I can agree with this.
You make some good points.

-bm

And this sort of answers the question you ask in your first paragraph, in an indirect kind of way. Why make remakes at all? When you’re making a movie per a formula, because you’re scared of failing at the box office, you’re usually going to have a bad movie–and this is where most remakes fall apart.

The remakes that have worked are usually the ones that weren’t born out of fear: the ones where someone decided to remake a movie because he wanted to put his own spin on a story he loved or thought he could improve on the original in some respect. So, for instance, Sergio Leone loved Yojimbo and loved American Westerns, so he decided it would be interesting to re-tell the story of Yojimbo as a Western (filtered through his own sensibilities)–the result, A Fistful Of Dollars, is kinda brilliant and largely considered a classic. John Sturges has similar feelings for another Kurosawa film, The Seven Samurai, and decided to retell the story of seven obsolete warriors in feudal Japan saving a peasant village as a story about seven fading cowboys saving a Mexican town–and The Magnificent Seven is another classic. In neither case does it seem the filmmakers were motivated by fear–they were motivated by a love of the story and the idea that the story would still be interesting if they added other elements that they loved.

In the case of The Man Who Knew Too Much, Alfred Hitchcock simply wasn’t happy with his original version (1934) and decided he had the money and experience in 1956 to do it “right.” Most people tend to agree he did improve the movie. (It’s worth mentioning that what Hitchcock did also stands out and above what Lucas did when he “improved” the things he wasn’t happy with in the original Star Wars trilogy: Hitchcock left the world with two movies and a choice of what we prefer after watching them side-by-side, as opposed to altering the original and then saying it doesn’t even exist.)

That’s not to say that every director who thinks he can improve on a movie is right, or that every retelling is good. Nor is it even to say that remaking a movie out of fear will always result in something awful (sometimes people rise above a bad start). But it is to say that remaking a movie is at least valid as an artistic choice, and is never valid as a commercial choice. I doubt that MTV is remaking Rocky Horror because they think the experience will be improved with better acting, production values and songs–which is ironic, because there’s no doubt their version will have better acting and production values (and yes, maybe even better songs, as much as I think “Science Fiction (Double Feature)” is a great tune and lyric). But like Jeri pointed out, Rocky Horror was about an organic experience, a kind of folk tradition that rose up around a fairly mediocre movie, and not something you’re likely to bottle and create in committee.

I went to a screenwriting club for a while that got some very good industry speakers. A producer from a major studio (which is now merged into the Giant Movie Production Conglomerate Monster of Lemmingness), said remakes (and sequels) are usually born out of FEAR. I couldn’t agree more. Fear of NOT turning a profit on something new and therefore “risky”.

Bah. Let’s see new material.

-bm

They can’t be serious! If someone remakes Rocky Horror, it will be the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. I will officially be done with movies for all time.

Institutions: Hogan’s Heroes. Someone made of movie of McHale’s Navy, so I imagine someone else will turn to Hogan’s Heroes (or a remake of Stalag 17) eventually. I hope not.

I absolutely love Rocky Horror Picture Show, although I am surrounded by people like Bryan who don’t get it, which is OK. And I think the MTV remake will suck big time. But sucky remakes usually die a quick death and are forgotten.

But if somebody tried to remake Casablanca, well, violence might be involved.

The major problem with remakes is that Hollywood is doing fairly direct remakes with no ingenuity or creativity. A Fistful Of Dollars is a pretty awesome remake of Yojimbo and Star Wars is a pretty awesome remake of Hidden Fortress–but in both cases the remakes work because the creative types involved set out to do something original and artistic in their adaptations, as opposed to the current prevailing mentality of “Hey, this idea was a proven success the first time it came out–think of how much money we could make if we did it with younger, prettier people and computers!” And then they go out and piss on a perfectly good movie.

If I thought the Day The Earth Stood Still remake was going to be anything other than a glitzed-up, simplified, bring-nothing-new-to-the-table do-over low-balled to skew to a younger crowd with a cast chosen for box-office and demographic appeal, assembled by a director less-talented than Robert Wise, I might not have a problem with it. But I have a very good idea what kind of movie they’re going to come out with, and will be genuinely surprised if I’m wrong. I could be wrong–I was wrong about Ronald Moore’s “reimagined” Battlestar Galactica (I thought it would suck, but it totally obliterates the original)–but I doubt it.

That said, I can’t see a remake of Jaws, or the Godfather ever working well. Or more off beat, The Princess Bride was done perfectly the first time.

Honest to God, though, I never got the Rocky Horror thing. Except I liked dancing the Time Warp. Again.

I’m going to be fascinated to see if the new J. J. Abrams Star Trek works (I suppose more a TV remake, but there have been 10 ST movies). Somehow I have my doubts, while hoping I’m wrong.