Remakes
Remaking a movie usually unnecessary and usually a
disaster. Remaking a book is really
recycling the plot. Shakespeare used it all the time. And, as Stephen mentioned, Gregory
MacQuire. But in all the GOOD cases the
new version of a plot brings something new to the table - some new way of
looking at the original material.
A remake of a movie is most like a "new production" of a stage play. No one really objects to new productions of a play because the old ones are gone. In fact, with a play each performance is unique. So you could (theoretically) see the same play with the same cast three times in a row and they would each be the same.
A movie is a like a painting in that you can look at the same movie over and over and try to find new things in it but the production is constant (barring edits and Lucas-style "special editions"). But just like a painting if someone copies it is not quite the same.
All this said there are good remakes of movies and TV shows and bad ones.
A new movie based on a book is not really a remake of the first movie. It is going back to the well (the book) and doing another adaptation. Why? A book is usually longer than a movie so you can make two adaptations that just very different scenes from the same book.
Some of the great movies in history are remakes. The 1941 The Maltese Falcon (the one with Humphrey Bogart) is a “remake” of a 1931 The Maltese Falcon which starred Ricardo Cortez as “Sam Spade.” They were both based on the same book by Dashiell Hammett. The 1930s Universal monster movies, Frankenstein and Dracula were remakes of several movies made in silent era. The excellent play, The Front Page was first adapted in 1931 and remade in 1974 (with the original salty language restored) and the 1940 version switched the sex of one of the characters and made a completely new movie: His Gal Friday. All three of these versions are great (though I like His Gal Friday the best.)
The 1976 remake of King Kong was unnecessary and a travesty. Peter Jackson’s remake looks fantastic. Maybe not necessary - but it will probably be a good movie.
When Battlestar Galactica was remade they took a mediocre (at best) series and turned it into a very good series. The reimagining of Nightstalker made a quirky and interesting series routine and boring.
The Prisoner remake (the origin of this discussion) is not likely to recapture the intensity or rugged individuality of the original show - unless Patrick MacGoohan is running things. Since that is not very likely I expect any remake to be an insult to the original.
A remake of a movie is most like a "new production" of a stage play. No one really objects to new productions of a play because the old ones are gone. In fact, with a play each performance is unique. So you could (theoretically) see the same play with the same cast three times in a row and they would each be the same.
A movie is a like a painting in that you can look at the same movie over and over and try to find new things in it but the production is constant (barring edits and Lucas-style "special editions"). But just like a painting if someone copies it is not quite the same.
All this said there are good remakes of movies and TV shows and bad ones.
A new movie based on a book is not really a remake of the first movie. It is going back to the well (the book) and doing another adaptation. Why? A book is usually longer than a movie so you can make two adaptations that just very different scenes from the same book.
Some of the great movies in history are remakes. The 1941 The Maltese Falcon (the one with Humphrey Bogart) is a “remake” of a 1931 The Maltese Falcon which starred Ricardo Cortez as “Sam Spade.” They were both based on the same book by Dashiell Hammett. The 1930s Universal monster movies, Frankenstein and Dracula were remakes of several movies made in silent era. The excellent play, The Front Page was first adapted in 1931 and remade in 1974 (with the original salty language restored) and the 1940 version switched the sex of one of the characters and made a completely new movie: His Gal Friday. All three of these versions are great (though I like His Gal Friday the best.)
The 1976 remake of King Kong was unnecessary and a travesty. Peter Jackson’s remake looks fantastic. Maybe not necessary - but it will probably be a good movie.
When Battlestar Galactica was remade they took a mediocre (at best) series and turned it into a very good series. The reimagining of Nightstalker made a quirky and interesting series routine and boring.
The Prisoner remake (the origin of this discussion) is not likely to recapture the intensity or rugged individuality of the original show - unless Patrick MacGoohan is running things. Since that is not very likely I expect any remake to be an insult to the original.