Is remaking a film that big of a deal?

When discussing any topic, there is eventually a cliche that will come up during the conversation. It's not necessarily the intent of the speaker to utilize a cliche, but it happens anyways. The cliche can be anything from a certain saying to a stigma that is often associated with the topic.

Cinema is no exception, to say the least. There's many cliches that are considered truisms for film buffs. Like considering Michael Bay a hack, Megan Fox is a hot piece of eye candy, and sequels and remakes are bad, always.

We'll avoid the first two, and focus on the last statement; specifically, remakes. In this current state of film, remakes are regarded as inevitable disasters. Whenever a remake is announced, it is usually hailed as a bad idea, and the filmmakers are questioned what on earth were they thinking.

When I initially became a film geek, I too joined in on the remake backlash. Over the years, however, I've resigned and became more objective about the matter. And I feel that the negativity surrounding remakes is unwarranted, for a number of reasons. Not that anyone who hates remakes is wrong, because an opinion can not be wrong. This is simply just my view on things.

First of all, I think it's weird to criticize a film when it's in the development stage. If you've seen trailers, clips, or etc, then it's understandable not to be interested, but when it's just an idea, it's hard to really judge it fairly, I feel.

You're also not inclined to see every remake that comes out of the woodwork, unless you're a film critic. You have the option of not seeing it. And clearly, if you know it's bad, you don't want to see it, so why do you want to see it anyway?

And it's not like "Hollywood", if you will, has lost its originality. Because since its beginning, "Hollywood" has been making films based on plays, books, short stories, etc. Many of the classic films, films that made a good amount of filmmakers join the business, are adaptations of other people's work. To Kill A Mockingbird, Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind all fall in that group. How is making a film based on a book more original than remaking a movie?

In one of the recent episodes of SModcast, the podcast hosted by filmmaker Kevin Smith and his producer, Scott Mosier, Mosier brought up a good point. I'm paraphrasing what he said, but he said something to the effect that people forget that these are movies we're talking about here. These are things that are meant to entertain us. And I feel that's an interesting point. People get so bent out of shape because they're remaking certain movies, but it's all meant to entertain us.

And just because a film is being remade, doesn't mean that the original film is automatically superseded by the new version. The original will still be there, as it was before. What's the harm in tackling the material again?

That's all I have to say for now. Again, I'm not meaning to criticize anyone's feelings on remakes. I'm just offering my views.

Later, all.