A long time ago, in our Horror Film Compendium definitions page, I said that remakes are like sequels . . . only worse.
And it's true.
I write this on the eve of the release of The Omen 2006, the second time the excellent 1976 film has been remade in my lifetime (the first being that awful Omen: The Awakening that is technically a sequel, but you and I know better). Besides the serendipity (or Satanic design?) of coming out on 06/06/06, the new film seems to have nothing to recommend it. Unless you find Liev Schreiber to be a bigger draw than Gregory Peck, or the promise of CG and expensive lighting setups attracts you. Or you're a big Julia Stiles fan, I suppose.
I have no doubt that The Omen 2006 will make a pile of money, certainly more than Richard Donner's original (which was quite a hit in its day). And people generally feel that if a movie made money, then it had to be good. And who knows? It may actually BE good, considering it looks to have followed the 1976 blueprint so closely some of its shots are framed the same and they have the same screenwriter.
But it's the principal of the thing. I have a number of problems with remakes, but the greatest is that they seem to, with rare exception, supplant the originals in the minds of the viewing public, practically wiping them out of existence in some cases. And if a remake is bad, it sullies the good name of the original too.
I once forced my friend Matthew to watch Franklin Schaffner's Planet of the Apes, after he had seen Tim Burton's remake/reimagining. When it was over, he said, "Holy crap, that was a good movie! Why couldn't my generation have gotten that version instead of the awful one?"
He made a good point.
I'm not closed-minded enough to think that all remakes are bad. After all, Ben-Hur was a remake, as was The Ten Commandments. Of course, both were remade for television in the last couple of years. And yes, there are remakes that are better than the originals, such as the 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the 1999 Mummy, and 2005's Amityville Horror. But it took me a half an hour to come up with those three.
Luckily, some of them are released, then are promptly forgotten, while the originals remain in the public consciousness. Remakes like Tom Savini's Night of the Living Dead the 1990 Carnival of Souls, Carrie--the 2002 version, and 1998's Godzilla, have all been tossed aside in favour of their earlier, superior versions. And hopefully we can all forget the worst remake in the history of filmmaking, Gus Van Sant's Psycho (1998).
Horror is not the only genre to suffer from remakes. If you mentioned Mister Deeds Goes To Town, how many people would tell you you'd misremembered the title of Adam Sandler's hit comedy? If you said you saw Scarface last night, would ANYBODY think of Paul Muni? Disney's remade The Love Bug twice since the Seventies. And the fourth Swiss Familiy Robinson is on its way. Oh, and did you ever see It's A Wonderful Life with Bill Pullman and Penelope Ann Miller?
But Horror does get it the worst of all. Beyond The Omen, there are scores of Horror remakes waiting in the wings. Pretty soon, you'll be able to go see "new and improved" versions of Creepshow, Sisters, The Hitcher, Race with the Devil, The Evil Dead, The Fly, The Wicker Man, Day of the Dead, and Piranha (also the second remake in twenty years). And how glorious it will be.
Or perhaps I should have put "glorious" in quotation marks.
I trod over much of this ground in my review to the 2005 version of The Fog. I said there that the new one was so glossy, scare-free, and computer-generated that it made me suddenly appreciate the 1982 original. In that review, I wondered what the point of remaking a good movie was, beyond making a cheap buck, that is.
And there are a few reasons remakes SHOULD be made. If something new can be said or done in an update version, then that might be a reason. For example, if the original was in black & white before, now you can do it in colour (Dracula or Frankenstein had this happen to them, to no ill effect). If the effects were primitive or nonexistent, why not show off the new procedures (like in The Fly, She Creature, or War of the Worlds)? If the original did not adhere to the source material, make it more faithful (you could say The Thing fits into this category, or the television version of The Shining, although that isn't really a GOOD example). If there was no budget the first time around, now you can go all out (Bram Stoker's Dracula or The Haunting, or The Mummy come to mind). If it was goreless before, now add some nifty splatter (The Blob, for instance, or Cat People). If it was originally in another language and needs to be appreciated by rich American teenagers, make it in English with attractive babes in the lead (like Dark Water, The Grudge, The Ring, and the upcoming Pulse remake). Or if someone has a new twist or perspective on the old material (like Invasion of the Body Snatchers or Cape Fear, perhaps), let's do a remake.
Usually, however, it's just greed and uncreativity. And laziness. These three qualities abound in Hollywood.
Most of the time, studio heads know that young people haven't seen the originals (even though films and media are more accessable now than ever before in the history of motion pictures). And that they're the ones who bring cash to the box office. There's a quick buck to be made, with very little effort, innovation, or heart necessary to make that buck. And most remake producers don't put forth the effort to create something lasting and enduring, something that will be seen in the same light as these originals twenty or thirty years down the line. They only care about getting as big an opening weekend as possible, and then on to DVD, where the money rainstorm never stops.
I realise I'm not saying anything new here. How could I, when my favourite movie genre thrives on making the same basic film over and over again (with the same situations, all the same tropes, and same tried and true tricks at getting scares)?
Heck, there is such a thing as a good remake, even a great remake (I listed 2005's King Kong as the best horror movie of last year). But for every 1986's The Fly, there's a 1996's Island of Dr. Moreau. Heck, even the track record for sequels is better than remakes.
But that's another essay, isn't it?
Rish (The 1942 Original) Outfield
June 2006