I am not great with probability problems, but I do know this: if I were to go to the movies today, there's a 100% chance there'd be a remake playing. It's not a surprising conclusion. From week to week, numerous remakes of older movies crowd the box office. Within the past five years or so, the production rate of remakes has hit a sharp increase that continues to skyrocket.
Why is this? Can't studios come up with their own ideas anymore? To an outside observer, it might seem that the big studios have suddenly lost all their creative thinkers, but, in truth, a far more grievous factor is sucking the life out of the film industry. Most big studios today are caught up in a get-rich-quick routine and, in their haste to produce entertainment in bulk as cheaply as possible, turn to remakes and sequels to bear the brunt of their bread-winning.
Remakes in themselves aren't a bad thing. In fact, there have been some really great ones. Take, for example, John Carpenter’s “The Thing” (1982; a re-envisioning of 1951’s “The Thing From Another World”) or, for another, the Coen Brothers’ “True Grit” (2010; based off the original 1969 western starring John Wayne). The recent remakes of Stephen King’s “IT” miniseries (2017 and 2019, respectively; the original premiered in 1990) have also seen mild success.
But lately such films have taken a nose-dive in quality. Most remakes cranked out of the Hollywood meat-grinder are cheap, watered-down imitations of what came before. Take, for example, Disney’s “The Lion King” (2019)—the ninth remake in a recent strain of live-action films that started six years back with “Maleficent.”
No doubt you’ve noticed that Disney in particular puts out a lot of remakes with a lot of mediocre CGI. Bigger studios happen to love CGI because it is faster (and, in most cases, cheaper) than practical effects (practical effects being the use of tangible props and technology such as elaborate costumes, pyrotechnics, prosthetics, animatronics, etc.).
Though CGI is not the enemy, cheap stakes and a lack of heart going into production certainly are. In this fashion, Disney and other studios churn out cheaper films at a fast clip. This rushed production practice shows through in the distinct lack of care and quality. Often these remakes have no real depth or heart to them. They follow a formula, hitting all the points of the predecessor while tacking on one or two loosely-formed sub-plots to create the illusion of originality. And in this practice, the soul of the original is lost.
As I said, remakes in themselves are fine—even great; but we should not stand for only halfway-decent fodder. In the past, Walt Disney Studios brought us many an animated classic such as “Bambi” (1942), “Sleeping Beauty” (1959), and, of course, “The Lion King” (1994). But as both consumers and creators in our own right, we should demand quality over bland, reworked classics sweetened with a pinch of sugary, manipulating nostalgia.
In a capitalist society, money talks. I won't be paying good money to support any more cheap remakes, and neither should you. If Disney and other studios find that remakes make good money, they'll continue to crank them out faster and cheaper than ever before. And we shouldn't stand for that. So be responsible consumers—give due attention to what critics say about remakes. If it’s trash, keep your cash.