Re-Fakes!

Re-makes are a controversial subject; just like sequels. Do re-makes offer an audience a chance for a modern day take on what used to be OR are they a quick buck, for lack of imagination? Take 'Fame' brilliant that first time round, now its re-make quite simply flopped. I do not like the fact that after 20 years, production companies feel the need to re-make a classic into a sham! Why? We all know and love the classics, so why try and ruin the franchise by creating a disaster, we all know it was never going to be as good as the original so why bother? Recently there is speculation that 'Top Gunn' will be re-made... WHY? Nobody will be better suited to the role of Maverick than Tom Cruise so why try and ruin an icon? Money perhaps? However there are some re-makes which have worked wonderfully well and have become box off sensations - Batman by Christopher Nolan is fantastic, because it provides a darker side to Bruce Wayne. It does not sing from the same hymn sheet as the originals. There is more depth to the characters and the story lines differ. Now with the third one under way with the name 'The Dark Knight Rises' (don't get me started on the title - what a mess) and no Riddler - so I feel this works as a re-make of a classic franchise!

I believe that it is the same principle with sequels, they are never as good as the first (or very rarely) yet people still love to make them and believe there is a market for them. We do know and love the characters and want to see them again but sometimes are we running out of road but still running? Take 'Toy Story' such a brilliant masterpiece, and then its gone and ruined by 'Toy Story 2' however it did re-deem itself with 'Toy Story 3' however after so many years why did we need a 'Toy Story 3?' The Sex and the City franchise was ruined by the second film and now we have 'Wall Street 2' in our cinemas. Why after thirty years of hearing nothing from Gordon Gekko would we know want to know about his life? I'm afraid it boils down to money, but will we get to a stage where companies are just making an endless list of re-makes and sequels, where nothing new will be broadcast. James Cameron has already agreed to make 2 more 'Avatar' films due for release in 2014 and 2015... Will they be as mind-blowing as the first? I highly doubt it - why? Because the first was so fresh and so unique that, that is what gave it the edge. But now every film is in 3D- so haven't we had enough of it? Christopher Nolan was against filming the third Batman in 3D - I think it would have just ruined it. Back in 2000 when Gladiator was released, Ridley Scott refused to make a pre-quel or even a sequel he felt the story ended there. Where are more people like this? Why do we keep going round in circles with the same characters? Now we are hearing that the Bourne franchise is back! But wait for it, Jason Bourne actually is not in it! Its a new character but under the same title - so why do we need to create a new assassin but keep the title? Is society so narrow minded that for us to want to see a film we need to associate the title with something we recognise? It is getting ridiculous and even though Cameron, I thought had revolutionised cinema, it seems from the release of 3D it has only got worse!