15+ crowd are a different thing altogether.

      I’d be more inclined to agree with your point when we look at something like the new Karate Kid… as far as I understand they’re only really keeping some of the concept intact: wise-ass but wimpy american kid learns self esteem and discipline from wise asian mentor. In that case, yeah they’re repackaging the concept because of its proven general appeal, but I’m not sure if they’re even thinking of it as a remake anymore. They’ve even changed the name to Kung Fu Kid. Seems like a smart decision.

      Thats definately a case where they’re targeting a new audience with an idea thats been proven to work, as you’ve suggested.

      But I don’t think the appeal to brand familiarity is as unimportant as you think. Creating a PG film which’ll also attract a curious portion of an older demographic is a challenge. A remake of a kids film is one way to achieve that.

      And for most kids, I think its an important point that its ultimately the parents who pay and decide what films the kid will see. If you can influence the parents’ decision in any way by offering a trusted brand name (a remake), you’ve made your film stand out among a sea of unknown competitors.

  13. The problem Rodney is that OUR Willy Wonka and OUR Star Wars were epic and iconic and thus had staying power and are timeless… the new Willy Wonka is not. The new Star Wars is not.

    People will not be talking about the new Willy Wonka in 10 years.

    People will not be talking about the new Star Wars (except for how bad they are) in 20 years.

    People will not be talking about the new Footloose in 2 years.

    Remakes are fine. Remakes can be good. Remakes of classic films is fine too. But a footloose remake is a horrible idea, will suck and will have no staying power whatsoever.

    Made for me or not… it still have to be a “good idea”. This is not.

    1. im with john. but i do realize these movies arent being made for me.

      but hollywood does factor in our nostalgia when determining what to remake. they see money in footloose, karate kid, transformers because they know, no matter how bad, some people will give in to the kid inside and see it.

      they are making it for a new generation, but also have their mind on our money. its sloppy and stupid.

  14. Yup, it’s nostaglia that keeps those movies as a fond memory and props them up higher than they deserve. Sure, I will still say some movies of my time are excellent such as Aliens, the Thing, Predator, and SW OT. However, a lot of what I liked has not aged well. I bought the blu-ray of Dirty Dancing for my wife based on nostalgia and WOW, we both were shocked at how it didn’t live up to our memory. But for every one of those there is a Ferris Bueler’s Day Off that remains timeless.

    As for Karate Kid, a childhood favorite, it doesn’t age that well.

    Either way, although it might be unrealistic but I do despise the rehashes. On a basic level it bothers me that Hollywood has to lean on remaking old classics as opposed to coming up with good new ideas to be classics for a new generation. I also, on some level, feel the new ones replace the old ones, sort of block the originals from living on. Finally, the new ones tend to ruin my memory of the classics since they do almost everything better (sound, visuals, budget, special effects, writing, etc..) but they still miss that original magic.

    There are exceptions. I felt the new Star Trek captured me like the other originals. Batman is an obvious example of reinvigorating a franchise.

    Also, the argument I hold, that Hollywood shouldn’t do these because they should come up with original ideas, is a bit disingenuous. In reality, there are many many movies based on brand new ideas coming out all the time.

    1. Completely and utterly obvious point, actually.

      We all know Hollywood loves money, they ARE trying to recreate that same type of magic, that’s why they’re making the same movie for a second time. I understand that, but it doesn’t mean I have to like it. Also there is a difference between some of the films that kids love nowadays and the stuff I loved when I was a kid, most of the stuff made now is shit and that’s a fact. There was a lot of shit made in other decades too, but those generally aren’t the movies we’re talking about today. Just because I liked “Street Fighter” when I was little doesn’t mean I like it now, yeah your kids may enjoy them now, but there are VERY few movies they will watch again and again and actually love from this generation, I don’t care how much they love “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” or the “Star Wars” prequels right now. I’m sure you don’t like nearly every film now that you loved as a kid, just the great ones that are still great (maybe not who knows). They just want money and they assume an already tested idea is the best way to go, but I don’t like it and you shouldn’t just settle because you see the “logic” that Hollywood is using. I see it to, I guess I’m just not as impressed at how well oiled of a money making machine Hollywood is, I’d be much happier if they were a well oiled machine that makes decent quality new films, but I’m a romantic I guess.

Leave a Reply