5 Pitfalls of a Remake

Have you ever thought much about movie remakes? How many of them have you actually really enjoyed?

Often when people talk about a remake of a particularly beloved film, they usually say something like "Why did they have to spoil a great movie?"

Remakes don't usually have a good reputation. So, why do they exist?

Oftentimes, it seems that a remake exists to update the story. For example, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974) is a heist movie that takes place in -- can you believe this? -- the 1970s. So, it's a bit dated. Not in a bad way. But certainly in a 1970s way. The updated version of the movie came out in 2009.

Pitfall #1 - The Need to Update the Technology
This one assumes that modern audiences just won't be able to understand what life was like back in the 1970s.

Since thirty years years after the original, the folks in Hollywood decide the story needs to be updated. In the original movie, the transit police (i.e. the good guys) have no clue what was happening in the hijacked subway train. The hijackers were equally blind to what was going on above ground. This actually works to the hero's benefit. Police Officer Garber is able to stall for time. It also keeps him ignorant to the hijacker's identities, which is key to the final scene when he's searching door-to-door.

In the remake, they make a point to give Ryder (i.e. the bad guy) internet access. This also applies to a laptop that just happens to have its webcam eye on the subway car. A particular plot point that, when it comes down to it, doesn't really have a point.

Pitfall #2 - Retooling Character Traits
Now, let's compare the performances of the leads. You got some great actors in the original. How do you top it? Well, you get equally good (or at least well-known) actors for the remake. You might even do a little retooling with the character traits.

Cool and calculating Robert Shaw (as Mr. Blue, the leader of the hijackers) vs. the loose-cannon, John Travolta (same character, but called Ryder in the remake). Denzel Washington's character (2009's Garber) gets some shades of gray with a backstory involving a bribery. Walter Matthau (1974's Garber) has his foibles, but is clearly the hero.

How do Washington and Travolta compare with Matthau and Shaw? Well, sometimes it's a matter of personal preference.

Pitfall #3 - Getting Rid of Supporting Actors
In addition to the lead actors, sometimes a remake will lessen the importance of a supporting role. In this case, the motorman-turned-hijacker. In the remake, he's killed off halfway through the movie. In the original, he gets a lot more screentime. In fact, it's his story that closes the movie.

Pitfall #4 - Trying to Find Deep Meaning
This is a heist movie, plain and simple. And the 1974 version treated it as such with a dash of comedy.

The remake sought to find deeper meaning in the story by trying to psychoanalyse the characters. The whole bribery subplot illustrates this. Did the hero (Garber, played by Denzel Washington), or did he not, take the bribe?? The movie doesn't really answer that question. This ambiguity actually puts Garber more or less on the same level as the bad guy, Ryder. Because it isn't clear on what really happened, the audience can make the assumption that it isn't that important to the story. (Take it out, and you wouldn't miss it.)

In the original, the bad guy (Robert Shaw) and his methodical calculations aren't given backstory. And, it works. The main thrust of this movie is, will Garber (Walter Matthau) foil the hijackers? Or will the hijackers succeed? Simple enough. It works.

Pitfall #5 - Relying on a Cookie Cutter Ending
The remake often will fall into the we-need-more-explosions pitfall. While the movie tries hard to bring meaning to the actions of Ryder/Garber, it also decides to use the cookie-cutter ending of most action movies. Add a car chase. Get actors running after each other on a bridge. These are all rather predictable and rather over-used in the industry.

In the original, there's the element of chase, but it's more low-key. What's interesting is that Robert Shaw's story does not close the movie. All the hijackers are dead, except one. And he's the motorman. We know his identity, but Matthau's Garber does not. So, the tension's pretty high when they come face to face... But we won't spoil the ending (in case you haven't seen it).

These are just some of the pitfalls that many remakes face. Do you agree? Have you come across a remake that defies these pitfalls?