What is the point of remakes?

[Smovies]

Some people love remakes, some hate them. I personally believe we all can find some we enjoy, but my question is, why do we expect/demand remakes to be 100% faithful to the source material, especially when that’s already been done? I’m sure you realize (but maybe it’s an assumption) that studios rarely like to make shot for shot remakes, so why rag on a remake for changing things up when no one is stoping you from watching the beloved original? It’s like people throw logic out the window when it comes to these things.

[SilverFox84]

A remake is worth it when the original has aged so much that there's a cultural gulf that prevents people from watching and enjoying it.

Eg. As much as a love Metropolis. I can see it being an achingly long silent B/W movie might put a lot of people off, i think this is ripe for a remake personally

Or the director has a completely new take on the source material and the original didn't achieve what it set out to do or did it badly

Eg. Dune

[Lee A Stewart]

As with all movies made, loving to hating is subjective. One man's junk is another man's treasure.

I do ask the question of . . . with so many great books out there that have never been made into movies, why this desire by Hollywood to produce remakes? Their prosperity is a mixed bag of successes and total failures.

[Smovies]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

As with all movies made, loving to hating is subjective. One man's junk is another man's treasure.

I do ask the question of . . . with so many great books out there that have never been made into movies, why this desire by Hollywood to produce remakes? Their prosperity is a mixed bag of successes and total failures.

They have too many financial analysts who are risk averse and not enough vision to give new stories the life they deserve.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Smovies

why do we expect/demand remakes to be 100% faithful to the source material, especially when that’s already been done?

Who is actually expecting/demanding this things?

Look, some of the earliest remakes consisted of sound versions of movies previously filmed during the silent era. So, it's a time-honoured tradition I guess that a remake offers (or tries to offer) something you couldn't get from the earlier version, and it has been that way for almost a century now.

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

One man's junk is another man's treasure.

Yes, and some men spend too much time obsessing over their junk

[MifuneFan]

It's actually a bit of a conundrum for many people. Like, if an original film is highly regarded, and loved, and a remake comes along and is drastically different from it, it will be bashed for "not being anything like the original". At the same time, if a remake closely resembles the original, those same people will say "pointless remake, might as well stick to the original".

[Cremildo]

The point is that recognizable IPs are an easier sell. Audiences prefer familiar stuff.

Besides, why should a story be told only once, anyway?

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Smovies

They have too many financial analysts who are risk averse and not enough vision to give new stories the life they deserve.

Yes, money is the motivator. They may hold the rights to a movie so remaking it doesn't require them to lay out cash. And they can use a 2nd tier script writer to tweek the original which is easier and cheaper than starting with a blank piece of paper.

Then there is the issue of merchandising. When the original came out there may have been none. A remake can secure dump trucks full of money for merchandising.

[BluBonnet]

Many folks forget that the versions of The Wizard of Oz and The Maltese Falcon that we are most familiar with are themselves remakes of earlier films.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Many folks forget that the versions of The Wizard of Oz and The Maltese Falcon that we are most familiar with are themselves remakes of earlier films.

Scarface and The Thing.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

The point is that recognizable IPs are an easier sell. Audiences prefer familiar stuff.

Besides, why should a story be told only once, anyway?

If it was told right like Lawrence Of Arabia or The Wild Bunch, there is no reason. Timeless classics stand on their own. And 9 times out of 10, the remake is inferior like Ben Hur as an example.

But using your thinking - can't wait for the remake of Star Wars.

[Smovies]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

The point is that recognizable IPs are an easier sell. Audiences prefer familiar stuff.

Besides, why should a story be told only once, anyway?

Money does make Hollywood run at the end of the day.

[Smovies]

True, to be fair we can sometimes act like remakes began in the 1900s, and that is just not the case.

[Martoto]

Remakes are a theatrical tradition. Scripts are preproduced over and over again.

The Maltese Falcon was the third movie of that script. The Front page got made again and again. And guess what? The original isn't the best one of those movies.

The advent of television and video made it a more polarising practice. Since the original or definitive version is re-experienceable, reproducing those stories seems redundant at best. Creatively bankrupt at worst. And yet some remakes in the late twentieth century ultimately achieved respect. And the process has become fashionable as technology has moved on again and again.

[Guy87]

I know it goes against all financial sense, but I wish we had more remakes of great ideas that just missed the mark for whatever reason instead of re-making things that are already classics.

[MifuneFan]

I don't really think about it, but two of my favorite films are actually remakes. Floating Weeds (1959) is Ozu's own remake of his 1934 silent A Story of Floating Weeds. And the other of mine is Chusingura (1968), which there's been numerous adaptations of.

I actually find it fascinating when a director remakes his own film. Ozu has done it several times, and Hitchock too. Cecil B Demille of course also remade his Ten Commandments film, and it's the remake that is the most widely known of the two. Someone mentioned Metropolis earlier, adn it's actually something I thought about recently . I would have loved to see Fritz Lang remake Metropolis. His career spans early German silents, into colorful Indian epics, westerns, and film noir. He was an incredibly visionary, and it would have been pretty great to see what he could do with color, and sound for Metropolis. I do consider the original to be a masterpiece, and so far ahead of its time.

[Lee A Stewart]

I do like and applaud a remake that takes advantage of advancements in movie theater presentation technology that wasn't available when the original was made. 1959's Ben Hur comes to mind with it's use of MGM Camera 65 (Ultra Panavision 70) and 6 track stereo.

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

I do ask the question of . . . with so many great books out there that have never been made into movies, why this desire by Hollywood to produce remakes? Their prosperity is a mixed bag of successes and total failures.

You of all should know the answer for that. How much did Beauty and the Beast 17, Aladdin 19 and The Lion King 19 make vs A Wrinkle in Time and The Nutcracker?

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Farerb

You of all should know the answer for that. How much did Beauty and the Beast 17, Aladdin 19 and The Lion King 19 make vs A Wrinkle in Time and The Nutcracker?

Why should I know the answer to that?

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Why should I know the answer to that?

Because you always talk about numbers and data.