# The biggest argument against total dismissal of the remake is the existence
of remakes that…

The iconic example is Evil Dead 2, which is nearly a shot for shot remake of
Evil Dead with the same lead actor and the same director — but…

* * *

The biggest argument against total dismissal of the remake is the existence of
remakes that, despite bringing nothing new to the table structurally and
despite clear profit motive, manage to unambiguously improve upon the
original.

The iconic example is Evil Dead 2, which is nearly a shot for shot remake of
Evil Dead with the same lead actor and the same director — but with the
benefit of a larger budget and more experience behind the camera; both Evil
Dead and Evil Dead 2 are arguably adaptations of Equinox, with huge
improvements to the script and pacing.

We might also consider as a candidate John Carpenter’s The Thing, an
improvement over the earlier adaptation of the same source material but one
that introduces brand new elements as made available by the technology:
fundamentally, the difference between the 1980 film and the 2011 remake is
that the 2011 remake exhibited poor craft. But, when we re-make overwhelming
successes, we set ourselves up for failure: most factors that contribute to a
film being well-received (beyond basic competence) are not predictable or
controllable by any one person involved, and can thus be considered
essentially random — in other words, remaking a successful film is like using
your lottery winnings to enter another lottery.

Why do we see a greater frequency of truly successful remakes in horror than
other genres? Because a low-budget horror movie can have low risk and high
reward compared to other genres, and a slightly higher budget can result in
huge increases in reception: within the entire low-budget range in the horror
genre, the odds of making back your investment are pretty good compared to
other genres and the stakes are low enough to encourage experimentation. A
truly low-budget success can often be improved with an only slightly higher
effects budget or the replacement of a handful of actors with slightly better
ones, because a low-budget success means the premise and script are probably
pretty solid (whereas the technical skills — the most expensive factor at that
budget level — can be improved without changing out what works). A low-budget
horror success probably makes, in total, a lot less than a high-budget success
in any genre, and is successful with a smaller but more fanatical audience, so
even a largely failed remake in this context is not just a good bet but a safe
one too, the stakes being low.

The tendency to remake good movies is misguided; even though a remake of a
mediocre movie is more difficult to advertise, it’s more likely to succeed,
both in terms of improving upon the original and in terms of being profitable.

By [John Ohno](https://medium.com/@enkiv2) on [March 27,
2017](https://medium.com/p/263d7b55a98a).

[Canonical link](https://medium.com/@enkiv2/the-biggest-argument-against-
total-dismissal-of-the-remake-is-the-existence-of-remakes-that-263d7b55a98a)

Exported from [Medium](https://medium.com) on September 18, 2020.