Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Why Are Remakes Good?
I'd like IJBM's opinion on film remakes.
Comments
Assuming that the remakes capture what makes the original great, you have an already good movie updated with modern equipment and film techniques?
Good remakes are good.
Bad remakes are bad.
Well, there are people who feel Hollywood should not do it ever.
There's an inherent structural problem with the remake process: Remakes are generally (if not always) made to take advantage of the popularity of a given movie, but if the old movie's popular, it was probably good enough, so it didn't "need" a remake. There are lots of films worth remaking, but they're usually the kind that wouldn't get remade in the first place, because they didn't do very well... unless they're adaptations from other media.
I'm all for good remakes, since I dislike old things as a generality. If the equipment is up to modern standards, and the movie is otherwise essentially the same, why not? Well, money, I suppose, but I can think of worse uses for film budgets.
I'm personally fond of interpretive remakes. I don't see much of a point in remaking something to be the-same-but-technologically-better than something that has come before. Remakes that offer something a little new are my favourites, as long as they keep the essence of the original. It could be any kind of difference as long as it has synchronicity with the intentions of the original work, or the alteration is for the benefit of context.
fun things are fun.
fun is just a buzzword when you can't actually think of any reasons why the game is good, don't use it.
Thank you very much for the comments.
This is for an essay by the way. I have to argue in favor of remakes as a practice. I wanted to hear your thoughts before I got started.
Anyway, for a serious response...
It's less "all remakes are bad and they should never happen ever" as "there are way too many remakes coming out and I wish they would focus their money and time on making movies I haven't seen already," I think. At least, that's the impression I get.
I'm up for a remake as long as it stays true to the source material or expands on it instead of going LCD.
Which means I'm against remakes made by Hollywood or thereabouts.
If the original movie sucked but had cool concepts worth exploring, a remake may give them the chance to shine. Examples include The Thing and Ocean's Eleven, both based on rather crappy mid-century movies that are largely forgotten nowadays.
Or Red Dawn.
Unless you're doing it as a musical.
If you are trying to crowdsource your homework projects, it's generally not a good idea to admit to doing so.
I'm honestly not crowd-sourcing. I was just given my topic online and I was curious, so I asked you guys. I already know my arguments.
Also, I liked both Footloose's.
And I also just said right before you that that is not what I'm doing, but you are free to not believe me.
Because no one is ever allowed to be curious about anything ever. Not like I value the opinion of It Just Bugs Me as a whole, or anything. Why would anyone ever care about the opinions of other people on the internet. That's just stupid.