Because there will be whole generations who have never seen the original and will not be familiar with it. So it makes sense from the studios point of view, and will potentially make a lot of money.
And please don't bother saying they should watch the original instead...the truth is most of todays generation (who the remake will be primarily aimed at) will not be likely to rush out in droves to watch a 50 year old musical.
Fact is, it's going to be made, it's going to be different, most likely it will not be as good as the original, but the fundamental point is a remake can potentially find a whole new audience and be profitable.
And if you are not in favour of it, then simply don't watch it. The original is still there, still unchanged and untouched by any new version that may come along.
Nicely put. However, the way I see it, a game/novel/stage adaptation or remake is one person's interpretation. A remake is never meant to be a direct or updated copy of an earlier film. I find comparing two or more interpretations of the same premise interesting, anyway.
Especially if we look from a social perspective. The use of a language in dialogue, pop culture references, humour, fashion, weaponry, transport, social issues and film techniques. Some stories are timeless enough to fit in any time period, so it's interesting to see which translates well and which doesn't. I wouldn't mind seeing a remake of Crossfire
(1947). The novel revolves around homophobia and the film replaced this social issue with another social issue, due to the censorship board of its time, so I would love to see how it may work today if the original social issue was left intact. Same for other films that were editorially restricted by the censorship board. Would it be an improvement when given more freedom? Or will we discover that it's the restriction that accidentally made the film better than it would have been without?
It's funny - and occasionally irritating - when some complain about a forthcoming remake while not realising the version they loved is also a remake. One example: I have seen some condemning Solaris
(George Clooney) for being a remake of Andrei Tarkovsky's 1972 film without realising that Tarkovsky's film is also a remake. The Great Gatsby
is another example. The majority still believes the Robert Redford & Mia Farrow version was the original. It isn't. It's the third remake (and a terrible one). In total, there are five film adaptations of The Great Gatsby
with another on the way.
There are loads of classic, old or popular films that are remakes as well. An Affair to Remember
(Cary Grant) is a remake. So are Move Over, Darling
(Doris Day, James Garner), The Children's Hour
(Audrey Hepburn, Shirley MacLaine), The Money Pit
(Tom Hanks), Scarface
(Al Pacino), Scent of a Woman
(Al Pacino), Insomnia
(Al Pacino), The Long Night
(Henry Fonda), Holiday
(Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn), No Way Out
(Kevin Costner), Orphans of the Storm
(Lillian and Dorothy Gish), Last Man Standing
(Bruce Willis), Ransom
(Mel Gibson), Fatal Attraction
(Glenn Close, Michael Douglas), The Magnificent Seven
, A Fistful of Dollars
(Clint Eastwood), House of Wax
(Vincent Price), The Lost Patrol
(Victor McLaglen, Boris Karloff), etc.
Technically, My Fair Lady
is a remake of Pygmalion
(Leslie Howard and Wendy Hiller). So it stands to reason that My Fair Lady
would be remade some day. And why not?
Incidentally, remakes were hell a lot more common between 1910s and 1930s. Often within months of each other. There is one that was released in 1923, remade in 1924, again in 1927 and
again in 1932. We should be grateful that we'll never see those days again.