Is there any good reason why a movie should have a remake?

Question

With all the remakes out there it makes me wonder, is there any good reason to remake a movie. In my opinion there are only two reason to remake a movie. One, that the technology wasn't there at the original was made to do it right and two, the movie came out so horrible that it's just a big steaming pile of crap. That's my reasons for remakes, what's yours or do you feel that there is no reason to remake a movie. Give me your answer.

Answer 1

I have a hard time with the first part.

i really don't think that even with the modern technology, "King Kong" was all that better (but certainly better than the hideous 1976 remake)

I fully agree with the second reason. Can't we help "Black Cauldron"? Even "Daredevil" could use a hand.

Answer 2

I agree with your two reasons, but the real reason is that most of the remakes are on movies that were quite successful and did well at the box office. When a current star actor fits the mold of the former character it is a gimme that if the movie is remade that people will go to see it. This means a box office success and people make money and that is what the movie business is all about. Brad Pitt recently did Jesse James, due to be released this fall and is in the process of signing up to do the remake of Bullet, originally done by Steve McQueen and these remakes will do good at the box office because of Brad's draw and star power. Plus, as you said the technology is such that the movies will be enhanced by it.

Answer 3

I was going to say that there usually isn't any reason to, but I agree that sometimes it's okay when there wasn't as good of technology when the original was made. Sometimes, I think they remake movies because it was a good movie, but the generation of today didn't live when it first came out. So they remake it and get even more money because it was a good movie, but younger people haven't heard of it.

I think that for the most part, movies shouldn't be remade. The writers should be encouraged to think up new plots! not just say "let's remake this" and let the special effects people do a ton of work. Also, a lot of times the originals turn out better!

You have a good opinion though, and that's a good question!

Answer 4

there is only one movie and one tv series i could see having good reasons:

TRON: in 1980-82 Disney made this film using computer coding. No one could see what they were building till it was on film. What came out was an amazing piece of art.
The original creator still works for disney and has talked of a sequel. He has also talked of a remake to see what 21st century technology might do with it.

V: Kenneth Johnson has been working on "V 2: the Second generation" this is based on a tv series he did in the 80's where aliens come to earth promoting peace and science breakthroughs. but as things get weird, a lone reporter discovers a horrible truth. the aliens are here for food (us) and water (our oceans and rivers).
It was a 8 hr long event split into two 4 hr mini series, and then a 18 episode tv series as the resistance must keep Earth from extention.

Kenneth has said he would like to do a remake of the original for people who never saw it.

Answer 5

For the most part no, I don't' see the point other than more money... If technology wasn't there in the original, then I can understand a remake. But for cases like the 'Omen' when it is almost a complete duplicate, I don't see the point and I say make something new. There is one movie I'm surprised hasn't been remade: 'Rosemary's Baby'

Answer 6

Most remakes are apalling, and don't even keep to the original plot - just look at 'The Italian Job'.

How many young people today have ever seen the original, or understand the real significance of why they were using red white and blue Mini Coopers?


But you could have a similar arguement about sequels - money isn't everything :(

Answer 7

Very rarely is there a remake that turns out better. I think the issue is that no one in the business has a creative bone in their bodies anymore. Either that or they are painfully lazy and don't want to come up with anything remotely new.

Answer 8

Technology, yes
(But Pearl Harbour sank without trace compared to Tora! Tora! Tora!)

I can't think of many ideas that survived an awful filming to be redone in a more glorious reincarnation, except some silent titles.
The Charge of the Light Brigade *was* one. The Errol Flynn version was a travesty.

The two versions of "The Thomas Crown Affair"
and the two classic versions of "The Prisoner of Zenda"
do sit fairly side-by-side in my opinion.

Otherwise, it's almost safe to assume the second version will be worse.

Peter Jackson's prospective re-working of "The Dambusters"? I don't hold out great hopes.
Only the special effects of the gunfire and the explosions needed re-doing from the magnificent original.
(And of course, the name of Guy Gibson's dog.)

Answer 9

Remakes are easy money. Even lousy films make some money. It's not different in other entertainment mediums. They recycle plays over and over as well. No one wants to take a chance with something new. As a consequence we have Cats and Phantom of the Opera over and over and over again.

Answer 10

i really only see one reason in making remakes, money. many younger people don't always remember or even know older movies, this way remade movies bring in a new audience, while luring in the audience who has already seen the movie because they want to see how different it is. my personal opinion is don't change something, create something new.