Is the remake really necessary?

The original Ghostbusters films are so great. I love watching them over and over. Why does anyone think it is necessary to produce a remake? I don’t mean just Ghostbusters, but many other films. All that remake industry, it’s like a fever. The few remake films I ever watched are so pale comparing to the original.

8 Responses

  1. Natalia-Alianovna-Romanoff says:

    Is the remake really necessary?

    As necessary as an urethra here -points to my elbow-

  2. ronnieronb says:

    I’m not crazy about them. Few are good. Most are bad… Including GB16.

    SJWs can
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0182769/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

  3. ruiner420 says:

    No movie is ever necessary

    Don’t give up the fight for truly independent cinema!

  4. sul-uddin96 says:

    No remakes are necessary, but they make the studios’ money…so they’re going to do more whether we like it or not.

  5. Ithilfaen says:

    Remakes are only necessary for studios who are hoping to make a bundle off poorly conceived movies.

    And you know what? They do.

    And you know what else? Box-office numbers don’t matter anymore. They make their money months before the movie is even released

    And you know why? Because people are dumb and any time one of these `remake`, `reboot`, `retool` is announced, it takes the social media by storm and becomes the most talked-about movie ever.

    And that’s what studios want. Their shares go up. They make money in the stock market. They don’t give a *beep* about movies anymore. Movies are only commercial for the studios.

    Bottom line: if people would just stop being so easy to con into hysteria, they would stop making those ridiculous unnecessary remakes.

    For every lie I unlearn I learn something new – Ani Difranco

  6. sens_death says:

    Of course, because Sony needs money. Except this time they got pwned by karma and they’re losing money with this movie.

  7. shadowangel-599-184270 says:

    Remakes are only necessary for works that could be improved. Like you have a low budget movie with a lot of potential in the script. Remake it, improve it (good examples are Cape Fear where DeNiro alone improves it by a mile or The Thing)

    But that only happens very rarely since it’s too much of a risk. Instead we get remakes of classics that don’t need remakes.

  8. This story in itself would make a better movie than Ghostbusters 2016 . Does it mean protecting the film’s legacy somehow? It’s a decades-old film; can we really help its legacy by shitting on the remake ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *