Adaptable Icons or Immutable Gods: The Case for Remakes

In order to justify even spending time writing about Scott (The Exorcism of Emily Rose) Derrickson’s remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still I needed to ask the fundamental question: Why?

I ended up answering a question with a question: Why not?

I thought it would be a lot worse.

I come from a school of thought that says: Why mess with a classic unless you can elevate it or make it more poignant in a contemporary context? And even then, why not just use the new ideas to create some original work. Some folks may think the pretentious notion of elevating a classic is art’s worst oxymoron.

There are worse oxymorons: Take the sentence “Keanu Reeves portrays an alien who becomes more human as he experiences ‘the other side’ of humanity,” for example. Lambasting Reeves as a wooden one-trick pony sets him up as an easy straw man target. Perhaps we should get off Reeves’ case and accept that he’s the best “actor” for the job when the call comes for stoic aliens. I don’t really want to debate whether stoicism constitutes “acting.”

I would rather argue that remakes are inevitable and perhaps particularly justifiable when it comes to genre works from comics, TV and film.

And even more particularly when it comes to science fiction.

Assuming classics by definition cannot be elevated, perhaps we should evaluate whether or not the original 1951 film had any room for “improvement.” We could also stipulate that the “classic” label is best reserved for non-genre films like Citizen Kane or Casablanca.

Science Fiction by nature would then be considered cult-classic at best. The outsider status typically ascribed to sci-fi aficionados often relegates these films to a sub-category less untouchable than “regular” classics. Only fervently exclusive acolytes would argue the opposite: Our darlings are more untouchable and inviolate icons than any others.

Therefore, in contrast, I would argue that, because science fiction films are not monolithically complete and purely uncompromised expressions exempt from tinkering to reach a wider audience, we keepers of the mythos flame should consider taking a chill pill.

And that is why we should accept that many “classic” science fiction films lend themselves to remake/remodeling as much as--maybe more so than--any other genre.

When it comes to the potential expansion of people that might be served by prequels, reimaginings and remake/remodels, we should embrace the growth to the market that these new films might bring. As with the tolerance afforded petulant nieces, nephews or grandchildren, and short of supporting outright shoddy pandering, we should pump up the Hollywood machine for dressing up our darlings in hip fashion.

There are other reasons why.

However prescient a science fiction film may seem for a certain generation, at the very least the technology associated with most sci-fi will seem outdated a decade or more (maybe sooner) later.

Planned (or unplanned) obsolescence is inescapable.

It’s also traditional to revamp, and here is where science fiction films have caught up even more than ever with pulps, comics and paperback series. Or perhaps gone back to their roots in serials.

Series are always reinventing themselves.

However classic Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Superman, Batman and James Bond are as archetypal characters, I would never begrudge each generation its take on what makes them tick.

So, I vote to give Scott Derrickson a break. Next time I will point out some more specific ways that the new film incorporates and contrasts the original creators’ works.

And, as expected, I will look at ways that the former film presaged the Weisinger years, while the latest version reflects what’s happening with Johns and Robinson’s Superman Family, intersecting with TV’s Smallville.