An Analysis of Remake Hate

For discussion of Matt Reeve's Film Let Me In

Moderator: LMI Moderator

Post Reply
Lee Kyle
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:58 pm

An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by Lee Kyle » Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:37 pm

This article does not discuss hatred of remakes because they are lousy movies, but rather hatred of remakes because they are remakes. Most remakes are mediocre at best, of course, because all movies are mediocre at best. Some viewers, however, exhibit a priori hatred of all remakes, regardless of whether said movies are good, bad, or somewhere in between. What are the origins of this remake hate?

1) Lack of formal education. Literary scholars claim there are three kinds of stories in the world: Quest, War, Romance. If this is true, then all movies, novels, and dramas are remakes. The same story is getting told over and over again. If a book, play, or film strikes a person as new, it is not because the story is actually new, but because the hearer of the story is young and/or uneducated. He has not yet been exposed to enough stories to realize that every story is a remake.
We have all had the experience of entering into the home of an elderly person who used to read extensively. Thousands of books fill the person’s house, and upon examination it is obvious he has read them all. Yet he no longer reads much. Why not? Because he discovered that every book is a remake. Picking up a “new” book inevitably reminds him of this fact, and he can’t handle it. His solution: stop reading, stop watching movies, stop attending plays.
[I don’t think this is a healthy response to the realization that there are no new stories, but neither is hating remakes because they are remakes. Such a reactionary mentality leads to one end, of course: hating everything.]
Study Homer or Shakespeare for a year, and you will discover that all stories, regardless of their format (novel, play, movie, etc.), are remakes. Consume only modern books and films, and it will take you longer to realize this. Regardless, when a person engages in reactionary remake hate, it shows he is still an intellectual child. He has not yet imbibed the critical mass of stories that will grant him the realization all people experience if they live long enough: there is nothing new under the sun.

2) Lack of identification with movie-makers. I assume the critics of remakes feel at least some creative and artistic impulses, or they would not be watching movies. I assume said critics also work for a living, and expect to get paid for their work. Remake haters don’t hate themselves because they like stories and like to earn money. Yet somehow directors and movie studios are evil because they like telling stories and like getting paid.
Why is it somehow bad or evil that a person wants to retell a story? If that’s what he wants to do, that’s what he wants to do. His expression of his personal creative impulse does not hurt you in any way. No one is forcing you to buy a ticket to his movie, discuss his movie, or pay any attention whatsoever to his movie. He is free to retell a story. You are free to ignore it. He’s a human being doing what he wants to do with his life. How is this harmful to anyone?
Those who hate remakes because they are remakes complain in such intriguing idioms: “Why do they always have to remake movies?” “This remake is unnecessary.” “They’re just remaking it because they are greedy.” As though the phrase “have to” can be applied to any act of artistic expression. As though any film is “necessary.” As though wanting to earn a living is somehow wrong.
If director and crew want to retell a story, if a teams of actors want to act out that story, and if a studio wants to finance the effort, that’s their business. No one is making them do it. No one is making you pay attention to them doing it. They want to retell a story and make money doing it. How is this bad? Wrong? Harmful? They want to retell a story and make money doing it? Sounds human. Hating them because they are human is rather ironic. They remake movies, not because they are different than us, but because they are like us.

3) Desire to appear sophisticated and erudite. In some circles you are only considered intelligent if you express a priori hatred of all remakes. “The original is better” becomes a mindless mantra granting you acceptance into some craven circle of intellectual wannabes. I think this is the primary drive behind many online posters. They feel some silly need to prove how superior they are to us lesser mortals who would dare to enjoy a remake.
As a reminder, this article is not discussing the hatred of bad remakes because they are bad, but the reactionary hatred of all remakes regardless of whether they are good, bad, or somewhere in-between. You can prove you are not a reactionary by listing a few films you love that art house critics despise. For example, I really enjoy the movies Independence Day, Hancock, and Battleship. Acknowledging my delight in such mindless fare shows that pleasing some self-appointed guild of elitist snobs does not govern my movie criticism. I like a movie because I like it, not because someone tells me I should like it. This approach is then expanded to include remakes (i.e., every movie ever made).

4) Not understanding the process of cultural transmission. All great stories get retold. No story becomes a permanent part of a culture unless it gets retold over and over again, generation after generation. If such retellings, reimaginings, remakings do not occur, the story vanishes: in a hundred years, no one has heard of it.
If people want to remake a movie, novel, or play, it is a sign they love the story so much, they want it to last. They want new generations to learn and love the story, and make it their own. They want the story to become an abiding part of their culture. The story lasting matters to them.
“People should just watch the original.” A ridiculous assertion. How does the word “should” belong in such a discussion? What moral obligation does a person have to watch the “original” rather than a remake? “The original is better.” Maybe so. The fact that it is better still does not permit use of the word “should.” We’re talking about art, after all. How can the word “should” ever be used in connection with artistic preference?
The dark irony of remake hate is that remakes are the best advertising for the original movie, play, novel. You don’t get people watching a 40-year-old movie by telling them to watch it. You get them watching the original by presenting such an incredible remake that it engenders a desire to explore the original source material.
This is why directors and authors love remakes, of course: remakes create new generations of fans who would never otherwise have discovered the original. So if you really want people to watch an original movie, you should encourage them, not to watch the original, but to watch the remake. This is the most likely way to get them to watch the earlier version. “Watch the original instead” usually has only one effect: the person ends up watching neither.

I can’t help but wonder about remake hate. If a person really loved the original, would he not also love a remake, no matter how awful, simply because it exposes so many new people to the story? Does the remake hater really love the original at all? Or is he actually in love with being part of some elite group of cult fans who grovel before a film that almost no one has ever heard of, the discovery of which by a larger fan base would destroy that sense of elitist superiority? “The movie is only great until the masses realize it’s great: then I must move on to a new movie to nurture my sense of supremacy.”
If this is so, the key to abolishing remake hate is, ironically, getting masses of people to watch and fall in love with the original. Once commoners discover the original, remake haters will move on to a new movie that no one has ever heard of. Whatever it takes to protect that snobbish air.
Repel the remake haters: engage in en masse love of the original such that the original no longer satisfies remake-haters’ need to appear elite.
Last edited by Lee Kyle on Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
drakkar
Posts: 3833
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:26 am
Location: Trondheim, Norway

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by drakkar » Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:13 pm

I listened to a radio program where Scandinavian film makers discussed remakes. Even though selling the rights pays off economically, their attitude towards remakes were generally condescending. I don't quite know how to put it, perhaps a bit like the attitude towards a fake rolex watch. It doesn't matter how accurate it ticks and how well it's crafted, a copy is a copy.
For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.
- Karl Ove Knausgård

User avatar
JToede
Posts: 869
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:37 am
Location: Sage WY

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by JToede » Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:36 am

True, some people like obscure things, just because they are obscure.
Image
Veni, Vidi, volo in domum redire.

User avatar
lombano
Posts: 2993
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:56 pm
Location: Xalapa, Mexico
Contact:

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by lombano » Thu Nov 07, 2013 7:03 am

I'd distinguish between remakes and re-shootings - the former having basically the same plot but also having significant artistic differences (and not just cosmetic differences or just more bells and whistles), while the latter really are like fake Rolexes, though a bit in reverse in that there is a pretense of not being a carbon copy. The most extreme re-shooting I know of would be Gus van Sant's Psycho, which basically re-defined "pointless." Herzog's version of Nosferatu is a proper remake in this sense, and one that I find superior to the original.
Bli mig lite.

User avatar
CyberGhostface
Posts: 890
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:43 am

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by CyberGhostface » Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:24 pm

Literary scholars claim there are three kinds of stories in the world: Quest, War, Romance. If this is true, then all movies, novels, and dramas are remakes. The same story is getting told over and over again. If a book, play, or film strikes a person as new, it is not because the story is actually new, but because the hearer of the story is young and/or uneducated. He has not yet been exposed to enough stories to realize that every story is a remake.
Image

I... think we have a different understanding of what constitutes the word 'remake'.
Or is he actually in love with being part of some elite group of cult fans who grovel before a film that almost no one has ever heard of, the discovery of which by a larger fan base would destroy that sense of elitist superiority? “The movie is only great until the masses realize it’s great: then I must move on to a new movie to nurture my sense of supremacy.”
Yes, that's why I keep on introducing and encouraging people to watch LTROI...because I don't want them to watch it. This logic is right up there with "People only like foreign films because they're foreign." Just because most people refuse to watch foreign films doesn't mean that we don't want them to watch it.
No banaaaanas?

jetboy
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:22 pm

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by jetboy » Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:36 pm

Lee Kyle wrote:3) Desire to appear sophisticated and erudite. In some circles you are only considered intelligent if you express a priori hatred of all remakes. “The original is better” becomes a mindless mantra granting you acceptance into some craven circle of intellectual wannabes. I think this is the primary drive behind many online posters. They feel some silly need to prove how superior they are to us lesser mortals who would dare to enjoy a remake.
As a reminder, this article is not discussing the hatred of bad remakes because they are bad, but the reactionary hatred of all remakes regardless of whether they are good, bad, or somewhere in-between. You can prove you are not a reactionary by listing a few films you love that art house critics despise. For example, I really enjoy the movies Independence Day, Hancock, and Battleship. Acknowledging my delight in such mindless fare shows that pleasing some self-appointed guild of elitist snobs does not govern my movie criticism. I like a movie because I like it, not because some Eurotrash prick tells me I should like it. This approach is then expanded to include remakes (i.e., every movie ever made).
What BS. Your the one coming out swinging, acting like we started the fight.

And also this NOT an analysis by any stretch of the imagination because you dont consider all sides. Picking this apart would be an exercise in futility seeing it has SO many faults. I also have to consider the source of such BS and realize you arent going to consider a word written because youre only interested in being right.

User avatar
JToede
Posts: 869
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:37 am
Location: Sage WY

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by JToede » Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:02 am

Annnnnnnnd... so it begins
Image
with this and that and the hissing and spitting, the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth....... then the "love" notes (i.e. warnings) from the moderators, (I'm sure I'll be receiving one.)
I have my resignation prepped and ready
Did I forget anything?
But really it's the same story. Some hate LMI because it is a remake. Some because it is an American remake.
There are things about LTROI that I don't like. And there are things about LMI I don't like.
There are things that are in the book I wished they portrayed in the films.
But a lot of us on this forum wouldn't have discovered LTROI/ or John Lindqvist's writings if it wasn't for LMI.
Veni, Vidi, volo in domum redire.

User avatar
PeteMork
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:56 pm
Location: Menlo Park, California

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by PeteMork » Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:21 am

Lee Kyle wrote:This article does not discuss hatred of remakes because they are lousy movies, but rather hatred of remakes because they are remakes. Most remakes are mediocre at best, of course, because all movies are mediocre at best. Some viewers, however, exhibit a priori hatred of all remakes, regardless of whether said movies are good, bad, or somewhere in between…
I read this far, then realized immediately that your article didn’t really seem to apply to anyone on this forum. The folks on this forum are almost all here because of their love of LTROI, not their dislike of remakes. Any of them that dislike LMI (or like it less than they like LTROI) seem to me to have, for them, perfectly valid reasons that have little or nothing to do with the ‘remake’ factor – reasons I might add that are usually well-presented and quite logical (albeit, sometime quite emotionally so :D ). This allowed me to read your article in a more objective way, but I still had the uneasy feeling that you were spending an inordinate amount of time discussing motives for this dislike of remakes that are speculative at best.

To be honest, I have never encountered anyone who fits into any of these categories, or at least anyone with enough real evidence against them that they could be convicted of one of these ‘crimes,’ even in a civil court. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist; only that they are rare. Frankly, in my experience on this forum, the only people who might possibly fit into one of your categories have left after very brief but noisy visits here.
Lee Kyle wrote:I can’t help but wonder about remake hate. If a person really loved the original, would he not also love a remake, no matter how awful, simply because it exposes so many new people to the story? Does the remake hater really love the original at all? Or is he actually in love with being part of some elite group of cult fans who grovel before a film that almost no one has ever heard of, the discovery of which by a larger fan base would destroy that sense of elitist superiority? “The movie is only great until the masses realize it’s great: then I must move on to a new movie to nurture my sense of supremacy.”
I would especially hate to think that any significant number of folks on this forum would ever fit into this category. :shock:
We never stop reading, although every book comes to an end, just as we never stop living, although death is certain. (Roberto Bolaño)

User avatar
EEA
Posts: 4739
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 5:53 pm

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by EEA » Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:52 am

There is a big difference between hating and not liking something. Me personally I don't have time to be hating movies, I just don't see then. :)
I still stand by what I said when I join the forum, I was angry when Let Me In was announced since I felt that it was too early for a remake of Let The Right One In. And because many of my favorite shows have had remakes that were terrible. I only saw Let Me In once since I wanted to give the movie a chance. But after watching the movie, it just had to many elements that I did not like.

User avatar
sauvin
Moderator
Posts: 3410
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:52 am
Location: A cornfield in heartland USA

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by sauvin » Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:02 am

Being the insensitive clod I can sometimes be, I read Kyle's post in its entirety without perceiving it as intended to attack on anybody in this forum; I took it literally as an attempt at understanding hatred for remakes in general. It is not, in my opinion, a troll, nor is it any kind of blanket accusation.

It seems some forum members do see or feel some kind of jab. There'll be no "love notes" coming from my desk addressed to any particular person in any PM because the potential I see here is for a pattern brewing that I've seen too many times before in a much larger forum. Since the level of intelligence and education in this forum is generally much higher, much further-reaching, much deeper and much better informed by what I'll term very simply "social graces", people who are impacted by this public warning should already know who they are, and what will probably happen if further unpleasantness or uncivil behaviour should occur:

There will be no more personal attacks. You will attack ideas, and you will argue them. You will not ascribe ulterior motives or character flaws to the people who bring them, and you will not simply dismiss their arguments pre-emptively as unfounded, ill-informed or outright ignorant. You will express disagreement with the argument given at face value, and you will explain the basis for said disagreement.

You will be held to a higher standard.
Fais tomber les barrières entre nous qui sommes tous des frères

Post Reply

Return to “Let Me In”