This question goes hand-in-hand with yesterday's article about re-releases. There's a very big difference between re-releases and remakes. Re-releases are largely the same TV show or movie put out on new formats with a few bells-and-whistles added. Remakes are completely re-envisioned pieces of art that take inspiration from the original.
Some people are completely against the ideas of remakes, and I can understand where they are coming from. I'm not saying I completely agree with that point of view, but I can understand the argument. Sometimes people that don't understand the original will take a franchise and twist it into something that no one can appreciate. The only thing it ends up doing is tarnishing the original.
Then there are those remakes that are really in name and concept only. The original serves as inspiration for the jumping point of a new direction. When you're talking about franchises that are 20+ years old, sometimes a remake can help to introduce that beloved character to a new generation, and then they'll be inspired to check out the originals.
There are remakes I enjoy and remakes that I don't think need to happen. For example, I happen to love the 'retelling' or 're-envisioning' of Birdy the Mighty. I really think that show got better with each episode, and I'm happy the team behind it forged their own path, all while paying tribute to the original.
What side of the remake fence are you on? Leave well enough alone, or try to pay respects by doing things differently?
If it's done well, then go ahead.
ReplyDeleteBut one that isn't going so well right now is Blood-C >_>