Upcoming Movie Remakes Beg the Question — Why?

I’ve heard it put different ways. According to the Barenaked Ladies, “It’s all been done before.” Just recently, “Battlestar Galactica” reminded us that “This has all happened before and it will all happen again.” And of course, Christopher Booker (or William Foster-Harris or Stephen King or any number of other authors) told us how there are only seven (or six or 36 or 69, or insert-your-own-figure) basic literary plots.

But I ask you — does this excuse Hollywood’s abandoning all pretense of originality and falling back on the crutch of constantly “remaking” movies and television shows? Particularly those that the moviegoing public is noticeably not clamoring for?

That is not to say that remakes always fall short. But for every Chicago or The Dark Knight or The Blues Brothers, we’re “treated” to innumerable cheap copies of movies or television shows like Bewitched or A Night at the Roxbury or Blues Brothers 2000. And when surfing the ‘net this weekend, I was horrified at some of the “rebootings” that are scheduled to be inflicted upon us in the near future:

• Arthur — Warner Bros. has deemed it necessary to remake 1981’s Oscar-nominated film about a loveable, funny alcoholic. Setting aside the question of whether there is much nostalgia value in remaking a picture that a lot of moviegoers aren’t old enough to remember (or whether alcoholism can still be considered funny and charming), it turns out they’ve cast goofy Russell Brand of Forgetting Sarah Marshall as the title character. And let’s face it, when it comes to acting, Russell Brand is no Dudley Moore. I’m not even convinced he’s a Mandy Moore.



• CHiPs — Starring Wilmer Valderrama, making the interesting career leap from Fez to Ponch. Admittedly, I watched “CHiPs” when it first came on. On the other hand, I was six years old when it premiered. I’m sure the car chases will be great eye candy, but how do you develop a storyline based a television show that had no storyline?



• They Live — What? You don’t remember professional wrestler “Rowdy” Roddy Piper’s 1988 acting debut? I do. But only because it was so bad that it scarred me mentally and emotionally and became the yardstick by which I have measured bad movies for over 20 years. The first time around, I truly regretted not just leaving the theatre and asking for my money back. Or just plain leaving the theatre. A remake might just qualify as a crime against humanity.



• Top Gun — This one’s mainly still in the rumor stage, but ideas floated have included Tom Cruise helming the project and casting himself as a now-flight-instructor-Maverick to Katie Holmes’ cocky young pilot. Do I really need to explain why this is wrong? Didn’t think so.



• The Rocky Horror Picture Show — Oh, wait. Never mind. I’m actually willing to give that one a chance. Especially if I get to do the Time Warp and throw toast at the movie screen again.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not against remakes on principle. In fact, I think they work really well. On television. For example, with “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” Joss Whedon had a unique “do-over” opportunity, getting a second chance to show just how complex and layered his dramatic vision was compared to the campy movie that the studio once “fixed” for him. “Smallville” consistently manages to both work within and rise above the Superman mythos, giving viewers access to Clark Kent’s origin story that would not be possible in a theatrical release. SciFi’s “Battlestar Galactica” took the basic structure of what amounted to a ‘70s throwaway kids’ show and truly did “re-imagine” it, giving rise to a well-written, well-acted drama that is both wonderful television and startlingly relevant social commentary.

But these remakes worked for a reason. The nature of television provides more time for expanded storytelling. There is an opportunity to expand upon the characters and the world they inhabit, which is entirely different than a rote re-telling of a story we’ve already seen. (This is why I’m looking forward to the day the BBC creates an unabridged miniseries that does real justice to the Harry Potter books. I believe it’s inevitable.)

No, there’s nothing wrong with examining existing stories and checking to see if there’s any life left in them, any new directions to explore. But the studios underestimate their audiences — and their own continuing profitability — when they assume that moviegoers are simpletons who will cling to the familiar and spend increasingly limited entertainment dollars to see the same stories told over and over again.