I know I probably come across most of the time as a sequel/remake hater — and for the most part I am.
There are exceptions though. Make a movie about Dracula and I’m there. When I leave the theater I’m usually disappointed, but in many ways that’s what makes Dracula remakes and sequels worthwhile — it’s like sorting through a mountain of shit and occasionally finding a hunk of precious metal. Dracula is one of the great horror stories, and Dracula is one of the characters that has been adapted to film most often, but the films almost never equal the greatness of the character and the story.
Films that fail to live up to the potential of the story are prime candidates for remakes. Films that have a rich story arc that exceed the length of the film deserve sequels.
The big problem with sequels is that movie studios is that they never know when enough is enough. One Hellraiser sequel did good things for the story. Everything after that was shit.
On the subject of Hellraiser — why the hell is it being remade? Can it be made any better? Can another director add any richness to Clive Barker’s subtext or story? I doubt it.
Only remake a movie if you can do it better. Did Gus van Sant’s shot for shot remake of Psycho improve on Hitchcock’s original? Fuck no. There was no reason for the film to exist. (In spite of that, I enjoyed the remake. I just recognized it as pointless.)
Agree? Disagree? Let’s fight about it — leave me a comment. Tell me what remakes or sequels you love or hate.