Originals or Remakes?

Hollywood is notorious for remaking older movies and 'updating' them. I'm not talking about sequels, I'm talking about redoing the original story for a modern audience, usually with better special effects and more sex. And sometimes, it's hard to fathom just what they were thinking when they decided to remake them. I mean, if the original is good enough for someone to decide to remake it, why not just watch the original in the first place?

A couple of weeks ago I read an article discussing a 'remake' of The Princess Bride. Notwithstanding the concept of the remake (which I hadn't read about yet), where actors would basically redo the exact same scenes separately (different actors playing the same roles in different scenes, for example), the whole notion struck me as utterly stupid. I mean, aside from the low-budget aspects of this 'remake,' what's the bloody point? That movie is as close to perfect as you can ask for. It's got fantastic fencing, romance, Andre the Giant in a role that was literally written for him, 'My name is Inigo Montoya...', Miracle Max, the six-fingered man, and a pompous ass of a Prince who gets what's coming to him in the end.

Seriously, there are some things that should never even be contemplated, let alone actually done. There are plenty of examples of this in recent history, as well. Did anyone actually watch that new Ghostbusters movie that came out a couple of years ago? Because I've never met any one who admitted to doing so. Same with the new Charlie's Angels movie; it doesn't look at all interesting, and I actually liked the first two movies.

And now, Disney is in the process of remaking all their old animated classics as live-action films. We've already seen The Jungle Book, Aladdin, One Hundred and One Dalmatians, Beauty and the Beast, Sleeping Beauty (as Maleficent), Lady and the Tramp, and The Lion King. Mulan is on its way if they ever open the theaters again, and there are even more in the pipeline for down the road. Again, one has to ask, 'Why?' After all, the originals are classics for a reason.

The problem is, there's a serious dearth of creative thinking in Hollywood now. All their creativity goes into bigger and better CGI effects; story and plot, characterization and originality are just tossed by the wayside. And it's not getting any better. Of the thirty or so announced movies Hollywood is releasing over the next year, every one of them is either a sequel or a remake. Nobody is willing to take a chance, and so we're stuck in a time loop of watching the same things we watched before, just with more flash and spectacle.

Now, some movies can certainly survive being remade, especially ones built on classic properties like fairy tales or old books. There have been, for example, four different versions of Jules Verne's Around the World in 80 Days, including the 1956 version, which won Best Picture. The Jackie Chan version (2004) is also fun, but not as good as the previous one. And the 1940 version of The Mark of Zorro has to be considered superior to the 1920 version, primarily because the latter is silent. It's not a bad movie, but it suffers by comparison.

But overall, the trend toward remaking movies is one that will hurt the movie industry, both in the short-term and in the long run. With the exception of some truly timeless tales, you can't watch the same story over and over and get much out of it. Hopefully, someone in Hollywood realizes this before it's too late.

If you want some original material to read, which may someday end up as a movie, check out Arrival, the first book of the Chronicles of Meterra. It's available in both paperback and e-book, so take a look.