After my Halloween article last week, a little bit of hypocrisy was brought to my attention. In my short list of horror favorites, I gave a thumbs up to two movies, "The Crazies" (2010) and "Maniac" (2012), both of which are remakes. If you’ve read my past articles regarding Disney’s rampage on converting classics to live-action remakes or anything that may be seen as “anti-sequel,” you’ll know that I am strongly against remakes. However, there is a reason I gave "The Crazies" and "Maniac" a pass.

You see, the issue I have with remakes these days is that they are all too frequent or unnecessary. The first time I came across this issue was after "Spider-Man 3" back in 2008. While it wasn’t the best "Spider-Man" of the trilogy, I felt it was a good way to close the story and set it down for a while. It was time for the world to experience a new superhero. A couple years later, around 2010, I was told that a new "Spider-Man" movie was to be released in 2012. After a brief explanation that this was going to be a completely new "Spider-Man" story, my first thoughts were not of excitement, but skepticism and disgust. My first question was, “Why are we getting a new "Spider-Man?" We just had one two years ago!” From then on, I was disapproving on the idea of “the reboot.”

My problem with this was not because there was a new story, but because of the amount of time that had passed. I was ready for something new. It was time for something fresh. The idea to finish a story only to redo the entire thing four years later is really stupid and a waste of time and money. Was the new "Spider-Man" reboot a success? Yes, but there wasn’t good enough reasoning behind making a new "Spider-Man." Sometimes, you need to let things sit for a while, let the fans calm down and wait until they start wanting a new "Spider-Man." If the new "Spider-Man" hadn’t come out until 2017, then, maybe I would be excited for it right now. But, a four-year difference is WAY too close for a reboot.

“Well, Ty, how long should a reboot or remake wait, then?”

That’s a question I don’t even have a direct answer to because some movies don’t have an issue of being made too early. There are other movies that have an issue of being unnecessary. In this case, let me bring up Disney again.

Now, Disney has been on a rampage of ruining their movies just by making live-action versions of their old animated versions. So far, we’ve only seen three released, those being "Maleficent" representing "Sleeping Beauty," "Alice in Wonderland" from Tim Burton, and "Cinderella." By the end of the decade, we’ll have live-action remakes for "The Jungle Book" in 2016, "Beauty & the Beast" in 2017, and a "101 Dalmatians" remake focusing on Cruella de Vil most likely in 2018.

That’s not all either. Currently in development, we have remakes for "Aladdin," "Mulan," "Peter Pan," "Dumbo," "Pinocchio," "The Sword in the Stone," "The Haunted Mansion," "Fantasia," and even "Winnie the Pooh."

So, overall, we have a dozen movies that are still making money today through DVD sales thanks to the young tots of today, and even adults and college students still buy them for themselves. These movies are decades old and still making money.

Let me repeat that sentence. These movies are DECADES old and STILL MAKING MONEY.

Disney has a habit of re-releasing “special editions” of their classic animated movies. Just recently, they released a “special edition” of "Aladdin" with a heavy focus on advertising Robin Williams’ blooper outtakes while voicing Genie.

What I like in Disney’s DVD department is that they release these different editions because there is usually more content than the last edition. The benefits of releasing anniversary DVDs is that you get to educate the viewer a bit more through director’s commentary, any documentaries about the movie’s impact on the side, telling stories from production, and including little tidbits on how a special scene was made. Not only does re-releasing a DVD help in information but, as a filmmaker, it helps people remember your work and notify them that it’s still available to buy at their convenience. Over the years, my families have lost a copy of a movie and it usually ends with, “Hey, there’s a better version with more features than our old one.”

My point here is that Disney is obviously very successful in DVD sales. Why else would they keep releasing those horrible direct-to-DVD sequels and "Air Puppies" spin-offs? If Disney wants to make money without angering fans or risking millions of dollars, they should stick to anniversary editions of particular animated movies. I’d be fine if they release a new edition every five to ten years so long as they update copies with newer content.

But, announcing live-action remakes is that they way to go. This is what I consider unethical in the film industry. By remaking a film, you’re basically robbing your viewers of their money and even going so far as to blind them by hyping it up. What’s worse is that you’re not giving any amount of genuine quality. All you’re really doing is taking the same exact story and making it look different.

Don’t believe me? Let’s try this then. I’m going to remake the “Mona Lisa.” Here is the original.

Now, here is my masterful remake of it that I worked so hard on.

Now, if you pay me $15, I will let you see it with a bunch of other people in person. I won’t have copies until four to five months from now. They will be sold everywhere at $20 a copy. Then, in two years, I will announce that Justin Roiland will be remaking my remake of the "Mona Lisa." You’ll have to pay him $15 to see that in person and his copies will be $20 as well. And don’t forget to buy the anniversary copy I’ll have in between my release and his!