Remake-o-rama

On the same weekend that we watched the original Ghostbusters, I also read a review for the remake of Ben Hur.

I had not been interested in going anyway, but the review would have cemented that pretty well. It sounds terrible, but also pointless. I spent some time thinking about that.

With so many sequels, reboots, and movies based on existing material from other sources, you could take that as a sign that Hollywood does not trust viewers to give a new and unfamiliar story a chance.

That may be true (and very frustrating for someone writing original screenplays), but it seems odd to me that today's audiences are more likely to choose a film because it has the same name and story of a film from 1959. Yes, it cleaned up at the Oscars, but on that basis I might be more likely to seek out the original than the remake.

There still has to be some way of choosing which thing to reboot. Could something in that process predict whether they will be able to make a good movie, a successful movie, or maybe one that is both?

I suspect in the case of Ben Hur, part of what cemented its spot in people's hearts the first time around was the thrill of the chariot race. It was visually new, and there was a real sense of danger reinforced by rumors (apparently false) that a stuntman had died.

That can't be replicated. There is so much action now, with CGI allowing sequences to get ever more improbable, that I'm not sure you can give the audience much new there. Some action films will go the ridiculous route with a more comic approach, but for a serious film with religious elements that's less likely to work well. Maybe it will be successful, but it feels like it's barking up the wrong tree.

I remember reading years earlier that instead of re-making good films that people had fond memories of, what they should really do is remake bad films and try and get them right. I have felt this strongly about Head Over Heels. Don't feel bad if you haven't heard of it. I only know about it because it was playing on television, and I kept catching odd parts of it as I was doing other things.

A lab worker (I think) who rooms with models falls for a guy she may have seen kill someone, and conflicting evidence keeps making him look wonderful and scary. Themes you have can include the insecurity that you could have from being surrounded by models, how insecurity affects new relationships, or concerns about trusting someone new. He is an agent, and helped a woman fake her death as part of a case, so work and personal life conflicts, and trust and honesty could come up on his side.

They went with poop jokes targeting the models. They got sprayed with sewage. They hid in the shower trying to silently hold their noises while Freddie Prinze Jr. conveyed pooping by the most vacant look I have ever seen on a human face. Of course it has no name appeal - nor should it - but it's hard to imagine anyone getting offended by a remake.

All right, fine, we want to stick with movies that were successful at least once. In that case, the gender switch Ghostbusters did makes sense. It changed the relationships and tone. It felt much more fresh than it could possibly have felt with another four men from Saturday Night Live.

That doesn't have to mean only changing films that were led by men to films now led by women. What would Terms of Endearment look like if it were a father and son whose already rough relationship was upended by cancer? There could be a good movie in that.

If you feel a remake is the answer, that can be okay, but what are you going to do differently with it? How are you going to make it yours? If the answer is just more extreme attitude and CGI, maybe think again.