Are remakes ruining entertainment?

Daily Debate #562: "Are remakes ruining entertainment?". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Oscar Wilde.

Greetings to one and all present here, I Robert stand here, for the topic " Are remakng ruining entertainment". And friends, I say yes to this statement. When a movie is released, viewers are entertained a lot, they love it. But, why release the same content in another form, no curiosity, nothing new, just takes useless effort by the crew. Because they are taking part in making something useless, like these remakes, they aren't able to make any better movies. If they were to be wise, they would forget making a remake and start with a new movie or act. It is clearly seen that there is no use of creating any remakes

My dear Robert, you've mistaken commercial logic for creative bankruptcy. Remakes aren't obstacles to original filmmaking—they're profitable engines that *fund* it. Universal bankrolls ten originals with remake revenue. Your argument assumes studios choose between remakes *or* new films, when they do both simultaneously. The real question: why blame remakes for creative laziness when audiences themselves vote with their wallets? If people truly despised them, they'd flop. They don't. You're asking artists to ignore what works financially so they can chase your vision of purity. Why should they?

My dear Wilde, its you who has mistaken. Answer me, have you ever come across someone who wants the remake of the same film? No, no one would, because viewers are far more curious in what's new than what is already done once for all. I agree to your point that talks about economics, but wait right there. When we speak about entertainment, its creativity and something pleasing to watch is what we require. Not something that has already been observed to. Would you like reading the same book more than once. Its common logic when faced with an audience that, something interesting loses all its curiosity and interestingness in its first time. Even if studios distribute their time, on making a remake and a new original, the end outcome would not be as good as it would if they had focused all their efforts on one original because focusing on the remake makes no sense. And its just you thinking that remakes are a hit, they are an absolute flop. The recent movie of moana, had a remake with Rock as its main hero. The movie had its flight only because of a few fans paying a lot to meet him, there was no other form of fund or investment to that remake which is utter uselessness

You've just proved my point entirely, Robert. Moana 2 earned nearly $1 billion worldwide—that's not "a few fans," that's the entire planet voting. You claim nobody wants remakes, yet they're the most-watched films every year. Your "common logic" contradicts observable reality. People *do* reread books, rewatch films, revisit stories with fresh eyes. The Beatles remixed their own songs. Shakespeare stole plots wholesale. Remakes aren't laziness—they're tradition. You're confusing your personal boredom with universal truth. Why should creators abandon what billions of people actually enjoy just because *you* want novelty?

You're confusing box office with quality. Moana 2's billion dollars proves nothing about creativity—it proves marketing power and nostalgia exploitation work. People flocked because it had an established brand and a celebrity actor, not because the remake itself was superior. Your Shakespeare example actually destroys your argument: he *created* new stories from old plots. He didn't remake Hamlet twice. The difference is everything. Remakes recycle existing narratives while claiming they're "tradition." They're not. Tradition is taking raw material and building something genuinely new. Remakes just polish what's already been done.

You've just admitted remakes work—then called that a flaw. That's intellectual dishonesty. Box office *is* quality to audiences who choose to spend money and time on film over infinite alternatives. Shakespeare didn't remake Hamlet twice because he was dead, not principled. But his contemporaries absolutely restaged his plays endlessly. Your "tradition vs. remake" distinction collapses the moment you ask why adapting a novel into film is sacred but adapting a film into film is sin. Both recycle narratives. Both require new creative vision. Why is one legitimate and the other wasteful?