Why Hollywood Needs to Stop With the Remakes

So, I just read something online that irritated me rather a lot. They’re remaking “Dirty Dancing.”

I’d say I don’t know why they’re remaking “Dirty Dancing” but, really, I do…it’s Hollywood and they appear to have thrown creativity out the window in favour of trying to make a quick profit.

It’s sad and rather ridiculous, honestly. I mean, ok…so “Dirty Dancing” wasn’t exactly “Casablanca” or “The Godfather” to begin with. It’s a slightly cheesy film with some rather silly dialogue (“I carried a watermelon,” and “Nobody puts Baby in a corner!” come to mind) but, over time, that dialogue has become classic, quotable and instantly recognizable. There are movies that are just good and then movies like “Dirty Dancing” which come out and everyone just…loves. Take my dad, for example. “Dirty Dancing” is one of his all-time favourite films. Granted, his taste isn’t very…great to begin with, I mean the man must have watched “Starship Troopers” more times than is humanly necessary. However, there’s something about “Dirty Dancing” that made it one of those little movies that could. It resonated with our generation.

When “Dirty Dancing” first came out on video, my friend Amy and I would have sleepovers. We’d creep downstairs after my parents had gone to bed and watch movies. My parents knew but they just couldn’t sit through the same movies over and over the way we could. Amy had a crush on Patrick Swayze so we ALWAYS had to watch “Dirty Dancing.” I (yes, I’m ashamed to admit it) had a huge thing for Tom Cruise and we had to watch “Top Gun” a lot. We were creatures of habit and we knew what we liked.

Even now, I can watch “Dirty Dancing” with a certain fondness. It’s a little dated but it’s still fun. It’s still got that ‘magic’ that made it a phenomenon.

And yet now Hollywood wants to remake it. The original choreographer from “Dirty Dancing” is going to direct.

It seems as though this is happening more and more. We didn’t need a new “Arthur,” but we got one and it was pretty awful. We didn’t need a new “Karate Kid” but we got one and while it featured Will Smith’s cute son, it lacked the fun cheesiness of the real Mr. Miyagi’s waxing on and waxing off. We’re getting a remake of “Footloose” whether we like it or not and I’m sure it’s going to be terrible. Ok, so rewatching the original shows it to be horrible dated. Kevin Bacon’s exclamation of “Jump Back!” when he finds out there’s not dancing allowed in town alone makes the film completely cheesy and silly. Yet it’s a fun cheesy and silly because when “Footloose” originally came out, you couldn’t resist taping your toe and wanting to leap up and dance along to the theme song. It was the 1980’s and it worked.

Maybe the remake of “Footloose” will be good. I’m not holding my breath. It’s too soon to be remaking films from the 1980’s. Give it another 20 years and maybe we’ll talk then. If I, someone in my mid 30’s can still remember renting the video as a new release, it’s too soon. Sorry, but it is.

I have no hopes for “Dirty Dancing’s” remake. Why bother in the first place? The chemistry between Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze made the film what it was. You can’t recreate that. The thrill of waiting for the climactic dancing that follows, “No one puts Baby in a corner!” won’t be the same. You can’t recreate a movie that wasn’t manufactured to be a huge hit….it just became one.

The sad this is, as I said earlier, I know why Hollywood is doing it. They want to make money and they don’t want to lose it. “Dirty Dancing” won’t cost a fortune to make because it doesn’t have any need for flashy effects or big-name actors. It may make some money because the tweenies and teens who think the old one is dated might go see it. More than likely, it’ll be aimed at Glee crowd just as so much crap is these days. Glee appears to be the television equivalent of “Twilight”. It was a huge hit and Hollywood is trying to figure out how to bottle that success and find it elsewhere. They do it by releasing shows and movies that will appeal to the same audience. This is how we got “Red Riding Hood” which is a perfectly awful movie that clearly was made from the same mould as “Twilight” and is just as ridiculous. It’s why we have “The Glee Project” on TV and several other shows about singing and dancing.

It’s just sad though. I probably have a skewed perspective because when I moved to L.A. ten years ago, it was to attempt to become a screenwriter. The trouble was is that without knowing anyone in the industry, there was nothing but closed doors and lack of interest. I think I had some good ideas and I think I could write well but there was no way in. I met other young screenwriters like me who also had the same problem- we couldn’t get read because we weren’t anyone important and there was no time for us.

I’m sure that even though I gave up screenwriting in favour of novel writing, there are still thousands of writers who move to L.A. each year for the same reason. They have great scripts and great ideas but they can’t get an agent to give them the time of day. If they’re lucky enough to pitch their ideas, they rarely go anywhere. It’s disheartening.

I’m sure that some of these unknown screenwriters have actual, real, great ideas. I’m sure some of them even have fantastic scripts. They can’t get the time of day because behind the studio’s creative doors, you’ve got some moron saying, “Hey, let’s remake “Dirty Dancing!”

You get my point. It’s easier for Hollywood to make a quick buck than take a risk and maybe win. Easy and cheap always wins over risky any day. It’s business, it’s not personal.

It’s just when they take something like “Dirty Dancing” that feels as personal as an old, beloved friend you’ve known for more than half your life, it feels rather personal.

Still, it’s going to happen anyway. I suppose we should be lucky that it’s a 20 year old movie. Since they’re already rebooting “Spiderman” even though the Tobey McGuire version is not that old, you have to be thankful that they’re not remaking more recent films. The last thing we need is them to start remaking the “Harry Potter” movies. I mean, after all, the first one is around ten years old now after all.

Nevertheless, I live in hope that this creative drought in Hollywood may end soon and we’ll be back to original scripts. One can always dream, I suppose.

Happy Wednesday!

Remake Rant: Taking Offense to "Skins" (But Not for the Reasons You'd Think)

Well, today was definitely not a Monday. It was one of those days where you’re so busy that you don’t have time to stop and realize that you were busy. You just happen to look up at the clock and suddenly, it’s almost five.

Days like this are nice and much more preferable to Mondays.

I just feel bad. After all, it’s not really Monday’s fault that it’s a Monday. There are some good things about Mondays. Well, sort of good things. After all, when they’re done, it’s a nice feeling that you’ve got one work day under your belt and there’s only four to go. I’d say that it’s a good night for TV but, alas, since “24” has been cancelled, there’s really not much to watch. I do watch “Gossip Girl” because, well, it’s trashy fun and after a hard day at work on Monday, it’s nice to turn your brain off and watch over-privileged teens try to out-scheme one another.

Last week on Monday, I gave that new MTV series, “Skins” a try. I’m a big fan of the original version that was made over in the UK. For those of you that have never heard of it, it’s an ensemble show about a group of teens in their last year of school in a UK town. There’s drugs, sex, violence and a lot of other things that parents pretend teens don’t do/know about. It’s pretty compelling because each episode is from the viewpoint of a different member of the ensemble and while the story moves forward, you feel like you’re actually part of the group because you know everyone so well.

I have to admit, I was a little disturbed they were remaking it for a U.S. version. This goes along with my puzzlement as to why they’re remaking “Being Human” in the U.S. for the Sci-Fi channel when there’s a perfectly good version on BBC America. And, if you’re wondering why I didn’t spell “Sci-Fi” the way the network does- SyFy- it’s because I think it’s stupid and I refuse to cater to the need to abbreviate something that was already abbreviated, let alone spell it badly.

I simply don’t get the need to remake British shows. It’s one thing if they take a concept and Americanize it. “The Office,” for example, works brilliantly because while they adopted the concept of a humdrum office with a bad boss from the British version, they didn’t try to take exact same characters, plot and situations. Instead, they took ideas from the original version and made it work for an American audience.

I can’t speak for “Being Human” because I haven’t seen the U.S. version. I have, however, seen the British version and it’s very entertaining. In short, it’s about a werewolf, vampire and ghost who live together in a house in London. Here’s what I don’t understand: If it was a French show or a Japanese one or even one from Sweden, I’d understand the remake. Dubbing is a nuisance and it’s nice to hear actors actually…act in a language that the audience can understand without subtitles.

However, last time I checked, English people…spoke English. Certainly the cast of “Being Human” has British accents but that’s the only difference. So, why the remake? This is exactly how I felt after watching “Skins” on MTV. Truth be told, I turned the pilot off 20 minutes in to the episode. I suppose it’s because I was hoping that like “The Office,” they’d take the concept behind “Skins” and Americanize it.

They didn’t. Instead, they changed the names of some of the characters, turned a gay male character into a gay female character and then pretty much blatantly copied the British version. The acting was, for the most part, absolutely terrible. The dialogue didn’t work because an American boy calling his girlfriend “Nips,” because she has weird nipples is just not the same as when a British boy does it. Also, last time I checked, most high school kids didn’t say, “I’ll ring you up,” or “let’s smoke a spliff.” They do in the UK but not in whatever generic East Coast city they in which the U.S. version of the show was set.

In the UK version, they primarily used amateur actors. The main actor in the first two season was the only ‘famous’ one- he was played by Nicholas Hoult who was in “About a Boy” with Hugh Grant. His Tony was a slick-talking, slightly sociopathic charmer who mostly cared only about himself. Yet you could see why his friends were drawn to him and why he was able to get away with everything. In the U.S. version, the Tony was just…awful. He was stilted and ‘pretty’ and overall bland.

I’m picking. I know it. I shouldn’t pick because I only watched 20 minutes of it. It’s just after realizing it was going to be mostly a copy of the British show, I couldn’t help but think I’d rather go back and watch the original episodes which I enjoyed rather than watch a second rate version on MTV.

What’s interesting is the uproar that the show is causing with parents and, as a result, advertisers. Parents don’t like TV shows where teenagers have sex all the time, smoke pot, swear and drink too much. I get that. As a parent, I probably wouldn’t want my younger teens watching something that glorified a partying type of life style. Yet, for the older kids, I’d like to think that, as a parent, I’d raise them to have their own minds and that they’d be able to watch something like “Skins” and not suddenly feel that their magical peer pressure button was being pushed and thus, they, too, had to suddenly go out and hunt down a joint.

Note to parents: If you think a TV show will influence your child, you might be right. However, it has to have something to work with in the first place. If your kid watches “Skins” and then goes out and gets drunk, I can almost guarantee…it’s not the first time. Sorry but that’s the way it works. I was a teen once. I was a boring teen because I had good parents. The worst thing I ever did was steal a small “River Greenway” sign from a bike post along a walking trail when I was 15 with my friends.

Then, I felt so guilty, I went back and returned it. That’s a true story. Yes, I was pathetic. My friends and I used to go buy a two liter of Mountain Dew and a box of ice-cream sandwiches and then go eat/drink at the park. That was our naughty indulgence. Have I mentioned that I was a pathetic teen? Then again, I didn’t have shows like “Skins” to influence me.

Anyway, long story short, while I understand parents finding the content of “Skins” offensive, there is a thing called a remote control that changes the channel. Also, make sure your kids have enough common sense to not want to replicate the behavior on the show. I’m sure there are surveys that show that overprotective parents end up with more rebellious children than parents who have a little more trust in their kids. Of course, I may have made that up but it seems like common sense to me.

Besides, to me, what’s more offensive is the bad remake of a perfectly good show? Also, I’m offended that MTV found something offensive about the Britishness of the original show and thus felt they had to remake it. What’s so bad about the Brits, huh?

I might be taking that a little personally. I’m also ranting. My apologies.

But I feel better now.

Happy Wednesday!

Unnecessary Remakes...

So, last night it was Oscar Night. I always think I'm not going to watch them and then, somehow, I usually do. This year, I wasn't sure. I'd only seen one of the Best Picture nominees. Living in a small town in Ohio definitely limits my access to the small movies like "Milk," and even "The Reader."

Still, I had seen "Slumdog Millionaire" and really enjoyed it so I did have some interest in the nominees. Also, I decided to invite a friend over so we could have a Snarky Oscar Party which is the absolute best way to watch the Oscars.

The ceremony was its normal long, drawn-out self. I think they tried to condense it this year but it was still a little too long. I mean, really, do we need a recap of all the films that came out this year? Do we really need to remember that "The Love Guru" even existed?

I liked Hugh Jackman as host, mostly because I like Hugh Jackman. I think they took a little too much advantage of the fact that he's a singer/dancer because wow, they made him sing and dance. The opening number was ok but the one in the middle of the show with Beyonce...well, we could have done without that overblown chorus line. I was a little disappointed that Christian Bale wasn't there because that would have been awesome but it wasn't bad anyway.

Anyway, I'm not actually planning to dissect the ceremony. More, to bring up a complaint that has been irking me for some time. At the end of the ceremony, they showed clips from movies that will be released in the coming year. One of those clips was for a movie intitled "State of Play" starring Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck and a slew of other big names. For those of you who've never heard of it, it's a remake of a fantastic BBC mini-series of the same name. It starred Bill Nighy, James McEvoy, John Simm and some other good British actors.

Here's my problem. The mini-series was fantastic. It's set in the world of journalism and the pace is incredible. The acting is steller. The setting is perfect. So why are they remaking it? I know, they think they can make some money from it, put some big names in it and have a new hit. To me, that's greedy laziness. We already have a great version. Why not spend all the money from production, salaries and advertising on, oh, I don't know...something new?

There's been a rumour for years that Hollywood has run out of original ideas, that's why they keep doing remakes. I don't buy that for a second. I think Hollywood has become lazy. I think they don't want to take a risk on something new because they can remake something that's already been a hit once. Of course, these remakes rarely are the smash hits they're supposed to be. Anyone remember "Psycho"? What a lackluster remake that was. Vince Vaughn, normally a good actor, could not replace Anthony Perkins and it turned out to be a joke.

I even had a problem with the remake of "Pride and Prejudice" starring Kiera Knightly that was so critically acclaimed. It was...ok. I get that it was a nice condensing of the book and that Kiera played a decent Elizabeth Bennett. However, I still say the BBC/A&E mini-series with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle wipes the floor with the movie version.

I know, I know, TV mini-series aren't the same as going to the movies to see something on the big screen. I agree. Yet, nowadays, in cities like L.A., it's getting to be about $14 to watch a movie in the evening. Around here, it's up to about $7, I think. Add concessions and drinks and it's easily at least $20 for a night out. When you pay that type of money for entertainment, you want to be entertained. You want to see something amazing. Most of the time, you aren't.

I'm not a fan of remakes. Sometimes a story/movie is re-imagined and though the story remains, the remake is something new, something different. That, I can live with. Yet it's movies like "State of Play" that bother me. It may turn out to be a good film. However, I don't want to see it because I love the BBC version. If that version had been, say, German and they were remaking into an English language version I might be able to deal with it but that's not the case. It's also not the case that the British accents are the thick ones, the ones that are hard to understand for unfamiliar ears. No, it's a perfectly great mini-series that is now, most likely, going to be a mediocre movie. I mean, seriously, Ben Affleck is in it. He has his uses in Hollywood but acting really isn't one of them.

I am being a little too harsh, I know. I think this is because, once again, it all comes down to being a writer. I will say that I'm relieved that so far, publishing houses aren't having novels rewritten because the originals are 'dated' or need to be more sensational for today's audiences. Yet, I also used to aspire to be a screenwriter. In some ways, I think, for a new screenwriter, one who hasn't managed to break into Hollywood, it's even more defeating than being an unpublished novelist. Though the amount of novels being published yearly has dwindled, though it's harder and harder for a new writer to even get his or her manuscript looked at, we still get to be original. We get to see new writers breaking in and that gives us hope.

With Hollywood, that's not the case because the studios want instant success. They want to hire people to rewrite perfectly good scripts that don't need to be remade so that they can remake a film. New screenwriters get to see lackluster remakes being produced, they get to see scripts from big-name writers succeed and they can't even get anyone to read their new work, to take the chance on a new voice that maybe, just maybe, might be the new "Slumdog Millionaire," the next "American Beauty."

They're also remaking "Fame." Sadly, I get that one. When I was a young 'un, I adored the tv show of "Fame." I used to want to go to a school like that one more than anything, even though I couldn't dance, sing or really act. The show is horribly dated now but maybe they think the Jonas Brothers/High School Musical crowd needs that inspiration too. I don't like it but I get it.

I still don't get the "State of Play" remake just as I didn't get the "Pride and Prejudice" one a few years ago. If the original isn't broken, it shouldn't need fixing in a remake. I do think there are exceptions. Take the U.S. version of The Office. I confess, I was horrified when I heard they were remaking the British one. Yet, really, they weren't remaking it. They were re-inventing it, making it work for American audiences by breathing new life into it. The premise is the same but it's different. I don't hold out such hope for "State of Play."

So, that's my rant for today. I'll try to be more positive tomorrow. Unfortunately, I'm about to leave for the DMV again so positivity is a little hard to find at the moment. With all luck, I'll be a registered Ohio driver by tomorrow. If not...well....I'm sure you'll hear about it.

Happy Monday.