To Boldly Go Where Someone Has Gone Before

Today I stumbled across the first image from the set of the Robocop remake and my curiosity was sated. Yes, it is just a snatched photo mid-production and there are still effects to be created and polishing to be done but to me this looks more Power Rangers than Robocop, and somewhere deep inside this make me a little bit happy.

I have nothing against remakes in principle, in fact my all-time favourite film - John Carpenters The Thing - is itself a remake, but sometimes I wonder why they bother.

Perhaps part of the problem is just down to age. When you're young a remake of anything is likely the first version you see. Fast forward twenty years and those favourites of your childhood become that much more precious, a part of you even, so when you hear they are being remade you're instantly on the defensive.

Partly it's simply due to a history of mediocre remakes and the suspicion that it's not being made with the passion of someone who was inspired by the original but more likely by studios keen to extract every last drop of cash from existing and established properties, cynically churning out a rushed, modernised clone, tarted up with a splash of  CGI. Which came first, a heartfelt desire to update classic horror The Omen or a 6th June 2006 (06.06.06) marketing opportunity?

A Nightmare On Elm Street, The Italian Job, The Omen, King Kong, The Day The Earth Stood Still, The Hitcher, Fright Night and a number of John Carpenter films such as The Fog and even the peerless Halloween, have all suffered from remakeitis and, as far as I can tell, it's the young pretenders who have faded into obscurity first. Or have they? I am biased, after all, because I prefer the original versions of all the films listed above.

 

There are fair reasons for remakes. Many successful foreign language films are remade for the large audience who wouldn't dream of sitting through two hours of subtitles. Perhaps technology has advanced enough to bring an original vision more accurately to the screen such as in the case of The Thing. Perhaps a director really does have a fresh vision for a film that he genuinely adores.

I think the real problem is simpler. We don't like change. Take Star Wars as an example. Every so often George Lucas takes his original trilogy and makes some changes; a new bit of film here, a tidied up effect there, change this sequence, swap those actors... he just can't seem to leave it alone. He says he sees nothing wrong with using the latest technologies to continually 'improve' the film but these changes have upset a great many Star Wars fans, and this isn't even a remake, just a tweaking.

 

I like a good film regardless and if a remake provides that then it's fine by me but I think making a great (or even good) film is largely down to luck. So many ingredients have to be perfect - the script, the crew, the cast, the films ability to tap into and understand it's audience and having the money, people and time to do it as it needs to be done. To think that all this can be duplicated precisely, on demand, is, I think, extremely optimistic which is why studios are very keen to find the next big franchise. If they find the right ingredients these days they want to keep hold of them, to repeat it immediately.

 

That said they don't have to be hits, they just need to make money. Hits are great but remaking a proven success should reduce the risk by tapping into the brand recognition. It's likely that a new audience may have heard of -  if not actually seen -  the original, while the old audience may watch out of curiosity alone. Most of the remakes I listed above turned a profit and the studios seem to have learnt that if they can keep to a low budget - say 20 million - then the odds are favourable.

What it boils down to, for me at least, is this. If somebody wants to remake a film I like then go ahead. If I enjoy it then great. If I don't then my original version will still be waiting there for me. And in the meantime just let me get on with satisfying that little part of me that knows Peter Weller was and always will be Robocop.

And he didn't look like a bloody power ranger either.

Ade