What do you think constitutes a remake that is worthwhile and one that is uneccesary?
I believe that if you have something new and fresh to add that wasn't in the original version then a remake is worthwhile. Two that come to mind are John Carpenter's The Thing and David Cronenberg's The Fly - one was looking to the original story (John Carpenter's The Thing was based on Who Goes There instead of the original The Thing movie) and the other changed the way the concept of a man becoming a fly was shown.
A remake that is just copying the original scene by scene and not really adding anything new to the source material is a waste of time. The remake of A Nightmare on Elm St comes to mind. Granted, the original was made in 1984 and that was a different era but was there really a need to remake it?
As with any film it is all up to the individual viewer as to whether a remake is necessary or not. But still, its interesting to see what other people's opinions are.
I believe that if you have something new and fresh to add that wasn't in the original version then a remake is worthwhile. Two that come to mind are John Carpenter's The Thing and David Cronenberg's The Fly - one was looking to the original story (John Carpenter's The Thing was based on Who Goes There instead of the original The Thing movie) and the other changed the way the concept of a man becoming a fly was shown.
A remake that is just copying the original scene by scene and not really adding anything new to the source material is a waste of time. The remake of A Nightmare on Elm St comes to mind. Granted, the original was made in 1984 and that was a different era but was there really a need to remake it?
As with any film it is all up to the individual viewer as to whether a remake is necessary or not. But still, its interesting to see what other people's opinions are.