Pointless Remakes

It’s absolutely no secret that I love movies. I love sitting at home on a rainy day and seeing what’s on Netflix or popping in a DVD. I love buying a ticket and mooching off a friend’s bucket of popcorn to see a movie in a darkened theater.

What I don’t love is a pointless remake.

And I complain about them. I complain that movies these days seem to be nothing but sequels, reboots, or remakes. But I’m part of the problem, too.

beauty-and-the-beast-live-actionYeah, I went to see Beauty and the Beast when it came out a couple weeks ago. I’ll see Spider-Man Homecoming when it comes out this summer. I’ll see Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 when it comes out next month.

I can easily logic my way through a sequel. More so than I can a reboot or a remake. Sequels almost make sense. A movie made money, so it would seem to be a no-brainer that a studio would work on a follow-up.

But why do we have to find a movie that was popular 20 or 30 years ago and do it all over again?

A few that immediately come to mind (and this is absolutely not an exhaustive list) are:

  • Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
  • Footloose
  • Poltergeist
  • The Karate Kid
  • Planet of the Apes (2001)
  • Beauty and the Beast
  • Cinderella
  • Point Break
  • The Jungle Book

You know what? The Jungle Book was good. I really enjoyed it. And I never really cared for the animated version as a kid.

I liked Beauty and the Beast all right. But the live action version didn’t touch the animated film. The music was nowhere near as good. And, though I love some Emma Watson, she sounded auto-tuned throughout her songs. It was long and drawn out and I’d have been just as happy (if not more so) paying to see the original Disney classic on the big screen again.

When I say something is a pointless remake, I mean that the original is already good. In most (if not all) cases, the original will be better. So a studio is spending millions of dollars to make a movie that will pale in comparison to a movie that they probably spent much less money to make the first time around. And they could probably make money off that original movie without spending much money at all by re-releasing it into theaters.

Kids, I read an article that said Disney has plans for 19 (!) live action remakes of animated films. NINETEEN! I’m sorry, but that seems excessive.

I already knew they were planning sequels to Maleficent and The Jungle Book. Those are part of the list. I already knew a live action Mulan and The Lion King were in the works. Those are also part of the list.

But that still leaves another 15 movies that they’ve just decided to remake. What do the head honchos in these movie studios do? Do they all get into a room and brainstorm ideas, waiting for someone to shout, “You know what was a big hit 30 years ago? The Princess Bride! You think we could do that again? But with a bigger budget! And CGI!”

“Get that man a promotion!” shouts the studio head.

Actually, The Princess Bride wasn’t a big hit. At least, not at the box office. Yes, it’s a cult classic now. But nobody paid to see it in the theater.

Anyway, you get my point. You do, don’t you?

People are complaining that the Mulan remake won’t have any of the music from the animated version. But I’m okay with that. Because then, at least, this live action remake will be slightly different from the original. We won’t have to deal with subpar performances of songs that we loved as children.

Okay, I was in college when Mulan came out. But, whatever!

Seinfeld - MoneyStudios, I ask you… why remake these movies? Why not re-release them on the big screen? Why make sequels to movies that were hits 20 years ago? Don’t give us Independence Day: Resurgence. Give us Independence Day. Don’t give us Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Give us Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Does anyone else get fed up with these movies or is it just me? Do you complain about them and then kick yourself later because, like I said before, you become part of the problem by going to see these movies and continuing to line the producers’ pockets?

Ugh… I disgust myself. See you in line for Aladdin.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Pointless Remakes

  1. I think that the remakes are interesting only to compare with the originals, but I don’t get the hype either. I hated when they redid Jurassic Park. I wasn’t a fan of those movies growing up because they terrified me, but one of the reasons it was so successful back then was because it was one of the original (I think) movies with half decent CGI. You can’t recreate the movie years later with enhanced CGI and expect the same box office success! And I hate how there is a lack of original stories in Hollywood. Like, what number Pirates of the Caribbean are we on now? How many Spidermen do we have? Just like the Land Before Time; it seems like movies are becoming never ending stories, when in reality, audiences want it to end NOW!

    Liked by 1 person

    • When you think about it, it’s kind of brilliant on the part of the movie studios. Well, brilliant from a money making standpoint, not so much a creative arts standpoint. Like with the Marvel movies… They’re spitting out two or three of these things a year. And there’s no real resolution to any of them. Audiences go to see these movies and are always left asking, “What’s next?” We’ve gotten to the point that a movie isn’t really a movie. It’s a 2 hour commercial for the next movie.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s