why do people like remakes of classic films?

I'm a college film student and I am studying modern adaptations of classic films and how todays society has influenced them. I want to know why people enjoy remakes more than the classic films, I would love peoples opinions.

People prefer remakes because they have the originial ideas and interesting story of the classics, but the actors are stars of recent years and so are the pop culture references and lifestyle of characters. Obviously, this all adds up to easy, massive profits.

I thought the general concensus was that most people don't like modern remakes.

This^^^

__________________

I thought this was the consensus too... I don't ever want to see a remake. I'd like for someone to use their brain, pen, and do something good for a change.

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

Yeah, proper movie lovers hate remakes...


... but the studios like remakes because they're an easy way to get silly teens and the uneducated to part with their cash.

__________________

I don't think the OP necessarily implied that people in general like modern remakes - my interpretation was that the question was about the specific sub-set of people who liked remakes and why they like remakes.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I'd be interested to see/find out how many people go to these films aware that they're remakes or have seen the previous version(s).

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

I do this occasionally - and I do mean "occasionally".

I don't know if lots of people like remakes per se, just that they go to watch them since they're usually pretty high profile movies. Just to name a few that I know off the top of my head, the remakes of Annie, Robocop (I know Rodent especially hates this one ), Cape Fear, Clash of the Titans, and Nightmare on Elm Street all have much lower scores on Rotten Tomatoes and IMBD than the original versions but most them did pretty well at the box office.

__________________
You will find that if you look for the light, you can often find it. But if you look for the dark, that is all you will ever see.
Iroh

That's probably because, as has been said already, the studios don't make these films for 'us'. They make them for the movie going general public and we're a very small part of that.

I think in most cases, people who like modern remakes haven't seen the original version. They have nothing to compare it to, so it feels like an original story to them. Then if they see the original version, that feels like the remake to them, so they like the original version less than the remake.

People who have seen the original version can't help but compare the remake to the original, and the remake usually pales in comparison.

Also, you have to keep in mind that they rarely remake a bad movie, so in most cases, we're comparing a modern remake to a beloved classic movie, and it's hard to improve a beloved classic.

There's only been a few remakes I like. King Kong and The Departed come to mind. I also really liked Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead. Other than those 3 there's not really any remakes I really like at tbh. Remaking classics is always a hard thing to do and as gbgoodies said above people who haven't seen the original are mostly likely gonna like the remake obviously. I didn't even see Infernal Affairs until after I watched the Departed and that might take into account why I like The Departed better as it was fresh when I watched the Departed and when I watched Infernal Affairs I was sitting there like "Yep, that happens" and it didn't have the same feeling watching it.

__________________
https://t.me/pump_upp

I would rather watch the classic, as well.

It seems you are already operating under a false presumption with your initial question. Who claims people like remakes more?

__________________

a new remake sure beats watching the same movie for a 10th time.
people crave new experiences.

There are times when a remake comes along that I like, don't hate and feel it has a place in cinematic history, where they've changed things enough so that you can enjoy the remake without feeling it's trying to overtake the original. Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong for example: he's a huge fan of the original but for some reason wanted to remake it---I guess he wanted to see CGI versions of Kong and all the dinosaurs and basically move the players around on his movie chessboard as he saw fit. I was intrigued enough to see it and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'll admit the main impetus to see it was because of his success with the Lord of the Rings films, so I thought he'd do at least a good job. And I wasn't disappointed. But the original 1933 Kong is still my favorite. I grew up with it and read all about it and saw pictures of it in monster magazines even before I actually viewed it. So, it's more personal to me.

And there have been remakes for ages in Hollywood. Take The Three Musketeers for example. How many times has that been remade? Because it's based on a classic book, I'll give certain remakes a chance. The Phantom of the Opera has been remade several times and I've seem at least two of the remakes, but I'll always go for Lon Chaney's original silent.

I guess what I'm trying to say to the OP is that there can be many reasons why people go to see remakes. I've given just a few reasons that are personal but in no way speak for the majority of moviegoers.

In fact, for the most part, I cringe when I hear something is being remade, because these days, not enough time has gone, IMO, for someone to remake a movie. They don't even wait a decade anymore for the movie to maybe pass out of a generation's memory. And it's kind of impossible, what with home video, cable, satellite, etc.

I think I'm spinning off my axis here, trying to cover everything, but different people have different reasons...I think the reason gbgoodies mentioned above about people not having seen the original and thinking what they're seeing is brand new is as good a main reason as any.

__________________
"Miss Jean Louise, Mr. Arthur Radley."

I think that a lot of people aren't very adventurous with watching movies. Rather than take a chance to watch a smaller film that might or might not be great, they'd prefer to stick to familiarity and watch a movie from a universe that they already know. I think for people that do this, it's less effort than finding a movie that they don't know about. To a point, they know what to expect.

Also, I feel like most people SAY they don't like remakes, reboots etc., but the box office numbers definitely beg to differ. Almost anyone I ever talk to in my personal life says they prefer original ideas over remakes or sequels. But these people's movie tastes and watching habits clearly prove otherwise.
I also think a lot of people always whine about remakes, but pay admission to see every single one that comes out. So many of my friends do this and don't see why it grinds my gears

Well, Hitchcock and Ozu remade their own films. That's the kind of remake I can get behind.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

Oh yes. It's easy to forget that there's a big handful of great remakes out there.

First of all, those aren't remakes! those are adaptations of books. Whenever someone makes a movie based on the novel Moby Dick is not "remaking" John Huston's film, They're making a new film based on the same literary source material. That's what any version based on the book The Three Musketeers is, not a remake of any of the earlier films but rather a new adaptation of the original source material.

To me, the definition of a remake is when it's based on a motion picture produced earlier and it's original screenplay (one that is not based on any existing source material like comics, novellas and books) like say The Blob, King Kong, A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Hills Have Eyes etc. TRUE remakes in every sense.

It would be like saying every Dracula film is a "remake" of the 1931 film or the silent classic Nosferatu, NO they are all separate and different adaptation of the same source material. Another example is the films Last Man on Earth, Omega Man and I Am Legend which are all separate and completely different adaptations of the original source material which have nothing to do with each other. Same goes for Nolan's Batman Trilogy which aren't remakes of the earlier Batman films while The Dark Knight is a sequel while not a remake of 89's Batman because of Joker and stuff as it's a completely different story with a different Joker as i consider Nolan's trilogy to be a separate adaptation of the comics and graphic novels. Calling a new film based on an old comic previously film or a new film based on a novel filmed before a remake cheapens it a bit, when like i said they are separate adaptations.

There is a difference between a remake and an adaptation.


Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Thing, Stephen King's The Shining, Lord of the Rings, Dredd, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Omega Man/I Am Legend, The Dark Knight Trilogy,Romeo and Juliet, A Christmas Carol, Amazing Spider-Man, Let Me In, the upcoming IT 2 part movies, War of the Worlds,Casino Royale, the upcoming Crow film etc. are adaptations of source material being books, novellas and comics. Including being separate adaptations.

Night of the Living Dead, The Fog, Halloween, Maniac, Hills Have eyes, A nightmare on Elm Street, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, House on Haunted Hill, Ocean's 11, King Kong, Father of the Bride, The Nutty Professor, Ocean's 11, Thomas Crown Affair, Manchaurian Candidate, Angels in the Outfield, The Fog etc. those are remakes in every sense of the word.

Now for reboot.
DEFINITION*:
verb – to restart (a computer) by loading the operating system; boot again.
noun – an act or instance of restarting a computer.
This word, as the definition indicates, is a computer term and had no meaning prior to the advent of PCs in the home and at work. The term was hijacked by the motion picture industry in 2005 with Batman Begins. With four prior movies produced by Warner Bros., the last of which was an unmitigated disaster, the studio wanted everyone to know that this film was something new and unrelated to the previous series. It’s no secret that a movie series will sometimes ignore a movie that bombed and just move on with the series as if that embarrassing entry never happened, so WB could have done that with Christopher Nolan’s film. That wouldn’t exactly work, though, because Nolan wanted to tell the origins of Batman, something that had not been done successfully with any of the previous movies; his take would then be a prequel except for the fact that he wanted to include the Joker in his own sequel, thereby nullifying Tim Burton’s Batman. This discontinuity would confuse the audience–how could there be two Jokers, especially with completely different origins and behaviors? Simple, this was a new series that had nothing to do with the previous films. But it wasn’t a remake because, while based on the same source material, it told a completely different story. They needed a new way of explaining what they were doing–hence the cribbing from the computer world. Nolan's films are a separate adaptation as well besides franchise reboot.

Audiences bought it. They understood that the series was being “rebooted,” meaning that the old was being erased and a new “operating system” was being written in its place. The old series still existed, but this was a different take on the Batman mythology. The problem was that since the word “reboot” worked in this case, people began adopting it to refer to every instance of a new version of a known product.

Now, every remake , adaptation and sequel is called a reboot. Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is made by other people because the first one was deemed a bad movie, let’s call it a reboot to distance itself from the original! New versions of old horror movies are made and are dubbed “reboots,” even though they tell the same story as the original movies, though perhaps elaborating the story. Even though Halloween, Friday the 13th, and Nightmare on Elm Street all spawned multiple sequels, their “reboots” retold their origins. Guess what? Those are remakes. You can argue that the recent versions started the series over again, but unlike Batman Begins, they don’t do a completely different take on the material. Hell even Escape from New York and Poltergeist new movies are called "reboots" they are remakes and some call the upcoming 2 part IT a "reboot", nope it's another adaptation.

True reboots are:
Casino Royale since it truly started the series from scratch, adapting the first James Bond book Ian Flemming wrote (the only time the book was accurately adapted for the big screen), and ignored everything that came before (though Judi Dench reprising her role as M was confusing in this context). It's also a separate adaptation of the book and a direct one, not a remake of the 1967 film. The Amazing Spider-man did the Batman Begins route and ignoring an established series and telling another origin story as if it’s in an alternate universe.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes due to the fact that it tells the origins of how the apes took over out world but in a completely different manner than the movie it closely emulates, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.
Star Trek is another example as it reboots the series back to basics in an alternate universe.
“Reboot” is a term that is not only incorrectly attributed to the wrong type of movies, but it is overused. It’s now jumped ship to other types of entertainment. Rather than use it as a catch-all for any adaptation, we need to return to using the correct terminologies