#3 Sequels and Remakes - Olivia

In the event that I was ever kidnapped, bound, taken to an abandoned movie theater, and forced to watch either a sequel or a remake ... I would have take a moment to choose.

I would probably bite my lip.

"Time ees teeking, meesy. Choose or ve vill choose for you," say my Russian captors.  I'm guessing that they're Russian from their accent, but I suppose we could also assume they're Norwegian.

"I don't sink you vould vant dat." They laugh heartily to each other.

I look from captor to captor, and then to the blank screen and then down to my wrists, duct-taped to the arms of the theater chair.

"Remake," I say clearly, without even a flicker of fear.

I can sense some of you shaking your heads, wringing your hands.  You're nervous.  You're secretly repeating "Sequel! Sequel!", thinking back on all the bad remakes you've ever watched.  You're not sure what these men are capable of ...

I stand by remake.  I'm not scared.  This is what I'm thinking:

A remake really has nothing to lose.  If the original film was terrible to begin with, then it can only be get better.  Or remain terrible.

And if the film is awesome, one should expect nothing but straight up A-game.  By trying to redo something that probably doesn't need to be redone, I should be so impressed that I perpetually make new friends just to see the movie repeatedly.  I mean, the film better come with seat-belts.

If it doesn't meet those expectations, I can shrug my shoulders and smile fondly on the original.

But the sequel is different.  I think it's far riskier to sequel than to do a remake of even a good film.

I will always be suspicious of the sequel.

A sequel can be like the generic brand version of something I would normally spend a little more on.
A sequel can be like the unnecessary cousin in an already packed car.
A sequel can be like the extra seasonings in a soup that was delicious before you gambled on it needing something.
A sequel can be like the nice man you met online who was cool at first on your first date, but was bumming cash from you by the second date.
A sequel can be like those long minutes you will never get back between being deposited in the room where you sit on paper and actually seeing the doctor.

Sequels make me nervous because it's obviously additional.  Adding a person here, throwing out a conflict there, can feel like tampering, especially if I liked the original story.  Especially if the addition is not necessary.  Especially if it's poorly done.

Frankly, there is a fine line between telling a longer story and milking something for all it's worth.

The soundest choice (although not fool-proof) is setting parameters ahead of time.  Trilogies, especially if spread out carefully enough, serve their purpose well.  Or filming a book series, where the audience knows what to expect, often is successful.  Those are safe choices.

But by making another movie, the story often becomes more vulnerable.

And if you do lose the integrity of the story, you've killed your cash cow.  We all know if it weren't for the poor choices in the third portions of Pirates of the Caribbean, or Spiderman, they probably could've kept making those films forever.

I don't mind spending time or money in the name of entertainment, as long as I'm not being suckered into into sloppy excessive storytelling.  Puh-lease.

"Zees ees an interestink choice you make," says my captor with a sinister chuckle.  "Deed you hear her? She said remake.  Vell, ve will give her remake ..."

The lights dim.  From the darkness I hear one of them shout, "Put een ze Pink Panther!  Zee von veeth Steve Martin!"

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!"

Don Responds --


It's too bad that you know Steve Martin from later in his career because the first few films he made right after he quit being a standup comedian were awesome.  If you ever get a chance to see any of his early films including The Jerk, The Man With Two Brains, or Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid, you'd understand why he is still revered in Hollywood today.


As to your overall essay, I'm pretty much in agreement: I think remake offer more in terms of artistic vision than sequels do.  With that said, however, I also think there are lots of TV and film roles that are so iconic that they should never have been remade; two examples of this would be The Beverly Hillbillies and The A-Team.  A lot of times when I see what sequels or remakes are coming soon, I think what a shame it is that so many original scripts go unmade because someone wants to redo something that should just be left alone.  When I go out to the movies, I want to be transported to some place I've never been before; remakes and sequels make it just that much more difficult to discover something fresh and original.