I Hate Movie Re-Makes

Creativity isn't like land, crude oil, or other finite resources.  Theoretically, it's something that we should never run out of, yet for way too many years now it has seemed as though that's exactly what's happened in Hollywood.  Sure, there are still new concepts being put into production on a regular basis that warrant getting whipped up into a tizzy over but the trend of bringing back what have been, generally speaking, already successful franchises with modern re-makes that don't hold a candle to their source material has gotten to a level of absurdity generally reserved for Saturday night SyFy (pronounced "siff-ee") Channel original movies (I'm pretty sure they only use the "originals" production tag line to let people know it was them who was responsible for the schlock-fest they're about to sit through and not a superior company).  Case in point, the trailer below released today for a re-do of 1982's "Conan the Barbarian", which originally starred Arnold Schwarzenegger as the loincloth-wearing Cimmerian slave turned swordsman, Conan.

There's not much to criticize here in terms of the content of the movie itself seeing as how this is a teaser trailer which is intended to say to an audience, "Hey, look at me - I'm a movie you might like to watch in theaters...Or ignore in theaters and rent from Netflix a few months from now...Or ignore altogether...Whichever works for you!"  It could turn out to be a decent flick or it could be a theatrical turd - who's to say at this point?  My argument is the fact that it didn't need to be made in the first place.  I'm under the impression that a lot (read, most) of these re-vamps are done thanks to the argument being made that the original films look dated.  No kidding, a movie made in 1982 (in this case) with costumes, props, and effects cobbled together on a budget that wouldn't even handle the cost of Kraft services on a movie set these days looks dated?!

Isn't this art we're talking about after all?  The preservation of the original piece in question isn't only about maintaining its novel content but also because it reaches back into a bygone era and shows us a glimpse of where we were culturally and historically at that specific moment.  By the logic of certain Hollywood executives we should've torn down the Sistine Chapel and put up a newer, more hip version in its place years ago (you know, one with product placement - instead of God reaching out to touch His creation, Adam, we can have Him passing his new best bro a Bud Light and a bag of Doritos).  I guess since the Mona Lisa was painted in the 16th century someone should re-do that, too - that chick has got to have some lines in her face by now...

Another argument in favor of re-imagining (that's the cushiest term I've ever seen used to describe what amounts, in some instances, to the wholesale pillaging of some of my favorite childhood stories) these movies is that they have a fairly big upside advantage in terms of their being more likely to turn a profit.  They're easier to develop since there's plenty of existing material to draw inspiration from and they're also easier to market seeing as how people will recognize the title from its previous release. Lets face facts, here - making movies is as much a business as selling cars is.  Studios make movies to turn a profit, hence the reasoning behind why executives are more likely to green-light a re-make before they would n original piece written by an unheard of author and pitched by a director whose only prior experience is tuna commercials.  It's unfortunate that creativity gets squelched in favor of regurgitation, but that's the way bile flows sometimes.

As far as I'm concerned, unless the original film was decent-to-good but could've been great with a little extra effort, budget, technology, etc. that modern film-making can provide, re-treading a movie is a horrible idea.    Just because the original doesn't have a whole bunch of computer generated imagery or wasn't shot entirely with actors standing in front of green screens doesn't warrant a do-over.  A prime example of this is 2010's re-make of "The Karate Kid".  I'm likely to draw some heat for this but I didn't particularly care for it - and why should I?  I grew up with the original; Ralph Macchio and Pat Morita in a classic coming-of-age tale set around teen drama and karate tournaments.  The new version was horribly bloated, significantly more unrealistic than its predecessor, and plays like a tourism video intended to make communist China look like a great vacation destination.  Will Smith's a great guy for getting his son some work but I hate it came at the cost of soiling a set of movies I've always appreciated.

Lastly, my best reasoning for not re-making a movie as it applies to "Conan the Barbarian" specifically
 is the fact that if a new "Barbarian" is unleashed, the world might very well forget one of the greatest lines in the entire history of cinema.