Over the past year, more and more movies have come out as ‘live-action’ remakes of older, classic, cult-following films. While some of these have been massive box-office hits, there have been a lot of opinions on social media and in film discussion forums. Critics and average movie watchers all seem to have the same question: “Why?”
This is not to say that all remakes are terrible films—that would be absurd. What will be said, however, is that some remakes just simply aren’t necessary. The whole “point” of a movie, outside of entertaining an audience, is to tell a story. Once the story is over, the audience should be satisfied; maybe not happy with the ending, but satisfied that they didn’t waste a ticket. By making and remaking the same story over and over again, the characters are unable to get that ending. This happens with sequels as well. A new cast of characters may be introduced but struggle to carry on the same plotline or receive the same empathy from viewers.
In certain instances, it is not the ending of a character’s story that is re-explored but their beginning. The newest addition to the Hunger Games franchise, “The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes,” (2024), is not only a book adaptation but acts as a prequel to explain how certain characters came to be—it acts as their beginning. President Snow, who is older in the earlier movies, is explored through his young adulthood, and audiences are able to see how his past has affected how he later rules the districts. Not only is President Snow explored, but Lucy Gray’s character- who is mentioned in earlier movies- gets to be fully explored more than a passing name. Being able to see the parallels between different characters, i.e., Katniss and Lucy Gray, audiences get to create depth for not only the story that’s being portrayed but can make they may want to rewatch the other movies to see how many newfound layers the characters have.
The opposite of this, however, would be something like—and I hate to say this because I’m a fan of every actor in the film—the Mean Girls musical that is coming out in 2024. Yes, I know Tina Fey is in it, and she is awesome, and I trust the movie is in good hands, BUT I think the iconic movie should be laid to rest. There was a clear ending to the movie, and everyone got to be where they needed to be. I don’t mean to sound like a Boomer and say, “They couldn’t make a film like this today!!” but I think a lot of the acclaim is somehow, in part, to just how ‘of the times’ the movie was. The snarky comments, the wild controversies, and the vulgarity are what make the movie great. With something as iconic as Mean Girls (2004), it has been 20 years since the first movie came out, and it has held up just fine. Trying to morph it towards a new generation- that already has an appreciation for the original- seems unnecessary. Admittedly, the Boomers may be right with this one– we couldn’t make a movie like Mean Girls today, so why are we trying to?
All in all, not all remakes are created equally. Remakes or sequels all depend on how the story is set up. Without a base for a new story to emerge, there is no need to end a story that has already ended. While many remake films are legendary, there are millions of ideas that could become classics without riding the coattails of a 20+-year-old movie.