I have noticed that defenders of remakes always tend to bring up two films:  ‘The Fly’ and ‘The Thing’.  Can we all agree that those films are in no way similar to the current remake trend?  When Cronenberg and Carpenter remade those flicks, the thought process was clearly not the same as the thought process that created remakes of ‘My Bloody Valentine’, ‘Prom Night’, and ‘Friday the 13th’. 

Both Cronenberg and Carpenter had a vision of a film they wanted to make that was an extension of the original idea.  They weren’t simply trying to capitalize on a title.  Few ran out to see ‘The Thing’ based on loving “The Thing From Another World”.  To lump such films in with flicks like the Friday the 13th sequel is like comparing the finest steak you have ever eaten to the last $1 double cheesburger you had from McDonalds.

In the case of ‘The Fly’ and ‘The Thing’ the writers and directors collaborated based on the original source stories to make their own adaptation.  In those films, aside from the title, people would be hard pressed to make a clear association from them to the movies they are remakes of.  ‘The Fly’ and ‘The Thing’ were both modern interpretations of long forgotten stories, made by real artists.

With the modern remake, the whole idea is to exploit the familiarity of the title and/or characters to help turn a profit.  There is a formula that the films are placed into (more on that in a future article), and they are churned out, one after another, like an assembly line.

People are certainly entitled to believe that remakes are a good thing, especially now that they represent a fair portion of all the horror we get. I just think using these two films, made well over 20 years ago, to justify the raping of all the modern classics is just wrong.  If that is your primary argument, I would suggest you really don’t have an argument at all.