PRO

Being someone who loves both old and recent movies, I tend not to have a problem with old movies being remade. At times when I watch classic films, I actually wonder what they would look like if they were able to be remade by more recent directors with access to better resources.

When remaking films, directors choose to either stick to its original as close as possible, they create their own version of it and change the plot.

Now, when the 1984 film “Footloose” was remade in 2011, I was curious to see which way it was going to go because I had seen the original about a year before the remake was released. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it was actually almost exactly like the original movie, just modernized to appeal to a younger audience.

With that being said, not a lot of people my age that I’ve asked have said that they’ve even watched the remake, let alone the original. When I asked older people that I knew had seen the original however, a lot of them said they didn’t even bother watching the remake because they already knew it sucked.

I think the biggest issue with remaking movies is the criticism people give them before even trying to watch them due to their loyalty to the original.

The remakes that turn out to be great at times go unnoticed due to the lack of attention they’re given by those that choose to rebel against any director that tries to bring an awesome old film back into the box offices in a different way.

One remake that will forever be one of my favorites is the 1996 remake of “Romeo and Juliet.”

I’ve seen a few original versions of both the play and the movie, and I have always liked the classic tale of Romeo and Juliet, but when I first saw the remake it completely blew me away.

I was so pleased that the director was able to make the plot so accurately close to the original tragedy yet still manage to have the setting be in a ’90s style society.

The fact that the actors spoke in a Shakespearean dialogue made the film feel even more authentic and let those who haven’t read the play get a taste of how it originally was written.

I personally wasn’t that big of a fan of the 1968 film that I had to watch during my freshman year of high school, and when I asked why we couldn’t watch the 1996 film, my teacher said it was “too modern and would take away from the experience.”

Yet, none of my classmates showed any interest in the 1968 film.

Why? Because they couldn’t relate to it.

If she would have shown the 1996 version, the students might have actually gotten interested in the plot and would have been listening to the original Shakespearean dialogue while watching it.

The biggest reason I feel as though remakes can be just as good as the classics is the fact that generations to come are able to experience great movies from the past, even if it is in a slightly different way, as well as possibly become interested enough to watch the originals and choose which is better for themselves.

CON

As a fan of classical movies, it annoys me to see my favorite movie remade and completely changed. These great movies shouldn’t be made into modern versions because it takes so much of the originality out of it.

Once a movie has already made an impact on a person, they tend not to be as interested when they hear about another one coming out. It becomes a typical movie that is imitating another and doesn’t interest me because I would already know what’s going to happen.

By remaking a movie, the producer is basically taking someone else’s idea and trying to make, what they believe, is a better version of it. Instead of taking time out to remake a movie, I believe they should come up with new ideas and be creative. People don’t want to see the same type of movies or new versions of it, they want to see different films.

It also takes the content out of the original story. A producer can switch the characters names, place them in a modern setting or keep everything the same, but the audience will still be sitting there remembering the old version and comparing. When that starts to happen, I can’t help but feel as if the producer made a wrong choice attempting to remake a classic.

For example, take the 1971 film “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.” The movie is one of my favorites because of the classic feeling it had to it. It was a time where children, especially the poor, didn’t get special chances like this to go on a tour in a famous factory.

The movie was then remade in 2005 as “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.” It had the same storyline with the same character names but just a modern touch and more focused on Willy Wonka.

I personally didn’t like the later version of the movie, which was based more on the book. It felt like it was more dark and creepy compared to the nice and soft version. It took away from the storyline itself because the whole time I was focused on how the character Willy Wonka, played by Johnny Depp, was a bit creepy throughout the whole movie. That’s probably what the director liked, but I expected to see the original character’s personality because he wasn’t as creepy in the original version. He looked more like a regular guy.

To top it off, none of the original songs from the 1971 film were even in the second film. For example, the songs in the original film were kind of harsh but still funny. In the second film, the famous Oompa Loompa song wasn’t even included. The new Oompa Loompa song was changed to be about the character Augustus Gloop.

Another thing that creeped me out about the remake was that all of the Oompa Loompa’s were played by one guy. It’s just weird and leaves me to question why they didn’t try casting more Oompa Loompas like the original film did.

It’s the little things that are known in classical films, like a certain song, that end up being taken out from new versions. By doing that it brings disappointment to the audience. I just don’t feel that a classical movie can ever be remade as a better version. The first one was already great.