Remakes Are For Losers

It is true; many remakes have been made by many great filmmakers. This however, does not necessarily make it a good thing. For instance King Kong; who doesn’t love at least some of Peter Jackson’s work? Most will think about Lord of the Rings, but Peter Jackson also made some classic movies like Bad Taste and Forgotten Silver that seem a lot more original. Of course these were less popular; even after his great fame with LOTR those movies are not raking in the money that King Kong did. There are plenty of reasons for Jackson to decide to remake the classic King Kong, but were they the right reasons?

I like to use the example of King Kong only because it is recent and very obvious. King Kong has been remade at least twice now if you do not count foreign films, sequels, TV shows, and spin-offs. Peter Jackson says that this was one of his favorite films and that is what led him to remake it. Also, special effects are a lot better now than they have ever been so King Kong could look more realistic and they could do more things in the visual department (just look at the individual computer generated hairs on King Kong, wow!). Does this really mean that we should remake the movie though? We have already seen King Kong or could certainly pick up a copy if we wanted to see it. We already know what happens so we are not getting anything new really. The only difference is new actors and a slightly different twist here and there. The visual aspect of the movie is far greater than the original or any of the remakes, but a lot of times it is the original that will really capture people’s hearts. This is because it is the story that held us originally. Once we have heard the story it will never be as good as the first time. This is proven by the ratings on IMDB; 8.1 for the original 5.6 for the 1976 version, and 7.7 for Peter Jackson’s King Kong. Even though Peter Jackson’s King Kong is a million times more visually compelling than the original 1933 version, the ratings are still higher for the original.

Enough of the Peter Jackson bashing, there are plenty of filmmakers that are responsible for remakes (and don’t get me wrong, Peter Jackson is great; it just seems lazy to do a remake after all he has done). Not too long ago I saw 3:10 to Yuma. When I saw the movie I thought that it was an original, but in fact it was a remake of a much older movie. This raises the question “how long can you wait until you remake a movie?” Is 50 years enough time to wait? Is 25 years enough? How about ten? Then you have other things like Insomnia or Vanilla Sky that are simply American versions of a foreign film. Is this ok because it is a different language and a different country or is this still just a remake?

Rant forever and all you get is frustration. Remakes of movies will always be released as long as the film industry is still around. I love some of the remakes out there, but usually I like the one that I saw first better. I liked Vanilla Sky better than Open Your Eyes. I have not even seen the original 3:10 to Yuma and I am sure that there are so many movies I have seen that are not original that it would almost be sickening. Sometimes it may make sense because a filmmaker can make right what once was wrong (Batman Begins), but other times it just seems like a lazy way to make a lot of money. Where is the fine line between these two opposing positions?

What are some of your experiences with movie remakes?