Cynical copyright-maintaining or quick-buck-making remakes are obviously not great. We can all agree on that. I’m talking about remakes/reboots done by people who are passionate about the project and who want to do the best they can with the material. I think, in a perfect world, we’d have a new Godfather II or Goodfellas every few years, made by directors and writers and actors who bring their own interpretation to the material. I want to see Quentin Tarantino’s version of The Exorcist. I want to see Martin Scorsese’s version of The Godfather. I want to see Ari Aster’s version of Spaceballs. I want to watch Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman playing Grumpy Old Men.
Shakespeare’s plays are done all over the world all the fucking time. You can’t get away from the cunt. His work is remade and remolded into different forms, like West Side Story or The Lion King. The themes and story beats are stolen and remixed and given different spins by pretty much everyone. No one says “no, I only like the FIRST recorded version of his plays, anything after that is shit by default” or “why are they re-recording Macbeth in 2025 when we already have the 1889 Talkie version??”
Recorded media should not be treated as a final, authoritative version of anything. It should exist and be respected and all that jazz, but Taxi Driver isn’t going anywhere just because they make a Muppets version in 2032 (god willing). Being sold as a commodity doesn’t bestow a story with finality and immutable perfection.
I love films and I love having them on Blu-ray. I would be even happier if I had 10 other interpretations of my favourite films made by film-makers I respect that I could also enjoy. I want people to treat recorded media the way they treat plays; that is, they are never “done”. Storytelling is an organic and squishy affair. I believe recorded media, for all the good it brings, also brings a weird sense that once something is printed on a DVD or played in a cinema, that the process of storytelling is completed and that’s that, forever. It’s really, really weird to me.
Most people are tolerant of, and in fact get very excited by, the idea of cover versions of songs they already love. Many of us have cover versions of songs we like better than the originals. Most of us take cover versions to be tributes to the original artists inasmuch as they’re unique interpretations. Why can’t we have the same attitude toward movies or TV shows? No cover version is “needed”. No cover version is expected to either surpass the original or die on the vine. But when a film remake is announced, the comments are always “what’s wrong with the OG?” or “the OG is only 10 years old!” or “this isn’t needed, I wish Hollywood would have original ideas for a change” etc.
Let’s lighten up a bit and be happy that we’re blessed with remakes at all. A world without the concept of remade movies would be a very bereft one, in my [unpopular] opinion.
Cynical remakes are bad, but the best ones are where they have real love and reverence for the source material.
Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks both had this attitude and it’s one reason I love them so much.
It just seems to me that there is already a perfectly good one that could be remarketed.
Generally speaking I agree with you, especially when it comes to the cynicism. However, while I like the spirit of the musical cover example, I don’t think it quite works in this argument. Artistically it fits , but not practically.
Creating a (good) song cover does require musical talent, but generally speaking anyone can create a song cover. The acoustic cover is a popular genre and the Internet is full of them.
However creating a “cover” of a television program or film, that’s a complex task no one person can do it. You need actors, many of them unless one-man shows are more popular than I think. You need sets, directors, editors, etc. No matter how you slice it it’s a complicated process.
So when people say, “I wish Hollywood would have original ideas”, if I’m generous with that interpretation, it’s because people are concerned that if only reboots/remakes exist, it takes away from original idea projects that could exist.
Of course we are living in the era of “content”. We have more films and television shows now than we’ve ever had. Not to mention alternatives like YouTube, Twitch, etc. although those don’t typically compete in reboot/remake category, they do share a similar entertainment bucket.
Sure. I mean I don’t understand why we needed some remakes that add nothing except more modern CGI. Or a remake of Ben Hur or Poltergeist or a Disney classic just with human actors. Some remakes are really nice, though. And similar things apply to reboots. I just watch them if I’m in the mood and decide on a case by case basis whether I like them or not. (Edit: But I’m not opposed to them making all of them, the artists maybe had a reason to do so. Some movies are just better than others, that’s how it is. And I, too, appreciate we have lots of culture and movies available to watch.)
(And again, same with cover bands. Some people put their own spin on a song, or mix and match, or it’s a persiflage. And I’ve also seen some not so good live bands playing at some small local event. And people definitely weren’t there for the music. Or I randomly get a nice Red Hot Chili Peppers hommage. It’s all out there.)
Shout out to Solium Infernum, get that shit
I think, in a perfect world, we’d have a new Godfather II or Goodfellas every few years
Why? If the story, writing, production, casting, acting, etc, have already produced an excellent/“perfect” production, why do it again?
The problem with remakes is the hubris of someone thinking they can do it better, when something is already excellent.
What value would there be in remaking The Princess Bride? Big Trouble in Little China? The movies you mentioned, The Godfather or Goodfellas. What gap are you trying to fill?
Now the older a movie is, the more likely an argument can be made, as technology changes (so ability to shoot a scene the way the original director wanted), or cultural norms have shifted (e.g. It Happened One Night).
But 99.62% of the time, a remake is done just because the producer can’t be bothered to find a new story, e.g. Overboard, a movie that was made in the mid-80’s, with actors who were at the top of their game, so budget wasn’t much of a concern, yet some doofus decided to remake it, and turn things around, which just doesn’t make sense.
As for music covers, Robert Plant said this about other people playing Stairway to Heaven: “I want people to do covers, I want to hear their interpretation”. Music is different than film, as it’s about the myriad ways you can balance complexity against familiarity. The more complex a song is, the harder it will be to cover without losing nuance - Avant Garde jazz is a great example (think Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue). Cover one of those songs and you’ll be challenged to create something even as good as the original (let alone better), just different.
In closing: part of what makes these great movies so great is their watchability. I’ve probably watched both The Princess Bride and Big Trouble in Little China 100 times each over the 40 years they’ve been out, and even with the most recent watching I’ve picked up on some nuance I’ve never noticed before. Same with It Happened One Night, and most Shakespeare productions (and I’ve seen some I’ve walked out of).
Shakespeare is a terrible example, as there is no pre-existing version, just notes about the stories.
Plus, Shakespeare was akin to TV shows today - it was the entertainment for the common man. It was in English, not Italian or (more importantly) French, the language of the ruling class.
Like Opera, it was the daily entertainment available, not the “dress up and go to a play/opera” thing we do today.
Shakespeare was the British version of the French Moliere.
