RogerBW's Blog

Ruining My Childhood 11 March 2015

It has become fashionable to claim that a remake or reinvention of a favourite book, film or whatever from when one was young "ruined my childhood". And inevitably it has also become fashionable to dismiss such overblown nonsense. I think there is potential for a useful middle way.

Ignore the exaggerated rhetoric for a moment. Obviously a large part of my liking for things I met when I was young is nostalgia: I will never again read such-and-such a plot for the first time and find it new and surprising. I have probably retained more sense of wonder than many people (well, I haven't given up reading SF and fantasy the way quite a lot of people seem to), but I am not the child I was, even if I can manage a reasonably good internal simulation of him.

When someone says "it's that old thing, only new" my immediate reaction, before I've heard any details, tends to be negative. Either I didn't care for that old thing, in which case I have no interest in a newer version of it, or I did like it, in which case why would I want it re-done when the original is available? (And these days the original probably is available, which is something many film and TV-makers don't take into account since it wasn't true when they were growing up. These days they're competing not only with whatever else is new this season, but with everything that's available on DVD and download.)

But that's me: I'm probably not the target audience. Why should I object if those darn kids get a new version of a thing I liked? I'm told that many young people today will simply refuse to watch a film that's not in colour, because it's so alien to their experience (while I grew up with endless repeats of old films, and indeed we had only a black-and-white television set in the house for much of my childhood). Why shouldn't something be re-done for them so that they can enjoy the same stories I did?

Two reasons: I don't mind a new version of an old thing, but I do mind that people will see the new version and think that that's what the thing was always about. Doomed elf-dwarf romance? Oh, yeah, Tolkien was into that. Indiana Jones was always set in the 1950s, what do Nazis have to do with it? And so on.

And secondly I don't think that the stuff I grew up with is so amazing that it needs to be recycled. Which is more likely to be a film with interesting things to say, a Ghostbusters remake with an all-female main cast, or an original story with an all-female main cast? (Actually that's a trick question, because this is Hollywood, and "all-female main cast" usually means "chick flick".) But the attempt to bring in an audience of people who remember the original story will stretch and distort any attempt to do something interesting, because it forces in-jokes and call-outs to memorable moments in the original even when they don't fit with whatever new story someone might have wanted to tell.

  1. Posted by Owen Smith at 01:54pm on 11 March 2015

    Ghostbusters was near perfect as originally made, it is pointless re-making it. You can't recapture what made it work. The all female main cast is a gimmick to make it seem interesting or somehow worthy.

    I've not heard anything about young people refusing to watch black and white. Do you have any references? While we're at it, how are they on silent films, I find them rather hard work myself.

  2. Posted by RogerBW at 02:02pm on 11 March 2015

    Here is a typical example of the complaint; I don't think it's been formally studied.

    I suspect from what I've read that black-and-white is actually considered a proxy for "old, slow, too much talk and not enough action" rather than being a problem in itself. But that's still a reason for a studio to go for a remake rather than a re-release.

  3. Posted by John Dallman at 07:19pm on 11 March 2015

    Another reason for a remake, of course, is that it costs a lot more, and a lot more people in the industry, as opposed to shareholders, get a cut.

  4. Posted by Ashley R Pollard at 08:12pm on 11 March 2015

    John you're far too cynical for your own good.

    Remakes are the equivalent of staging a play. RSC does it, but you live in Middlesborough, so you go to see the local company put on their version.

    The only difference is that with film one can replay an old performance of a production, and compare and contrast Olivier performance with Branagh's portrayal of Henry the 5th.

  5. Posted by RogerBW at 01:00am on 12 March 2015

    I think remakes are trying to get the best of all worlds: it's something new, so there's a reason to make a fuss about it more than just a DVD rerelease, but it's also something old, so it's a Known Marketable Property and you can hope to drag along some fans of the original who are nostalgic for it.

    This gets into the economics of filmmaking: the money men try to minimise variation in return on investment, i.e. they go for the surest thing possible, and while remakes and re-inventions are rarely stellar performers they're also rarely complete flops, The Lone Ranger being a notable exception. (The money men may also, being typically in their fifties or older, have some nostalgia for the original.)

Comments on this post are now closed. If you have particular grounds for adding a late comment, comment on a more recent post quoting the URL of this one.

Tags 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 3d printing action advent of code aeronautics aikakirja anecdote animation anime army astronomy audio audio tech aviation base commerce battletech beer boardgaming book of the week bookmonth chain of command children chris chronicle church of no redeeming virtues cold war comedy computing contemporary cornish smuggler cosmic encounter coup covid-19 crime cthulhu eternal cycling dead of winter doctor who documentary drama driving drone ecchi economics en garde espionage essen 2015 essen 2016 essen 2017 essen 2018 essen 2019 essen 2022 essen 2023 existential risk falklands war fandom fanfic fantasy feminism film firefly first world war flash point flight simulation food garmin drive gazebo genesys geocaching geodata gin gkp gurps gurps 101 gus harpoon historical history horror hugo 2014 hugo 2015 hugo 2016 hugo 2017 hugo 2018 hugo 2019 hugo 2020 hugo 2022 hugo-nebula reread in brief avoid instrumented life javascript julian simpson julie enfield kickstarter kotlin learn to play leaving earth linux liquor lovecraftiana lua mecha men with beards mpd museum music mystery naval noir non-fiction one for the brow opera parody paul temple perl perl weekly challenge photography podcast politics postscript powers prediction privacy project woolsack pyracantha python quantum rail raku ranting raspberry pi reading reading boardgames social real life restaurant reviews romance rpg a day rpgs ruby rust scala science fiction scythe second world war security shipwreck simutrans smartphone south atlantic war squaddies stationery steampunk stuarts suburbia superheroes suspense television the resistance the weekly challenge thirsty meeples thriller tin soldier torg toys trailers travel type 26 type 31 type 45 vietnam war war wargaming weather wives and sweethearts writing about writing x-wing young adult
Special All book reviews, All film reviews
Produced by aikakirja v0.1