Who will be lining up to see yet another ‘80s remake this weekend when Total Recall hits theaters? Not this guy. I love it when producers try to pass off remakes as “reboots” or “reimaginings” or even the stupid “recreation.” It’s all just semantics to soften the blow, like changing global warming to climate change to appease the conservatives. There’s no artistic factor to any of it. It’s all just greed.
On the IMDB.com message boards, defenders (probably the film’s publicists) try to use the old “But how many times have they performed Hamlet on stage?” as an excuse to remake a movie that was already successful with audiences and critics alike. Like a lot of stage plays, that argument just doesn’t transfer well to the film medium. Plays are performed over and over again because they only have the ability to be seen one at a time, and to one audience. Films are universal and seen by almost everyone who wants to pay almost $10 to sit in a dirty, sticky, and oftentimes, moist movie seat. Then, of course, we have the repeat-viewing option once the movie hits the home market.
Honestly, there’s no need, artistically, to remake movies like Total Recall. It’s all about lining studio heads’ pockets with cash by hitting up the nostalgia factor. Sure, the special effects will be newer. Newer. That doesn’t necessarily mean better. Since the original boasted great special effects that, for the most part, still look believable, there are probably only a couple instances where you’ll be able to compare a special effect and think “Yeah, that is a million times better.” But when is the last time better special effects made for a better movie? Will anyone really sit through a movie just to observe how photorealistic the CGI is? I hope not. I’ve never been recommended to see a movie just to watch the special effects.
Does anyone remember how film studios used to introduce new audiences to old movies? They’d re-release the original. Gone with the Wind was re-released so many times it stands unbeatable in the number of tickets sold. Even the great Walt Disney made most of his profits from re-releases, as many of his animated features lost money or barely broke even upon their original releases. I wonder if they simply re-released the original Psycho it would have made more than the $21 million that pathetic 1998 remake grossed (it didn’t even beat the original’s gross, and that was in 1960 dollars!) Why can’t restored and updated classics be appealing anymore? Perhaps one reason to be thankful for the 3D conversions: they’re better than shoddy remakes! I’d rather see Jurassic Park in 3D next summer than see it with a new cast and new director’s “vision.”
If Hollywood had any kind of integrity and really cared about “recreating” movies, they would choose movies that weren’t so great and give them the facelift they deserve. It worked for movies like Oceans 11 and 3:10 to Yuma.
There’s no denying the obvious: ’80s remakes are everywhere. From horror movies like Poltergeist to comedies like Adventures in Babysitting, and even to family fare such as Honey I Shrunk the Kids–as ridiculous as those prospects may all seem, soon enough, every movie that was a hit in that decade will be remade.
I just never understand Hollywood’s desire to remake a good movie. Poltergeist was and still is a creepy movie. Adventures in Babysitting is hilarious…and you just can’t recreate the nostalgia that we all now have for movies like that.
It’s really the nostalgia of watching a movie as an adult that we loved as children that adds to the greatness of the movie. And Hollywood can never remake that.
Until they figure that out, we’ll continue to have a bunch of horrible remakes, reboots, sequels that are about 20-30 years to late, etc.