Top: Gene Wilder as Mr. Wonka in "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" (Stuart, 1971.) Bottom: Johnny Depp as the same character in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" (Burton, 2005) Two versions of the same story. Gene Wilder's version was met with almost universal acclaim. Johnny Depp's version however received mixed to negative reviews.
By Billy Martel
It seems that as long as there have been stories there have been sequels to those stories. A story teller tells a story, and when it ends (as all stories must) the audience says, “I liked that story. What happened next?” So the story teller thinks a minute, either remembering when the story was told to them or making something up on their own, and then tells a new story with the same, or similar characters in the same, or similar circumstances as the first. Almost as old as the sequel is the prequel. Sometimes the audience is very happy with the ending they have, so when it’s all over they instead ask, “What happened before?” Then the story teller will simply tells a story about younger versions of the same or similar characters in an identical, or a similar situation that takes place before the original story. Books, Plays, and of course Movies have long been home to these concepts. But by far the most controversial of all ways that any storyteller can continue a story is the remake.
In the remake a story teller tells a story that the audience likes but they don’t want a sequel to it, they don’t like it until they see or hear it again later, or there are a lot of sequels and prequels told and the audience is tired of them. Anyway the story is still popular, but it’s too outdated, close ended, or confused in some way to continue. So instead the story teller, or maybe another story teller who has permission from the right people, decides to tell the original story again but with slight changes to try and give it a greater appeal. After all the audience loved the story the first time so making it again with more modern sensibilities only makes sense. Maybe the first time the story was told there were elements that the story teller didn’t expect to be popular that were, and now they can highlight those elements. Maybe there was something the audience read into the story that the story teller didn’t see; now they can be intentional about it. Perhaps there were parts of the story that came off really dated and don't make sense to the modern audiences; now no one need be confused by such things. It’s going to be like the original story took steroids; it’s gonna be crazy!
In the remake a story teller tells a story that the audience likes but they don’t want a sequel to it, they don’t like it until they see or hear it again later, or there are a lot of sequels and prequels told and the audience is tired of them. Anyway the story is still popular, but it’s too outdated, close ended, or confused in some way to continue. So instead the story teller, or maybe another story teller who has permission from the right people, decides to tell the original story again but with slight changes to try and give it a greater appeal. After all the audience loved the story the first time so making it again with more modern sensibilities only makes sense. Maybe the first time the story was told there were elements that the story teller didn’t expect to be popular that were, and now they can highlight those elements. Maybe there was something the audience read into the story that the story teller didn’t see; now they can be intentional about it. Perhaps there were parts of the story that came off really dated and don't make sense to the modern audiences; now no one need be confused by such things. It’s going to be like the original story took steroids; it’s gonna be crazy!
Remakes a plenty. From left to right, and top line down, we have the posters for: Carrie (Peirce, 2013), Carrie (De Palma, 1976), Evil Dead (Alvarez, 2013), The Evil Dead (Raimi, 1981), Red Dawn (Bradley, 2012), Red Dawn (Milius, 1984), Sparkle (Akil, 2012), Sparkle (O'Steen, 1976), Total Recall (Wiseman, 2012), Total Recall (Verhoeven, 1990), Arthur (Winer, 2011), Arthur (Gordon, 1981), Footloose (Brewer, 2011), Footloose (Ross, 1984), Fright Night (Gillespie, 2011), Fright Night (Holland, 1985), Straw Dogs (Lurie, 2011), Straw Dogs (Peckinpah, 1971), Clash of the Titans (Leterrier, 2010), Clash of the Titans (Davis, 1981), A Nightmare on Elm Street (Bayer, 2010), A Nightmare on Elm Street (Craven, 1984), Piranha 3D (Aja, 2010), Piranha (Dante, 1978), Fame (Tancharoen, 2009), Fame (Parker, 1980), Friday the 13th (Nispel, 2009), Friday the 13th (Cunningham, 1980), My Bloody Valentine 3D (Lussier, 2009), My Bloody Valentine (Mihalka, 1981), Sorority Row (Hendler, 2009), The House on Sorority Row (Rosman, 1983), The Stepfather (McCormick, 2009), The Stepfather (Ruben, 1987), The Taking of Pelham, 123 (Scott, 2009), The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (Sargent, 1974), The Day The Earth Stood Still (Derrickson, 2008), The Day The Earth Stood Still (Wise, 1951), Death Race (W. S. Anderson, 2008), Death Race 2000 (Bartel, 1975), Prom Night (McCormick, 2008), Prom Night (Lynch, 1980), The Women (English, 2008), The Women (Cukor, 1939), Halloween (Zombie, 2007), Halloween (Carpenter, 1978), Hairspray (Shankman, 2007), and Hairspray (Waters, 1988).
So the good side of this is that sometimes the story teller is absolutely correct. Some stories don’t hold up as well as others but still have enough good there that they deserve a second look. Other stories were perfectly fine on their own, but there’s still another perfectly legitimate way to tell the same story without making the original lesser by comparison. Despite a less than favorable reputation, there have been many, many remakes that have not only been successful but well received by both critics and fans: The Fly (1986, Cronenburg), The Thing (1982, Carpenter), Ocean’s Eleven (2001, Soderbergh), and even The Maltese Falcon (1941, Huston).
However most of the public seems to have decided that movie remakes are a very bad idea. It is easy to understand why. After all the reason that the movie is being remade is because it was popular in the first place. When some people see the differences that the story teller made to a story that meant a lot to them, they can get upset because to them it seems as if the heart of the story, the part that they related to so strongly, has been removed. It is an almost irrational feeling of possessiveness that some people (including myself) can have toward their favorite movies. We have movies that we watch when we’re sad, when we’re happy, when we’re hungry. We have movies that remind us of things, people, places, even feelings. These stories become a part of who we are. Then someone decides to tell that story again, but differently than we remember. We get angry. “They ruined it!” we often exclaim. Now of course the original story that we love will always be there, and the story teller doesn’t want to take that away. They just want to tell a popular story again for a new audience. But for some reason fans continue to see remakes as personal attacks, or insults.
However most of the public seems to have decided that movie remakes are a very bad idea. It is easy to understand why. After all the reason that the movie is being remade is because it was popular in the first place. When some people see the differences that the story teller made to a story that meant a lot to them, they can get upset because to them it seems as if the heart of the story, the part that they related to so strongly, has been removed. It is an almost irrational feeling of possessiveness that some people (including myself) can have toward their favorite movies. We have movies that we watch when we’re sad, when we’re happy, when we’re hungry. We have movies that remind us of things, people, places, even feelings. These stories become a part of who we are. Then someone decides to tell that story again, but differently than we remember. We get angry. “They ruined it!” we often exclaim. Now of course the original story that we love will always be there, and the story teller doesn’t want to take that away. They just want to tell a popular story again for a new audience. But for some reason fans continue to see remakes as personal attacks, or insults.
Above Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau. He starred as the bumbling detective in a franchise of "Pink Panther" films that lasted from 1963 to 1982. Below: Steve Martin as the same detective in the 2006 reboot.
The fact is that unless they’re trying to make an artistic statement, a hidden parody, or a satire, no story teller ever wants to tell a bad story. When a studio makes a movie, they want you to like it. That’s how they make their money, by making sure you enjoy yourself at the movies. And often times that means that they take stories that they already know the audience likes and retell them, while changing a few elements to keep things fresh, and hopefully make the story more in line with modern sensibilities. In fact looking at the way the same story is retold throughout generations in history is one way historians examine the way a culture saw itself. So by looking at remakes of previously told stories, we can see how our culture has changed since the day when the original story was told. A remake, even if it is badly written, or sloppily directed, or even if it is a remake of a movie you liked, should be seen as an opportunity to understand our own culture, and how we relate to the people of the past. Though it may be frustrating to see a story that you love be turned into something else, sometimes taking old stories, tweaking, molding, and changing them in subtle ways is how the mythology of tomorrow is born.
RSS Feed