[MigueldaRican]

The word "remake" has become such a bad word. Me, I don't know what the big deal is. "Remake" is not really the problem with movies now. The word "remake" is not what makes a movie bad, it's... whether or not the movie is bad that makes it... bad.

So, let me hear from everyone else. Why? What makes the word "remake" such a bad word?

[kevin]

I look at it a couple of ways.

1 - Hollywood holds nothing that sacred. So saying some films should never be remade is pointless. If they think they can generate a profit they will do a remake for a new generation.

2 - Don't expect it to be better than the original, or if it's been remade more than once, whichever version is your favourite, but be prepared to be surprised if it does. Failing that, just don't go see it!!!

I'm fine with remakes but it's just that the law of averages suggests they don't often get done right.

[omegaman]

How many times has the Taking of Pelham 123 been remade? At least twice and now along comes the third incarnation which I'm eager to see, which I think will be better than the second version and add something to the original.

[Beetlescott]

With very few exceptions, I think remakes are a bad idea. If a movie is a good movie, why try to improve in it? Very seldom can a classic be improved on. Keep in mind that is just my opinion.

[jerhanner]

If you can't come up with something new, why beat a dead horse? Remakes are for the cowardly and lazy.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by jerhanner

If you can't come up with something new, why beat a dead horse? Remakes are for the cowardly and lazy.

But profitable to studios a lor of the time, hence the reason they get done over and over!

[MigueldaRican]

At least no one has been making the statement that this is something new with Hollywood.

Because this list - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes - shows a history of remakes.

I wonder about the ratio as well. Perhaps the ratio now is that there are more remakes than there use to be. Here's some things you have to take into account however:

- There are more movies being made now. For better or worse, this is a big reason why there are more remakes.
- If you look at that list, arguably you'd have to get rid of "remakes" that actually fall into the "adaptation" category. Which is actually a pretty big number.
- Something to consider: most remade films include "based on the screenplay by [name here]". Perhaps even a lot of remakes are even yet "adaptations" of written material, even if of screenplays.

With that last one there, Hollywood has a history of taking screenplays and severely deviating from source material, even so far as to all but change the plot and setting and characters, even genre. Now I've never read an old screenplay of something that's been remade, so I don't know how valid that is. But I do know that when it comes to adaptation, lately filmmakers have been trying to come very close to the original. A trend in today's movies that can actually be commended. Examples: Of Mice and Men (better than the original adaptation), The Lord of the Rings (pretty obvious how most people feel about this).

That in mind, I wonder, when we see a "remake", I wonder are filmmakers simply remaking the movie? Or are they reading the screenplay as well, and adapting it, while simply paying homage to the original filming?

[Jed Starkiller]

It really depends on the remake and how it was done. THe latest Journey to the center of the earth while not the best film was a interesting adpation on a book turned movie being remade.

[Zardoz]

But the problem I have is that these remakes are not well done scriptwise. It seems Hollywood is concerned with "Brand Recignition" more than attemping to make a good film.

[jerhanner]

As I've asked before, were I to rewrite Gone with the Wind, and the only change I made was to rename the characters, how could I claim to be an author? I would be a grave robber. Same thing with movies!