Not all remakes are horrible. In many cases, films that weren't executed well the first time round, like Ocean's Eleven, make for excellent remakes that far surpass the originals. The recent glut of horror-genre remakes have proved to be quite successful, because people go to horror films for an adrenaline rush, not for intellectual stimulation.
However, the key to these remakes is that the originals aren't considered to be classics. When studios approach classic films merely as properties with built-in fanbases, grumbling starts. The public is very resistant to remakes of films that have been seared into the public consciousness; they feel like their own history is being erased.
It's no wonder that King Kong barely made its money back both times it was remade. Not to mention the fact that many classic films just wouldn't translate well to modern remakes. Could you imagine Casablanca remade? What genre would it fill? What audience would it appeal to, as a war film without war, and a romance without sex?
The recent trend of scraping the bottom of the barrel for any marketable product or back-catalog title that might create revenue has raised even more ire amongst audience members. Success at the box office is not guaranteed by an attachment to a product. For what little profit a Stretch Armstrong film could possibly earn (and since when has that been a relevant or profitable property, anyhow?), a studio might as well take a chance and put that investment into a new film.
The film industry was founded by risk takers. And any good risk taker knows that you can't beat the system by playing the same cards over and over again. Remakes are great when the time is right, but Hollywood has always thrived on originality. Recent box office hits like Superbad, Juno, Gran Torino, and The Hangover only prove that if a film brings something new to the table, the audience will come along too.
No comments:
Post a Comment