In today’s content-glutted landscape, Hollywood appears trapped in a creative rut—endlessly recycling familiar concepts rather than blazing new trails. This trend is underscored by Disney’s underwhelming live-action adaptation of Snow White, along with the upcoming reboots of Lilo & Stitch and How to Train Your Dragon. This reliance on remakes, crafted to resonate with both longtime fans and new viewers alike, has evolved into a formulaic yet divisive strategy for major film studios.
But the big question looms: how many of these remakes actually measure up to the originals, and what truly distinguishes a good remake from a bad one? NPR movie critic Bob Mondello, surprisingly, isn’t entirely against the idea, arguing that film, like other art forms, can benefit from revisiting stories. He points to successful English-language remakes of foreign films like “Some Like It Hot,” “Girl With The Dragon Tattoo,” “True Lies,” “Scent Of A Woman,” and “The Departed,” emphasizing that these aren’t about nostalgia but studios appropriating stories the American public might not know about. Ryan Benk, an NPR producer, offers a more cautious perspective, noting that for every “Departed” or “True Lies,” there’s a “rash of early 2000s remakes of Japanese ghost flicks” that felt like “photocopies of photocopies.”
This ongoing debate is at the heart of our discussion. While financial incentives are clear—the live-action “Beauty and the Beast” grossed $170 million on its opening weekend compared to the original’s $9.6 million—the public often prefers the original, with Black List reporting that 91% of the public do so. Original movies also boast 79% more profitability than their remakes. It’s a frustrating paradox: studios keep churning them out, but audiences and critics often find them redundant or, worse, detrimental to beloved franchises. So, as entertainment enthusiasts with a keen eye for what works and what doesn’t, we’re diving deep into the remake ideas that film critics are desperately wishing studios would put to rest. Let’s unravel the creative missteps and tired formulas that have left a sour taste in the cinematic landscape.
1. **The Formulaic Disney Live-Action Remake of Animated Classics**The most pervasive and arguably the most exhausting trend in modern remakes is Disney’s relentless pursuit of live-action adaptations of their animated classics. We’ve seen a steady stream of these, from “The Lion King” and “Aladdin” to “Beauty and the Beast,” and the more recent “Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs” and the upcoming “Lilo & Stitch.” While these films often boast impressive visual effects and star-studded casts, they frequently fall short of capturing the magic and heart of their predecessors, leaving critics and long-time fans feeling underwhelmed.
The core issue, as pointed out by Scott Detrow, is the redundancy. He questions the necessity of a live-action “Lion King,” remarking, “Like, well, no, you’re just going to animate it in a different way unless you have a camera on a lion who’s suddenly talking.” This highlights the perception that many of these remakes are merely visual updates rather than genuine reinterpretations. They often follow the original plotlines almost beat-for-beat, offering little in the way of fresh perspective or innovative storytelling.
While some might argue that these remakes are an attempt to modernize stories that, as Bob Mondello noted about “Snow White,” may be “insensitive on issues of gender, social mobility, of – it’s all white. It’s utterly crazy on dwarfs,” the execution often fails to justify the exercise. Even when studios try to bring “new ideas to the table” – like a Latina Snow White or a pauper prince – the resulting film often struggles to resonate beyond its superficial changes. The “boredom in seeing a story that you have already seen a million times that has only be slightly tweaked” becomes a significant barrier to engagement, regardless of good intentions or impressive CGI.
2. **Unnecessary Live-Action Remakes of Beloved Animated Trilogies/Films (Beyond Disney)**It’s not just Disney; the animated feature canon, in general, seems to be fair game for the live-action treatment, often to the dismay of critics. DreamWorks’ announcement of a live-action version of “How To Train Your Dragon” has ignited similar concerns. The original trilogy was lauded as a fantastic cinematic achievement, and many feel it should have been left untouched, a perfect narrative arc that didn’t need a live-action do-over.
The sentiment here is clear: some animated stories are inherently suited to their medium and lose something essential when forced into live-action. “How to Train Your Dragon” was, not too long ago, a “great trilogy of animated films that should’ve been left alone.” The fear isn’t just about a single film, but the wider implications. This trend sparks questions about what’s next: “Are ‘Shrek’ and ‘Madagascar’ getting live-action remakes, too?” This indicates a worry that studios are indiscriminately applying the live-action formula to any successful animated IP, regardless of whether a compelling artistic reason exists.
Ryan Benk succinctly captures the core frustration with this approach: “If all you’re offering me is – hey, remember this – that was cool, right? – I’m going to pass.” When a remake doesn’t offer thoughtful reinterpretation or fill in narrative gaps, but merely re-presents an already beloved story in a different visual format, it often feels like a creative void. These projects are less about artistic expression and more about leveraging existing brand recognition, ultimately draining rather than enriching the original franchise.
3. **Uninspired Remakes of Foreign Horror Films (The ‘Photocopies of Photocopies’ Era)**While Bob Mondello champions the historical precedent of successful English-language remakes of foreign films, Ryan Benk highlights a specific subset that has become a source of critical fatigue: the “rash of early 2000s remakes of Japanese ghost flicks.” He specifically calls out “The Ring,” “The Grudge,” and “Dark Water” as examples. While “The Ring” and “The Grudge” found some success and arguably stood on their own to a degree, this wave of remakes often missed the mark entirely, becoming bland reproductions rather than inventive adaptations.
Benk’s description of these as “photocopies of photocopies” perfectly encapsulates the problem. These remakes frequently demonstrated a lack of genuine creative vision, instead opting for a faithful, often scene-for-scene, recreation of the original. This approach stifles any opportunity for a fresh take, cultural reinterpretation, or an expansion of themes that might justify the remake’s existence. The terror and novelty of the original foreign films were often diluted in translation, resulting in a product that felt hollow and unoriginal.
Unlike successful remakes like “The Departed,” which took the premise of a Hong Kong thriller and brilliantly recontextualized it within the Boston Irish Mob, these horror remakes often failed to truly adapt the source material to a new cultural context. They became transactional rather than transformative, trading genuine scares for familiar beats. This particular trend left a lasting impression on critics, demonstrating that simply redoing a foreign film in English isn’t enough; it requires a thoughtful artistic hand to truly succeed.
4. **’Woke’ Reboots/Prequels That Alienate Core Fanbase with Character and Lore Changes**One of the most contentious types of reboots in recent memory involves projects that drastically alter beloved characters or core lore, often leading to significant fan backlash. A prime, and often cited, example of this misstep is the new “Scooby Doo” show titled “Velma.” Released in January, it quickly earned a dismal “7% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 1.3/10 on Google reviews,” signaling a catastrophic failure in audience reception.
The show made significant changes to its iconic characters, “redesigning all the characters, changing the races of Velma, Shaggy and Daphne.” While character updates can sometimes be well-received, the context notes that “Shaggy is completely unrecognizable,” and the remake “ditches the character’s classic nickname, instead branding the character Norville.” These alterations, perceived as gratuitous and disrespectful to the source material, were a major point of contention for fans.
Fans unequivocally declared this to be “the worst thing to happen to the Scooby Doo franchise,” asserting that “the beloved show has finally been ruined after decades of successful reboots.” Compounding these character changes was the egregious decision to omit the titular character, Scooby, from a show named after the original series. This kind of wholesale re-imagining, which fundamentally disregards the established essence of the property and its characters, is a concept critics and fans alike wish studios would stop pitching. It demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of what made the original endearing, and how to effectively evolve it.
5. **The Problem of Plot-Repackaging ‘Soft Reboots’**Beyond outright remakes, Hollywood has found another clever, yet often creatively stagnant, trick: the “soft reboot.” This approach attempts to refresh a franchise by introducing new characters and storylines, while simultaneously bringing back legacy elements and, crucially, repackaging the core plot of an earlier, often original, installment. It’s a strategy designed to appeal to both new audiences and established fans, but it frequently results in a sense of déjà vu rather than genuine innovation.
A prime example of this trend, and one that left many critics scratching their heads, is 2016’s “Jurassic World.” While undeniably a box office behemoth, its narrative felt remarkably familiar. The film essentially recreated the original “Jurassic Park” plot: a dinosaur theme park goes awry, leading to chaos and a desperate struggle for survival. Despite the introduction of new protagonists and a bigger, badder dinosaur, the fundamental beats of the story were a direct echo of what we’d seen before.
Similarly, ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ revitalized the saga by bringing back beloved characters but leaned heavily on the narrative beats of the original ‘A New Hope,’ featuring a desert scavenger with a vital secret, a droid carrying crucial information, and new heroes fighting a tyrannical empire with a superweapon, which, while emotionally resonant, lacked plot originality.
These ‘soft reboots’ are often criticized for their fear of true innovation, operating under the mantra of ‘if it worked before, let’s just do it again with a new look.’ This approach leaves discerning viewers feeling let down, as the promise of a fresh start often devolves into a tired rehash, offering little in the way of new insights or meaningful progression for the franchise, a safe but creatively bankrupt choice for studios.
6. **The Peril of Pure Stunt Casting Over Substance**In the pursuit of box office success and media buzz, studios sometimes resort to a tactic known as “stunt casting.” This involves bringing in big-name actors, often for their celebrity status, rather than necessarily their perfect fit for a character or the overall strength of the script. While a star-studded cast can certainly draw attention, critics are increasingly wary when it feels like the big names are there to mask potential deficiencies in the film itself, rather than genuinely elevating the storytelling.
The recent “TMNT Mutant Mayhem” trailer, despite largely positive fan reception, sparked some concern regarding this very issue. The cast is “littered with name brand actors,” and while some choices, like Giancarlo Esposito as Baxter Stockman, were met with enthusiasm, “some think could be masking the poor of quality of the future film.” This highlights the critical perception that a recognizable voice or face is sometimes prioritized over the integrity of the character or the narrative.
The casting of Jackie Chan as Splinter in a recent film serves as a prime example of the risks associated with stunt casting, raising questions about an actor’s fit beyond their star power, even acknowledging that cross-cultural casting isn’t new. This controversy highlights how such decisions can unfortunately overshadow the film itself, sparking discussions far removed from its artistic merit.
Ultimately, when casting choices prioritize sheer star recognition over genuine artistic vision, it risks alienating both audiences and critics, whereas the most successful remakes and reboots feature actors who deeply embody their characters, enhancing the narrative rather than just lending their fame. A compelling script and innovative direction should be the bedrock of any project, not an afterthought to a roster of familiar faces.
7. **Cash-Grab Remakes: More Than Just Foreign Horror**While we previously touched upon the “rash of early 2000s remakes of Japanese ghost flicks” as a type of cash-grab, the sentiment extends far beyond that specific subgenre. Film critics are deeply frustrated by the broader trend of studios consistently opting for the “safer route by rehashing old intellectual properties” purely for financial gain, with little to no artistic merit. This pervasive mentality views remakes not as opportunities for thoughtful reinterpretation, but as mere commodities to be repackaged and sold.
Ryan Benk perfectly encapsulates this frustration with his succinct observation: “If all you’re offering me is – hey, remember this – that was cool, right? – I’m going to pass.” This statement cuts to the core of the issue. When a remake offers nothing new, no deeper exploration, no innovative twist, but simply banks on a faded memory of the original, it feels hollow and uninspired. It’s a transactional exchange, designed to leverage existing brand recognition without truly enriching the cinematic landscape.
These cash-grab projects, regardless of genre, often suffer from a severe lack of “heart and soul and care” in their production. They become cinematic “photocopies of photocopies,” diluting the impact and originality of the source material. The financial allure is clear; as Angela Smithhisler, a Film Studies teacher, points out, studios “know that it [reboots] will generate discussion, but also ticket sales,” especially “if the film has a reputation of being classic.” The promise of reliable opening weekend figures, like “Beauty and the Beast” grossing $170 million on its opening weekend versus the original’s $9.6 million, often overshadows critical reception or long-term profitability.
It’s a frustrating paradox: despite research showing that ‘original movies also boast 79% more profitability than their remakes,’ studios persist in producing these familiar retreads, prioritizing perceived low-risk, high-reward ventures that often result in a flood of repetitive content, leaving critics and audiences feeling the ‘boredom in seeing a story that you have already seen a million times that has only be slightly tweaked.’ This continuous cycle of cash-grabs not only delivers subpar movies but also erodes the trust and enthusiasm of the very fans studios aim to attract.
At its core, the ongoing discourse surrounding movie remakes revolves around striking the right balance: while nostalgia is a major driver of their appeal, its reckless overuse leads to creative exhaustion. Critics aren’t against remakes per se—they take issue with lazy, uninspired iterations. Instead, they champion projects that resonate with both longtime fans yearning for familiarity and new audiences in search of fresh experiences, all by delivering unique perspectives that honor the source material while introducing innovative elements. It’s evident that Hollywood is struggling with a dearth of original ideas, but the true solution isn’t to milk already tapped-out franchises. Rather, it’s to either craft inventive, emotionally resonant remakes or—preferably—to invest in new original films that viewers can embrace, a future that both critics and audiences are eagerly awaiting.
