Remaking A Genre: How Remakes can Help or Harm a Genre

 

Remakes are a sensitive area for many horror fans. Each one often leaves the viewer feeling somewhat betrayed because the story is different or the characters have changed.

 

Do reproductions help or hurt the horror genre? You have one side that will say they are beneficial. That they introduce new audiences to beloved story lines or characters while maintaining an air of the original.

 

There are also the "Remake Traditionalists," who believe all remakes are horrible, regardless. They will frequently state remakes are simply the lazy efforts of Hollywood writers looking to make a buck without exerting too much work. Where should we stand? That's entirely up to the viewer.

 

There are several factors that should be taken into consideration when viewing a remake. Movies can be much like music in this aspect. Sometimes, another producer or recording artist can actually improve on the song, or they can ruin the composition and obliterate any enjoyment.

 

1) How old is the movie? Sadly, things have changed greatly since the 1950s and 1960s. Lifestyles are different, goals are different, and people are different. Double exposures and ghostly mists aren't as intimidating as they used to be for the general audience.

 

For example, movies as William Castle's "House on Haunted Hill," (1959) would be laughed at today. They were cutting edge and frightening for the general audience at the time of their release, but audiences have changed.

 

Mr. Castle was a visionary in horror. The company over the remake, Dark Castle, didn't attempt to force a contemporary story into an original mold just because it was a remake. They wanted to introduce new audiences to an era in the genre that is mostly forgotten by the mainstream world. They used effects and storylines that were cutting edge for the time, just as Mr. Castle would have.

2) Stereotyped or Antiquated Story Lines. Many movies that gained a wide audience "back then," simply aren't frightening at all today. Even contemporary effects can't save them from appearing dated.

 

Movies about mutant people and animals were once thrilling to audiences. Today, they're frequently mundane. The horrors that were once readily available with radiation or nuclear mutations aren't there.

 

The new "The Hills Have Eyes," fell into this niche. Audiences aren't as ignorant of radiation or radioactivity today as they once were. Any realism is often lost.

Remakes aren't something writers and producers should take lightly. They can introduce a new audience to an old movie in a memorable way or introduce them to a rehash of forced events that don't make sense or aren't produced with quality in mind.

 

Remakes should be original, inventive, and as well crafted as their predecessors. There shouldn't be any dependence on former successes to "pull" a film from the depths of poor production.