I don't know but you must share that information with me as well.

Was just discussing this at length t'other night. I think the big difference between adaptation and remakes of films are that adaptations allow for a totally new vision within a different medium whereas remakes are stepping on toes within the same medium.

It's kinda like if someone were to take a classic novel such as Tom Sawyer and re-write it. Doesn't really work.

Art on the other hand seems to enjoy and promote all the different ways a classic painting or image can be re-interpreted within pop culture (ex. Andy Warhol, Kozik, Shepard Fairey).

Tis a very interesting topic that could be discussed at length in so many different ways...

The modernization of Shakespeare is a great example of how people are slowly warming up to modern influences on classic material. I for one remember being precisely mortified by the idea of Romeo & Juliet in a modern setting with pop music. I thought it was the shittiest idea but after I saw it, I was able to appreciate the idea that Shakespeare doesn't need to be relegated to the olden days and I think a writer of his caliber would be pleased to know his work remains incredibly relevant all these years later.

The whole process will just need a few more generations before the uproars die down on remakes but there will likely remain several pieces of film/writing/art whatever that will always be untouchable based on a variety of reasons including popularity but sooner or later, nothing is sacred and it's all fair game.

As far as I'm concerned on remakes in general though, the real problem for me isn't that Freddy is being taken on by a new actor because characters are made to be played.

The problem I have is that I hate the business of it. I hate that 8 out of 10 times, $$ is at the heart of all remakes and they are nothing more than business prospects. Necessary evils if you will.

I would far more prefer new films, new shows, etc. For every GD remake coming out of the pipeline there are several great scripts lying around in limbo that studios big and small just don't want to bite the bullet on and that is a fucking shame.

Unfortunately, the whole indie wave that began in the 90's has morphed from an interesting trend into just another facet of the business and we're right back where we started when it comes to anyone taking a chance on something potentially wonderful. "Oh yeah, we'll buy that script, but we probably won't produce it because we'd rather make another fucking SAW picture"... stuff like that or better yet, studios buy the rights to a foreign film and spend their budget RE-filming it instead of releasing the original to new audiences. It's no wonder Americans are still such friggin twats about subtitles. But I digress...

You other point about whether or not a remake can remain as misogynistic/racist/exploitative as its source is a much deeper conversation but my short answer is most often NO but sometimes maybe... it depends on who is creating the remake and what their intention is: money or art.

The long answer is:

Obviously, if the reason is money, the film is going to very likely NOT achieve anything more than cheap thrills and if art is the driving force, the outcome depends on how talented/intelligent the filmmakers are.

The recent slew of torture-porn-horror all fall flat for me on many levels because, for example, they want to emulate the kind of claustrophobia and fear that was relevant in movies from the 60's, 70's, 80's, which is something that the present day simply CANNOT reconcile.

The uneasiness and terror that audiences felt while watching Last House on the Left or TX Chainsaw back when they came out doesn't even exist these days so those remakes are ultimately nothing more than gore flicks. Again, titillation, the kind you seek out when you're young and can stomach anything, that's why the phrase "torture porn" was coined in the first place because the old labels aren't sufficient.

This topic could keep me blabbing for a while as I used to discuss it at length with a good friend of mine who is an equally huge movie/horror buff who is about 15 years older than me. I actually used to shoot the movie shit with a lot of older folks and their recollections have really allowed me to experience as best I can, what it was like to see controversial and sensational films so many decades ago and in turn compare it to current films and trends.

Today is Presidents Day. I forgot that when posting. The Bruce quote is either highly appropriate or highly not. Oh well, George Washington would approve of the words. Abe Lincoln would perhaps not. Afterall, what did the Confederacy say?

. . . impersonates his clients. "Clients" plural.