‘Who Asked for This?’ Is the Wrong Question to Ask About Remakes

This week, The Roses will hit theaters. A pitch-black comedy about the acrimonious death of love, the movie is stacked in every possible way. Olivia Colman and Benedict Cumberbatch lead a cast full of comedy heavyweights (Andy Samberg, Kate McKinnon, Allison Janey, Ncuti Gatwa, Sunita Mani, and The Afterparty’s Zoë Chao and Jamie Demetriou). Jay Roach, who helmed all three Austin Powers movies, is directing a script by goddamn Tony McNamara (The Favourite, The Great). I have been so stoked for this movie, I did something I rarely do: I asked to review it.

The Roses also happens to be a “reimagining” of the 1989 film The War of the Roses, starring Michael Douglas, Kathleen Turner, and Danny DeVito (who directed it), and based on a novel of the same name. Now, “reimagining” is just a slightly more respectable way of saying it’s a remake, though based on everything I’ve heard it’s warranted in this case. McNamara has stated that he used both the film and the novel as a jumping-off point, but updated the themes by digging into the power dynamics of modern marriage. Instead of a workaholic and a stay-at-home mom, The Roses mines its well of resentment by exploring two career-driven spouses, one finding success just as the other is laid off. Now, I haven’t seen the finished film, but that seems promising! A thoughtful take on the core themes of the original with an eye to the times we live in now — and I haven’t heard a single person sneer “Who asked for this?” or “Do we really need this?” about it!

Which means it’s probably a bad place to start an article about exactly that - the knee-jerk, nose-upturned dismissal of any remake or reboot- but I wanted to highlight the potential that exists for these projects, and the selective nature of this common complaint. Maybe I should have kicked things off talking about the upcoming TV miniseries remake of Amadeus starring Will Sharpe and Paul Bettany, a project that has absolutely earned some side-eye simply for existing. Both Amadeus and The War of the Roses are beloved films (of admittedly different stature), so why is the remake of one being embraced while the other is being rejected, sight unseen? They could both be great, or terrible. We don’t know yet, and the easiest thing to do with any entertainment is to reserve judgment until we can clap our eyeballs on the finished product. Still, some remakes are simply DOA to fans.

I’m not here to defend remakes, because they don’t need defending. They’ll exist no matter what. They always have! They’re not new! And the good ones aren’t exceptions to some “remakes are bad” rule - they’re the reason creators keep trying, because they know it’s possible to take a familiar story and find something new in it. If every single one of us can name a worthwhile remake - from The Magnificent Seven to The Thing, The Office to Battlestar Galactica — then why do people keep asking if we need them?

“Do we really need this?” I don’t know, do we really need anything besides air to breathe and food to eat? “Need” is a slippery slope to go down when it comes to entertainment. Maybe we don’t need an Amadeus remake. Maybe we don’t need arts funding in schools. Maybe “need” isn’t the right question.

“Who asked for this?” Nobody. Nobody really asks for any entertainment, except sometimes when fans get mad that something gets cancelled, and they want it back. You know what nobody asked for? Sinners. Nobody asked Ryan Coogler to make a freaking vampire musical, but aren’t we all the better for it? And wouldn’t you know, Coogler had the pull to make Sinners because he made studios so much money off movies like… the legacy sequel/spin-off Creed. The best movies and shows are often surprises that come out of nowhere, and sometimes there’s nothing more surprising than a remake or reboot that doesn’t suck.

I find those questions so troubling because they’re intellectually incurious. These vacuous rejections are pretentious, sure - but they don’t come from a place of honoring or respecting cinema so much as base cynicism. How do I know? Because dismissing a remake on the grounds that the original is somehow untouchable ignores a basic fact: Remakes will not, can not, have any negative impact on the original. In fact, a remake only stands to have a net-positive impact, by driving new fans to discover the source material. The War of the Roses has existed and will exist, no matter what happens with The Roses — but it may see a bump in rentals over the next few weeks. Even if a remake is terrible, it’ll just be forgotten, but it won’t tarnish the reputation of the original. And unless you’re incapable of holding two complete thoughts in your head at once, there’s a chance you’ll get to love the original and still find something of value to appreciate in the remake… or you’ll get the satisfaction of knowing your instincts were right from the start. See, there’s only a net-positive impact for you, too!

The thing about remakes is that they’re just adaptations, only instead of a book or a play or a comic or a video game, they’re adapting a movie into another movie (or show). Does the question of source material format make that much of a difference? “Do we really need Clueless when we have a perfectly good Jane Austen version already?” said no one ever. That’s not to say there aren’t valid questions to ask about remakes. Why are studios so risk-averse that they’d rather invest in repackaging a familiar story than something new? Are we seeing more remakes and reboots because studios are servicing “fans,” not audiences? There’s plenty to interrogate about the state of the entertainment industry, but demanding “Who asked for this?” rhetorically is a conversation killer, not a starter.