Movie remakes can be difficult to properly make. When a remake is too similar to the original movie it is a remake of, people tend to say that it is simply a copy of the original without its own identity, and that it is a pointless remake. On the other hand, when a remake is too different than the movie it is a remake of, the major criticism tends to be that it was so different than the original that it is essentially a remake in name only. So how unique should a movie remake actually be when compared to the original movie? Thanks to anyone that replies.

On a difference scale of 1 (Psycho 1998) to 10 (Suspiria 2018), I'm good with a 5 or higher. Basically what it comes down to is if it's remade as a cash grab, which is almost always terrible, or if the director/writer found something interesting in the original material and chose to shift focus to that.

I think remakes should take the general idea for the film in question, and either expand on elements of the original film or put some sort of spin on an aspect of the story or a character.

I liked the fact that THE THING (1982) was so different from THE THING (1951), both very good movies with their own strengths, with the remake hewing closer to the concept floated in the original short story.

I hated that THE GETAWAY (1994) was simply a scene-for-scene remake of THE GETAWAY (1972) when it should have gone back to the original Jim Thompson novel and made a version based more closely on it.

KING KONG (1976) and KING KONG (2005) were different enough from KING KONG (1933) to make them more interesting than they would have been if they'd been straight remakes.

So I prefer more difference than similiarity.

The Thing is the gold standard here.

It took all of the good stuff from the original, gave it a great script, great cast, modern special effects, and gave it an R-rating. It took the story, and made the kind of movie they couldn't have made in the 1950s.

This is where most remakes fail (particularly of the genre variety) in that end up being watered down knock-offs of the superior originals.

When a movie is based on a book I’d prefer that if they have to remake it, they go back to the source material and work with that.
I also wish they would just exclusively remake bad movies.

With remakes I tend to like the version I watch first ... for better or worse. I also prefer when they remake mediocre films that had some potential as there's no risk of degrading the original film.

I can like different versions because they fit different moods I have.

Dracula (1931) late night creature feature on tv
Horror of Dracula (1958) drive-in
Dracula (1979) indoor theater

My first thought is that I’d prefer remakes to occur only when the original can and should be improved upon. Whether it’s terrible acting, limited budget, script problems, etc. if theres a good foundation for a good story, a solid remake could work. Knowing that studios don’t follow that rule and instead remake popular, well made films, I suppose it’s pointless to expect that.

Instead, I would hope that filmmakers use the SPIRIT of the original and make it their own. Thinking of solid remakes, The Thing and The Crazies come to mind as better than the originals. They followed the spirit of the original but made it their own movie.

I’ll also add, no fan service! I don’t need original cast members popping up in cameos or wink, wink homages sprinkled throughout. I don’t need that shit! I also don’t need filmmakers thinking that CGI fixes all. The remakes of The Haunting and The Fog are proof that adding a shit ton of CGI in place of good old fashioned practical effects doesn’t make a better movie.

I think it depends on the first movie. If they're doing a remake of an excellent movie, the result had better be very good. Seven Samurai > Fistful of Dollars and Ben Hur > Ben Hur are examples of a successful remake. I get ticked off when a good movie is remade as a pedestrian movie. The only difference between that and a rip-off movie is that the remake bought the rights to the original title.

If they're doing a remake of an ordinary movie, sure. Knock yourself out. Try to do something interesting with it. It's pretty much the same as new genre movies with similar plots to old ones. I'll watch it if it sounds fun.

If they're doing a remake of a bad movie . . . but no one wants to remake a movie that didn't make money the first time.

The Thing is great, no doubt. But The Fly (1986) and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) are right with Thing in remake dept.

I think it depends on original. Was it classic or ok, that one is being remade? Meh. I don’t mind different takes, cast, ethnicity, etc. I certainly don’t want shot for shot remakes ala Psycho. Ugh. But fresh takes while remaining in spirit of original or at least know it was from somewhere else. But originality goes a long way.

I mean Thing is almost completely different movie. Of course, 30 years of technology goes a long way as well with sci-fi/horror.

As long as it’s good, good acting, story, I’ll give it a go.

I'm not sure why, but the movie era we are in can't seem to make good remakes. The '70s thru the '80s and a bit beyond was a good era for remakes and has some great examples ("The Thing", "The Fly", "The Blob", "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", "Night of the Living Dead", "Invaders from Mars", "Wages of Fear / Sorcerer") of remakes as good as or better than the original. That rarely happens anymore. I don't know if it's too much studio involvement instead of independent filmmakers in control but remakes are almost guaranteed to be bad these days.

Hollywood shouldn't remake classics, period. There's almost never a good reason remaking a movie that was already wildly successful in its day. The most interesting remakes are when they tackle flawed movies and make meaningful improvements.

I think I'm mainly on the side that says you should only remake movies that weren't great the first time but had an interesting concept that's still worth exploring.

I'll also go ahead and say that if a movie had a lot of cultural issues that make it cringey in this day and age but, again, have an interesting concept, then those are also good candidates for remakes.

I am all for remakes if they take the core ideas and characters and modernize them. For example, I much prefer modern movie fight scenes over stuff from the 80s and 90s. We're just better at it now. Same with effects and the general feel of modern cinematography and editing.

For example, I actually liked the Robocop remake - same idea, spun it differently, added some more characters and stories and pushed the effects up a bunch of notches. It wasn't perfect, but I can watch and enjoy both as different enough.

Also, I don't really care what gets remade. They don't go and destroy the original so that's still available anytime I want it. And maybe there is something about a new version that hooks someone who wouldn't have given the original a chance. And if not, then they just fade away and I couldn't care less if a big Hollywood studio loses money in the process.

It all depends. I'm generally not opposed to remakes.

I could get snarky here, but I can see you just made an honest mistake. So I guess I'll ask, are you saying Seven Samurai > The Magnificent Seven, or is Yojimbo > Fistful of Dollars?

Or is it more likely both?

It was supposed to be Yojimbo. Sigh.

I'm with you on that, including Robocop. Robocop and in some way Total Recall suffer from the fact that the originals are so cool. Both remakes aren't that bad, while Point Break is just bad. The action set pieces are spectacular but the movie never has the same dynamic and Edgar Ramirez just isn't Patrick Swayze.

Not always. I remember a bunch of people who wanted Carrie to go on a more apocalyptic rampage (destroying the whole town, essentially) like in King's book, but I think that would be overkill (no pun intended). DePalma and Cohen wisely chose to narrow the focus, because it keeps Carrie as a more sympathetic character. If you go by the book, you start to make her more of a villain. That was Steve-o's first book, and even he had issues with it.

Carrie is a film that didn't need to be remade at all, let alone twice. Even if DePalma's film deviates from the source.

The target audience for most remakes, especially horror, are probably too young to even realize they're remakes. Same with adaptations of old tv shows. Most people under 50 probably aren't aware there was a Mission Impossible tv show.

What people aware of an older version think about it is irrelevant. From both and artistic and financial standpoint. We got our version and they get theirs.

It's like comparing today's kids cartoons to Saturday morning cartoons when you were a kid.