Does a Remake Actually Hurt or Cheapen the Original?

Our mission at SAW is to foster conversations about this thing we all love (or love to hate): film/TV. Many of our features are designed with you in mind. Your opinions, to be more to the point. You have ’em. We want to hear ’em.

Question of the Day (QOTD) is exactly what it sounds like. It’s a film/TV-related question that we put to you, the reader. The comments section below is like the feedback box at work; except, in this example, we actually read what you write and care about what you have to say.


Any time a remake/reboot is brought up for a “classic” or mainly a personal favorite, there is always at least one (usually many) that will say they not only hate remakes but it somehow hurts/cheapens/ruins the original. I get it! You hate remakes because the majority of the time they do suck. I’m not a big fan of remakes either (although there are plenty of good ones out there especially in the horror genre) and wish they would just focus on more original content but that’s for another QOTD.

So the question I ask today is: How and why does a remake/reboot hurt the original at all?

I have never understood this argument when it is brought during a remake discussion. Hate the remakes all you want. Don’t even give them a chance for all I care because I know I have skipped plenty of them. However, I just don’t understand the stance that a remake somehow ruins the original. I have watched plenty of remakes to some of my favorite films and you know what? I still loved and enjoyed the original the next time I watched it. In fact, I probably loved it more. I would really love an answer to this as to why and how the original is somehow lessened due to a remake. What am I missing?


So what about you, folks? How and why does a remake/reboot hurt the original at all?

I’ll see you in the trenches.

Advertisements

Author: Vincent Kane

I hate things.