Well, here we are. Summer 2016. Blockbuster season is upon us and this year looks to be yet another memorable year in film. Records will likely be broken — Marvel is already defending its crown as top dog in the superhero game — and, oh look, a "Ghostbusters" remake. Wait, seriously?
It seems like every time I turn around there's a new remake of some hit film in the works. And every time I hear about a new project, I'm left asking the same question: why?
It's a simple question but almost never has a simple answer. Movie remakes are something we've become practically numb to in film culture and we've pretty much accepted them as an inevitability. You could argue the annoying and seemingly futile effort some of these studios are making as the new film is, nine times out of ten, not going to be as good as the original. I, however, instead want to shed a more positive light on them. After all, there actually have been some really fantastic remakes of films in the last decade. And regardless if what you or I say, they're going to happen anyway. Might as well make them actually worth seeing, right? So, here are a few simple missteps remakes make, and how I believe they can be mended.
First, remakes are often made out of a desire to retain controlling interest in a work. Retain money, influence and licensing rights. That's right, folks. This has "Cinderella" and "The Jungle Book" written all over it. Did you know that copyright laws actually dictate for a film to go to the public domain after a set amount of years after the film's release? You probably did. God on you for being so smart. There have been several adjustments and additional laws for renewal of these copyrights, but one notion is abundantly clear: In order to retain copyright renewal, you have to keep producing content related to that copyrighted work. This is why there are multiple versions of "Blade Runner," the original "Star Wars" trilogy and many more films. It's also the reason we've seen five different Bruce Waynes, three Peter Parkers, four Frank Castles and who knows how many James Bonds. Sony cancelled its plans for "Spiderman 4" after Sam Raimi told them he didn't believe he could make the film in the time frame they asked of him. But Sony needed to keep making "Spiderman" films otherwise they would lose the rights to make them. This is why we got a "Spiderman" reboot just five years after the original trilogy. Unfortunately, this is the hardest misstep to remedy. My only solution I can offer is recognition that sometimes you have to let the girl go and realize that you may not be the best thing for her. Your greed and your need to own things are getting in the way of her happiness and yours. (In case you missed it, the girl in this metaphor is the film). Some films should go to the public domain so others can have free access to that and have the chance to make something truly amazing and new. Others should go back to the original owner like much of the Marvel faithful. Just look at what the Marvel Cinematic Universe has brought us! Marvel has given us a uniform film universe and continues to broaden its scope with each new film. The studio never could have done that without getting its licensing rights back from the plethora of companies they originally leased the rights to.
The second misstep is actually an extension of the first. In short, most remakes are a cash grab. The easiest target I could pick on for an example is Disney. The new "Cinderella" was good, don't get me wrong about that — it made me (a 22-year-old male) identify with a character I previously cared little about. And you could argue goals like wanting to bring the "Cinderella" story to a new generation of children, but even so, did no one else notice the abundance of merchandise that came with it? There are other examples as well. Films like "Judge Dredd," "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and the new "Ghostbusters" are meant to tap into our nostalgia with movies we've come to know and love. Studios try to get us excited abut seeing more from the film's we've already enjoyed by remaking them in the hopes that us fans will sink money into going and seeing the film at the theater six times. And what's to follow? More toys and more memorabilia (from both the old and new films, mind you). I loved the new "Star Wars," but it wasn't released during Christmas season by accident. The film hadn't even been released yet and there was already merchandise everywhere and they weren't just toys. It was as if the "Star Wars" label could be put on anything. I smell cash grab. Our culture is obsessed with buying things. We buy one thing for ourselves and it's never enough just to stop there. This isn't the fault of the film industry. After all, personal accountability needs to have a role. And if anyone is guilty of buying things they don't need, it's me. Did I mention I have a small Pop! figures collection? However, film merchandising sure does like playing off our obsessions and habits. Cha-Ching, Cha-Ching!
The last major misstep I think film remakes are often guilty of has everything to do with the first two. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if the first two weren't so prevalent, then this last point wouldn't exist. Remakes are often made these days with no vision. Slapping the "Dark Shadows" name on the picture and having characters with the same name doesn't make it "Dark Shadows." The same could be said of films like "The Karate Kid," "Clash of the Titans" and "Conan The Barbarian." They're made with no vision from the director or the studio and often, the most appealing thing they can offer is some narrative twist like the "Ghostbusters" being an all female cast. If not that, then some big name actor is a part of the cast. Along with having no new vision, remakes often don't even capture the original vision of the films well either (if at all). As a result, they often fall short of being relevant or "fresh." Seriously, the new "Total Recall" wasn't even on Mars. That should have been a huge red flag right there. Big name actors don't bring us to the theater, nor does feminist culture. What brings us to the theater is the prospect of a good film. What makes remakes like "True Grit" and "The Departed" work so well is the directors finding a happy balance between keeping the charm of the originals while simultaneously giving us a new and fresh perspective and style to the story that the original didn't offer. Instead of asking how to get the most viewers, they just made a film the way they believed would do the original justice and trusted that film fans would see them through. Cheap thrills and gender swaps aren't a good enough hook. Neither is a shot for shot remake! (I'm talking to you, makers of "Psycho.")
There plenty of remakes that are worthy exceptions to this article but the vast majority end up being forgettable. And it's a shame. I'm not against remakes at all — some of my favorite films are remakes — but when you let things like money and legality get in the way, it hinders the creative process. I said earlier that remakes are a fact of life. It's true. They're going to get made regardless of what you or I have to say, but that doesn't mean they can't be good. More importantly, it doesn't mean film studios can't actually take the time to find the right people to make the movie instead of a bunch of yes men. I want more films like "Mad Max: Fury Road" and less like "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." Is that too much to ask?
