Movies That Should Never Be Remade Vol. 1

Remakes get a bad rap, for good reason. The modern remake is all about name recognition, not revisiting an idea or plot point or concept that was forgotten about in the past to try and tell a new story, instead it’s all about finding the right name that will get the right amount of money. That’s a pretty cynical way of looking at things, but can you blame me? So while we know nothing is sacred in Hollywood, why don’t we talk about all the movies that should never have remakes. Ever. 

Back To The Future

It’s a pretty fair rule of thumb to say, “if a movie is considered a classic today and is still watched and rewatched and praised and generally considered a masterpiece: don’t remake it”. I mean, if something is considered perfect, why bother even trying to remake it? I know, forget name recognition for a second, but what other reason would you possibly have to remake it? If you can’t think of one, I have an idea: don’t fucking remake it. So that brings us to Back To The Future, one of the main reasons I started writing this article in the first place. The trilogy on the whole is pretty damn near perfect (despite Part III feeling rushed and a bit of a hack job), and the acting talent of exaggerated scientist Christopher Lloyd, slacker Michael J. Fox and permanent high school bully Thomas F. Wilson just can’t be replaced, at least, not without it looking like they were just copying the original talent. Not to mention that the very nature of Back To The Future’s script feels like it can’t be done anymore, considering Hollywood really doesn’t understand subtlety anymore. Back To The Future’s script is filled with tiny jokes, hidden references, consistency in its continuity and attention to detail in its set and costume design. Modern Hollywood created The Minions. You know what a Back To The Future remake would be? A millennial going back to the 90s where they would make jokes about AOL.

Forest Gump

Again, “If a movie is considered a masterpiece, don’t remake it” Forest Gump is, at its core, a drama. Or rather, a slice of life story about a slow-witted boy and his childhood friend. Again, in terms of viable material, there isn’t much here you could do-over again. What, are you going to have Forest grow up in an alt-history where the Nazis won WWII or have Forest become the Jenny character and slip into drug use? The problem with remaking a movie whose main gimmick is recreating history is that there is pretty much only one way history can be told. Then there’s the uncomfortable task of casting Forest. Say you choose to not make him “slow-witted”, then you’re pretty much erasing one of Hollywood’s only beloved disabled characters in existence. Now say you do make him “slow-witted” how do you cast that? No one with whatever disorder Forest actually has would likely be able to perform consistently enough to not make the entire movie off-putting. So you choose to make him an actor who doesn’t have any sort of disorder, well now who are you going to get (besides Tom Hanks, in which case: fucking stop) who doesn’t make himself look like a complete ass pretending to be disabled. In the words of Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder: “you never go full retard”.

A Clockwork Orange

Do I have to repeat rule #1 every time? It should be pretty obvious that A Clockwork Orange should never be remade because it was perfect back in 1971 and is still perfect now. That much we know for a fact, but the real reason why A Clockwork Orange should never be remade is because a remake is about (or should be about) is updating a movie for a modern day, or exploring a new idea that wasn’t fully developed in the original. Could a Clockwork remake delve more into why Alex was a psychopath? Maybe, but that also wasn’t really the point of the movie. In addition, sometimes remakes don’t work because there was a certain aspect of it that just can’t be done twice, and in Clockwork’s case, that thing is just how fucking brutal it is. Seriously, have you ever actually sat down and watched Clockwork recently? There are several rape scenes within the first 20 minutes for seemingly no other reason than to show Alex and his friends aren’t just ruffians, they’re fucking demons. There is not a chance that any of that graphic nudity or wanton violence towards the homeless (cause Alex also beats up homeless people for some reason) would make it past the modern MPAA. You could argue that the rape and beating scenes didn’t need to be there in the first place, but I think Clockwork deserves to be preserved as a testament to how brutal and uncompromising R rated films used to be. In addition, I have this crazy (downright wacky) idea that movies are art and should be allowed to explore any subject matter they wish, without the artist being restricted in what material they can show or tell. So if Stanley Kubrick wanted a dozen rape scenes in A Clockwork Orange, he should have been allowed to do it… just don’t expect anyone to really enjoy a movie with 12 rape scenes.

Fight Club

Is it on here for being one of my favorite movies of all time? Yes. But do I recognize its flaws and understand it is mostly a product of its’ time? Also yes. So if it really doesn’t fit rule #1, why is it here? Well, the thing about Fight Club is that rewatching it again has proven that it really is a product of its time. The heavy-anarchist tone that has all the grace of a high schooler trying out slam poetry for the first time, the grimey gritty feeling of something being recorded on real film, and smart writing and scene creation that builds on its climactic twist upon every re-watch are all things that Hollywood just doesn’t do anymore. 

First, Hollywood doesn’t understand why the final twist (do I need a spoiler warning here?) of Edward Norton and Brad Pitt being the same character works not just because we would believe anything as the stakes are being raised, but because the set up for this twist is in every single line of dialogue, every scene transition, every motion by the actors, every minute detail placed just so perfectly to make sure that even if your reaction to the twist is “oh that’s just bullshit” you can watch it again and prove yourself wrong. 

Secondly, all the rough-around-the-edges cinematography is lost in modern day film making what with every film having to be shot on digital cameras with high end equipment. I know I’m that kind of guy that prefers MP3s over vinyl, and while I will admit that I prefer films to look cleaner rather than a shaky cam disaster, Fight Club uses that roughness to push it’s aesthetic, rather than a crutch to create its aesthetic. I can see it now. A modern film company is tasked to remake Fight Club, and instead of using real cameras and film, they just edit in “cigarette burns” later for a cheap effect. 

Then there’s all the themes of anarchy I mentioned earlier. I think anarchist themes can work in movies, but every time they come up they tend to end up like a dramatic reading from a lost My Chemical Romance track. They have all this talk of anarchy, and how “we are god’s unwanted children”, and all that edgy bullshit that sounds like it belongs in r/Im14andThisIsDeep. Fight Club is a time capsule for this kind of shit, and it at least works in this context because the 90s were full of angsty teenagers and young adults who were finding it harder and harder to know where they belong in the world, as the individual and the teenage culture as whole tried to find some meaning in a world that felt meaningless. Modern day filmmakers don’t understand any of that subtlety and just think, “oh let's just copy Hunger Games and V for Vendetta to get the angry-teen audience and call it a day”.