Much Ado About Film Remakes

Every now and again they come up. Instead of seeing a brand new movie advertised, we see a remake of an old classic. There seem to be a few of these in cinema today. It's enough to make you ask, "Has Hollywood completely run out of ideas?" And let's face it, remakes are not often that good. So why do they keep doing it?

Well, believe it or not, remakes are nothing new. It is the nature of film to repeat itself, much like history. The fact that a popular story remains in public conscious long enough to be remade testify to its timelessness. If it's that good, why not see some more of it?

Perhaps it has to do with the changing nature of special effects. Especially in Science Fiction, special effects are a key plot device. What would sci-fi be without seeing the Enterprise go to warp? Or those epic space battles from Star Wars? As technology develops and becomes more available to consumers, special effects can be greatly improved. This gives filmmakers the opportunity to give us an improved classic.

Also, consider the generation gap. Perhaps a film, even a great classic, was made so long ago that it is known by many, but not remembered. For example, Casablanca is hailed as one of the best films ever made. But how many of us actually saw it upon its release? How many of us have ever seen it? We might be surprised. The film is very well-known, but only a handful today may actually remember the magic the film created at release. Every subsequent viewing is a re-airing. So, remakes give new audiences, new generations if you will, the chance to experience a classic. Perhaps it's a classic for their time, and perhaps it strays too far from the original vision, but a remake can still speak to the masses, and even create more interest in the original work.

But aren't remakes typically not good? Well, that depends on which remake you're watching. Such films are typically considered inferior to the original film, but several remakes have gone on to actually replace the original film in the popular consciousness.

Going back to 1983, the classic film Scarface was actually a remake of a 1932 film. While both films follow the same basic story, the 1932 film deals with alcohol bootlegging, while the 1983 film revolves around cocaine. Some would say Al Pacino's performance lifts the 1983 film to a height far superior than its 30's predecessor.

Also in the 80's, the James Cameron film The Thing. Another one most people are not familiar with, this film effectively remade the 1951 film The Thing From Outer Space. Both films are based on John Campbell's novella Who Goes There. But in a rare exception, the remake actually follows the source material better than the original film. In the 1951 film, the titular monster is a hulking, Frankenstein-like monster, while in the source the creature has the ability to assimilate with and replace creatures it comes in contact with. The James Cameron film represents this, albeit to gruesome detail.

In the 1990's, another unexpected remake is Disney's Angels in the Outfield. This film remade a 1951 film of the same name. The films exhibit certain differences, but the differences work for the remake's advantage. In the 1951 film, the struggling baseball team was the Pittsburgh Pirates, while Disney's remake relocates the team to the then-named California Angels. That only made sense. The Disney film is arguably more magical, featuring a child's prayer, not really for his team, but for a family.

Even James Bond films have been remade. Never Say Never Again was a remake of Thunderball.

In recent years, a few remakes have popped up, the most recent of which being The Day the Earth Stood Still. Keanu Reeves stars as Klaatu in the remake of the old, sci-fi classic. The plot is basically the same, though the remake modernizes the theme from nuclear warfare to global warming.

Or does The Incredible Hulk ring a bell? Well, some would argue that such films as that are reboots not remakes. Perhaps, but the difference between such terms may be inconsequential. Even Batman Begins can be considered a remake of sorts.

But if a classic film is considered good, why remake it? The answer is not so simple to find. While a classic film may be great, it may stray so far from the source material that it is in essence not a faithful adaptation. Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a good example. While Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is considered a family classic, the production team made several changes from Roald Dall's book. Tim Burton's film corrects these changes, while making alterations of its own.

So on one hand, a remake is a chance to make things right, if the film is based on a novel or video game. Another reason might be artistic interpretation. Perhaps a director sees potential development of a minor character into a major plot device. Or perhaps a director believes the original film didn't say what it should have. A remake gives him the chance to share his vision. Of course, not all of these are good.

But remakes are just part of the natural ebb and flow of life. Critics and fans alike will complain, even protest over many of them, but in the end, time determines whether a film is good or bad. Capra's It's a Wonderful Life was no great success at its release. In fact, many critics derided the film. But it went on to become an American classic. In time, even a bad movie can become good. While we may wonder why we have remakes, history will determine for us which film is the better.