by Christopher Kamp

Created on: May 04, 2009

I'll make no secret of the fact that I tend to prefer remakes over the original. The film snob in me wants to deny it, but it's true. Those old classics have their appeal, but can any favourable comparison really be made between the campy Batman movies of the 60s and 80s, and 2005's "Batman Begins"? I understand that that was not a remake as such, rather it was a 'series reboot', but in my mind the same principles apply. It's a matter of taste and opinion, of course, so all I can do is offer you mine: movie makers have simply gotten better at what they do.

Certainly there are arguments against remakes. What they boil down to, really, is the possibility that a modernised remake will simply miss the point of a brilliant movie, cheapening it as a hollywood blockbuster. Certainly this is a valid concern. Some movies are, at heart, timeless stories: they need no special effects to be engaging, and remain relevant despite being set 30 or 40 years in the past. Then, some punter with a few million to invest comes along, hoping to cash in on an established name, and ruins it for everyone.

It is my view, however, that remakes need not be like that. They can be done tastefully, by someone who genuinely admires the original, and understands it on a more than superficial level. The themes and basic integrity of the film can be preserved, while everything else is improved. Because as much as we might like to think that the quality of a film is independent of flashy gimmicks and special effects, the truth is that film is, at its core, a visual medium. Filmmaking techniques are constantly improving and, consequently, the potential quality of films improves proportionally. A brilliant film shot 40 years ago may still be brilliant today, but an equally brilliant story shot using today's techniques can only be an improvement.

Visual methods aside, the other way in which remakes tend to modify the original is with regard to setting. Now, in my view, the precise setting of a film is rarely important. If a plot requires a film to be set in an oppressive society, that setting can just as easily be Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or a dystopian future. If bringing the setting of a film 40 years forward helps modern viewers to relate to its message, then all the better.

Of course, there are those who disagree, with perfectly valid reasons. Some feel that the setting of a film is a part of its unique character, and to change it is to fundamentally change the nature of the film, usually for the worse. Others feel the same way about old-fashioned movies, seeing classic style or campy graphics as attractions in and of themselves. On a topic as subjective as this, all anyone can offer is an opinion. For what it's worth, I will always be in the market for quality remakes of classic films. I hope that others will be, too, because as long as there is an audience, the industry will deliver.

Learn more about this author, Christopher Kamp.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.