Are movie remakes an improvement? or are they

Remakes are an homage to a classic. They are also Hollywood's idea of a safe bet to make some money. They are, essentially, good and bad depending on your point of view. Some people detest remakes as pale imitations of the originals. I tend to see them as an opportunity to introduce a new age of audience members to a great story.

Remakes are a cheap and easy way for Movie Studios to make a buck from intellectual properties that they already own, and they usually do garner box office success. One of the main reasons for this is that the remakes appeal to different generations. You have the generations who have seen the original and want to see what the new version is like, because of their fond memories. Then you have the newer generations who are drawn by the current actors, updated special effects and name recognition of the original movie. This is a double-edged sword for the movie-going public. Usually remakes can't live up to the oringals in the minds of the people who loved those originals. Although, those same people will probably see the movie, and bring their families. It's similar to movies never being as good as the books for the people who have read the books prior to seeing the movies. There are a few exceptions of course. I personally liked the Oceans (11, 12, 13) better than the original. These movies are a huge box office success and I might add the proceeds go to relief efforts in Darfur... which is rare-- granted, but still noteworthy and deserving of praise. Technology does make a difference too. You might be surprised to know there were at least two Spiderman movies before the current series starring Toby McGuire and Kerstin Dunst. Those first movies were awful, just really, really bad because the effects couldn't do the source material justice. Love em' or hate em' movie remakes are here to stay and maybe thats for the best. I know that I like a bit of nostalgia now and then...

I'm a traditionalist or originalist. I hate most of the remakes. They don't do the original film or filmaker justice. I think it's a cheap way film studios can release movies. It cheats the public out of original movies. There are very few remakes that I like.

I am not really sure about a lot of the remakes. I like Johnny Depp and all, but they should have left Willy Wonka alone. That remake was in my opinion terrible.

There is not a single remake I liked so far except one or two. There might some marketing or some strategy behind making remakes ? Otherwise they never were a match to their originals in quality and patronage.

Remakes are just Hollywoods ways of making quick money. Be that as it may there are some good remakes and terrible remakes. Good? "King Kong" Bad? "Planet of the Apes" Whether people think these examples are correct or not i doesnt matter.

I don't care too much for movie remakes. Alot of them are not as good as the original movie. I think we get so used to seeing the other actors in the origianl movie also. Journey to the Center of the Earth 3-D sounds like it may be a good movie. I would have to see it and then say for sure about it.

Most remakes are quite frankly unnecessary. After all, they only remake good films, and a good film doesn't need remaking. It's the ones that didn't work out so well. but had a good idea or potential, that need redoing. But that's far too much of a financial risk for a studio to take. The best that can be said of a remake is that it was as good as the original. The remake of "The Italian Job" was one of the better ones, simply because it didn't try to fully remake the original film, but adapt it more than anything.