Hollywood, I think I’m finally going to say I am done with you. Of all the people in this world who are trying to make it as screenwriters, you constantly choose people to rehash a subpar version of a popular film only a decade old. There are people who write unique and original ideas, why not use them? Why just give up and throw remakes at us?
I’m getting pretty tired of going to the movie theater or watching television and seeing trailers to movies that have already been made in the past. For instance, the current remake of “Total Recall” is about to hit screens. Not even going to bother changing the name even in the slightest? Wow.
I think I’ve been being pushed to the edge with Hollywood these past couple years, but the final straw has been drawn. I understand that Sylvester Stallone is not the best actor in the world, and “Judge Dredd” is by no means an Oscar winning film. It’s a poor example of a Sci-Fi action movie; however, it represents the typical 90’s Sci-Fi action film. It does not need to be remade into “Dredd.” At least they changed the name slightly. I get it – the original can be vastly improved upon but why would you want to?
From the previews they have completely changed the storyline; alright I can live with that. And if they wanted to keep the same universe and use different characters I’d be fine with that too. Yet, they use the same characters and even the same tagline as the original. That’s just being lazy. If you had just changed some names around you would have had more of an original idea, but Hollywood just had to keep the same ‘ole Judge Dredd. Typical.
While remaking “Judge Dredd” hit my nerve pretty hard, I look back in past years and see many remakes that just have me shaking my head wondering “why do they do this to themselves?”
It seemed to start primarily in horror films. A few years back, a new “Friday the 13th” was released. However, this movie was more like another installment to the franchise (that like its character Jason just wouldn’t die) and did not come across as a remake. It was the same killer but new victims with better story lines. It was very well done. However, when you get “The Thing,” that poor movie has a remake of the remake! Sometimes, Hollywood just needs to accept that it’s time to end it and move on to butcher another movie.
Then there were remakes of “Fright Night” and “Nightmare on Elm Street.” As an avid fan of Robert Englund I feel as though they should have kept him in the role of Freddy Kruger as he terrorized Elm Street because that it his iconic role. But what do I know? And “Fright Night,” was not a more popular horror film in the 80’s so I can see why there could be a remake in that film. I’m not condoning it, but I can see that since it wasn’t wildly popular people would be less inclined to know it was a remake.
Now remakes are becoming more prominent in other genres. As a fan of 1984’s “Footloose” starring Kevin Bacon, I was appalled to learn that it was being remade recently. I still think the original soundtrack is one of the best I’ve ever heard in any film. (I still have it playing in my car.) I still can’t even get through the new rendition of “Footloose” by Blake Shelton.
One current remake that I can fully understand why it has been done: “The Amazing Spiderman.” While the original Spiderman trilogy is not that old, one major event happened shortly after they were made: Disney bought Marvel from Universal. The past three Spidey flicks were made by Universal Studios, and the new one is being made by Disney. Perhaps the new film is a way to show up Universal, just like “The Avengers”? It makes sense that Disney wants to remake “Spiderman” because this would be their first time presenting the superhero to the public. That remake makes sense because the character has switched hands. Remakes of movies that are 25-30 years old seem unnecessary to me.
I know fans of these remakes will challenge my views on the recent batch of Hollywood “cinema,” and I am gladly open to feedback. All I ask is for Hollywood to straighten itself out and give us original movies again. Is that really too much to ask? They would rather play it safe and repackage a movie they know people will see instead of growing a pair and doing something that requires guts. Please, just take that leap of faith with these screenwriters with original ideas.
Jessica Brown is the staff photographer for the Barrow Journal. You can reach her at jessica@barrowjournal.com.
What lazy journalism!
Somebody who was responsible for this moderation has been asleep at the wheel by letting this dirty language remain in this post. C'mon Barrow Journal
Dredd is a British production with Indian money shot in South Africa.
Dear lord. Dredd isn't a "remake" any more than Batman Begins or The Amazing Spiderman are. It's a new adaptation of a comic book that's been running for 30 years, which is sticking closer to the source material than the last adap, hence the differences in plot.
In fact, Total Recall isn't a remake either, it is similarly a new adaptation of a classic book which again seems to be sticking closer to the source than the Verhoeven movie did.
It's pretty shocking you wouldn't have taken the 5 minutes it would have taken to find this stuff out for yourself before writing an article about it.
If the first attempt had been any good (and the filmmakers had more respect for the source material) it might well have developed into a Batman or Spiderman type franchise by now.
Thank You for Smoking (2005) – Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart)
The movie producers, writers, and everyone working on them have to pay mortages, rent, car loans, etc. just like the rest of us. So they choose to remake movies because if it worked before it will probably work now.
Is every James Bond movie a remake of previous ones?
I know very little about Judge Dredd, if that makes you feel any better about your sweeping generalization.
Countries who had a working health care, a real democracy (more than two parties to vote for) and other delicate things for ages.
And well it does. It does change the overall theme, as someone asked if every James Bond movie also is a remake of the one before it. Dredd is an entirely other thing than the other remakes where it's the same movie with a new cast and crew.
In other words, don't blame Hollywood, blame the fact that the majority of the cinema going public would rather see something they've seen 20 times before than make the effort to seek out something vaguely challenging.
Perhaps people are angry at this article targeting Dredd because it is made by an independent production company, and with this movie they are trying (and from what I hear succeeding) in doing something quite different from the usual comic book blockbusters you see on the big screen.
Now if you think that doesn't matter, then you must be forced to come to the conclusion that this entire article matters just as little.
As for people "attacking the young lady who wrote this piece", if you publish your writings, and this young lady evidently has ambitions to do so on a much larger scale, that is what you open yourself up to. It pays to get used to it.
And there really is no excuse for doing the most basic research in these times when the information is literally just a few mouse clicks away. C'mon people, I do more to check my facts than this writer even before simply posting on online chat forums, let alone writing full-blown "opinion pieces".
In doing so, she has made herself appear foolish, and has done the same to this publication. And you suggest that she should not be criticized because... why?
(I would also add, how very wonderful that you feel it perfectly okay for her to criticize a film on completely baseless grounds, but that others should not call her out on her behavior. A charming double standard.)