@tabbycat—Plays being staged again and again is not the same as a movie being remade. The play still has the same original source material – its script. That doesn’t change. When movies are remade, the first movie becomes the source material.
My thoughts on some of the films mentioned so far:
- The original version of The Wicker Man shouldn’t even have been made, let alone the stupid remake.
- The Stepford Wives remake was more a reimagining. The source material was a horror/satire novel. The 1975 film focused on the horror. The 2004 version focused on the satire. It would have been brilliant if not for the production issues and plot holes. :(
- I actually preferred the remake of When a Stranger Calls to the original. The original had crappy dialogue, an overbearing soundtrack, no characters that I cared about, and was utterly without suspense. The remake is more suspenseful and the focus is on the girl being terrorized instead of the weird (and, in the original, boring) stranger. And the stranger is scarier because he isn’t seen at all until the end and there’s no insight into his psyche.
- Psycho should not have been remade, especially the way it was. You can’t improve upon Hitchcock, which the filmmakers obviously knew, since they just reproduced it shot-for-shot in color with different actors.
- The Gene Wilder film was Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. The Depp movie was Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. They’re separate adaptations of the book. The newer one is not a remake of the older one.
And a few waste-of-time remakes off the top of my head that haven’t been mentioned yet: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Scarface, King Kong (seriously, I love PJ, but when a remake is twice as long as the original, something has gone terribly wrong), The Hills Have Eyes, The Fog, Romero’s zombie flicks, The Hills Have Eyes, Les diaboliques… Just about every Asian horror film ever…