Remakes have been complained about for decades, particularly in Hollywood. “They’re unoriginal, boring, and NEVER as good as the original”, says everyone ever. Be it a movie remake, media crossover (like a book to movie), cover song, or homage design, you only ever hear complaints.
(and now, a demonstrative Google image)
Look, we can all agree that George Lucas butchered his masterpiece when he added all the early-generation CG to movies created, and shot into the halls of legend, using muppets and camera tricks. But I am a strong proponent of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, even if I didn’t love it as much as the original. I also like cover songs performed by bands that don’t suck. No, we all know that bracelet wasn’t found in a pharaoh tomb, but the nod to Egyptian proportion, pattern, and material create a whimsy that wouldn’t have existed in a mod gold bangle.
The fact that something was done before doesn’t take away its value. In fact, reimagining an existing classic is a little terrifying. In many ways, the stakes are so much higher than in an original work. The new artist has the automatic audience of the original, most of whom want him or her to fail. His or her intentions are secondary to the original artist’s, even if they are the same person (lookin’ at you, George Lucas). Finally, even when the new artist succeeds, she or he cedes most of the credit to the original artist.
A well-done revamping is an art form all its own, bringing to its audience something both novel and familiar, fresh and perennial. Witnessing old beauty in a new way, or bringing to the surface beauty completed glossed over in its original form, is worth checking out. It’s not all good, but when it is, it’s incredible.
And THAT, everyone, is why I listened to lullabye versions of modern rock songs like, all week.
--Becky
