I haven’t exactly planned it this way, but it seems like I’ve been blogging a lot lately about movie and television remakes. (Probably just because of how damn many of them are currently under development. Anyone out there know of a site that has a comprehensive list of all the remakes that are either shooting now or at least are being talked about?) As I’m sure you’ve noticed, I’m generally opposed to them.

I am utterly convinced that studio heads these days think more in terms of branding than storytelling, that they figure a remake is an easier sell than something wholly original because the title and possibly the general premise are already known to the consumer. It’s like bringing out a new variety of Coke, rather than trying to find a niche for an entirely new beverage. But is that really so bad? My knee-jerk reaction is, yes, of course it’s bad, especially if somebody has the audacity to remake a movie that I personally love. (Escape from New York comes to mind, for example; it made a big impact on me as a kid, and I think it’s perfect just as it is, still a perfectly entertaining B-grade action flick. Except now it’s going to be a big-budget, CGI’d, and probably far-less-cool action flick.) I could go on for eight or nine hundred words about how creatively bankrupt it is to approach movie-making like factory work, and how disposable, forgettable, and ultimately pointless most remakes are.

Except… I can always find exceptions, can’t I? I’m on record here on this blog as saying that I’m okay, at least in principle, with updated versions of Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, and Logan’s Run. I love the original versions of these, but revisiting them doesn’t bother me. However, the thought of a new Day the Earth Stood Still turns my stomach. So how do I reconcile these opposing viewpoints?

It seems I’m not the only movie buff who struggles with this issue. The proprietor of ScreenRant.com has been pondering the same thing, and he’s come up with several criteria for making a decent remake. As it so happens, I agree completely with his thinking, right down to the examples he’s chosen. With his indulgence for blantantly ripping him off, read on to see how I (and the ScreenRant guy) think remakes ought to be done:

If it’s done well, I don’t have a problem with remakes of original films that meet any of the following criteria:

 

1. Well known stories that have already had multiple movie remakes done.

 

Movies based on classic stories like The Three Musketeers, Dracula, Frankenstein, etc. These have been remade so many times already that you can’t really logically argue against another one, and sometimes a newer version turns out to be quite good.

 

2. The original is terribly dated in either setting or pacing and style.

 

In this category you’ll find movies like Ocean’s 11 and The Thomas Crown Affair. I’ve watched both the original versions and the remakes and while I’m no fan of the seizure-inducing, quick-cut filming style used in so many movies today, the pacing in some movies from the late 60’s/early 70’s was so slow that it could put you in a coma.

 

3. The original is not terribly well known or beloved.

 

Let me start off by saying that there is a special place reserved in Hell for the person that ever gets a remake of Casablanca produced. Some movies should just be off limits. Period. Movies that are a part of the fabric of the history of cinema should just be left alone, if for no other reason than because they have withstood the test of time and are still considered excellent and extremely enjoyable today. In addition to Casablanca I would add It’s a Wonderful Life, 12 Angry Men, The Maltese Falcon (yes, I know the Humphrey Bogart version is a remake, but let’s leave it alone now, shall we?) and of course, Citizen Kane. There are many others, but you get the gist.

 

4. The remake does in fact bring something new while respecting the original.

 

Here we have movies like Cape Fear, The Italian Job, The Magnificent Seven and The Thing. Each of these was a remake that brought something fresh to the original story, whether in concept or execution.

 

5. The original was basically pretty cheesy or tongue-in-check in tone and most folks wouldn’t care if it was remade.

 

Little Shop of Horrors and even Eight Legged Freaks as a new twist on the classic giant-ant movie Them. This is the category where I think a remake of Fright Night fits: It was pretty campy and didn’t take itself too seriously and while it was a fun movie, I don’t think it falls under “untouchable” status. In the right hands it could be quite good, but that’s certainly no guarantee.

Criterion number five is the only one I have a slight quibble with, since I find that “cheesy” and “tongue in cheek” is largely a matter of individual taste, and one man’s fromage is somebody else’s hearty oatmeal. (Refer again to Escape from New York; most people would call it very cheesy, based on when it was made, the low budget, and the outlandish concept. I, however, still find it effective, at least as plausible as, say, The Matrix, and pretty damn moving in places. The exchange between Snake and Maggie on the 59th Street Bridge after her beloved Brain is killed raises a lump in my throat every time. But that’s probably just me.)

As for “most folks not caring if something is remade,” well, that’s a pretty dangerous statement. In my experience, only purists give a damn about remakes, and we’re in a definite minority. I’ve met a lot of people who can’t be bothered to watch movies that are any older than five or 10 years, even people who categorize themselves as movie fans. I’d daresay that “most folks” wouldn’t care if Casablanca were remade, because a good percentage of them have probably never seen it anyway, and maybe haven’t even heard of it.

Now there’s a depressing thought…