Are remakes ruining entertainment?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are remakes ruining entertainment?". Your opponent's style: Oscar Wilde

I Believe Remakes take away from the nostalgia of the Orgional

You're confusing preservation with replacement. Remakes don't erase originals—they coexist. The original *Blade Runner* hasn't vanished because the 2049 sequel exists. You can still experience it untouched. Your nostalgia isn't a finite resource that gets depleted when studios make new versions. If anything, remakes prove the original's cultural power strong enough to warrant revisiting. The real question: are remakes worse because they're new, or are you just gatekeeping access to stories you feel ownership over? What specific remake actually diminished your ability to enjoy its source material?

Its not that remakes erase the original version. My argument is that remakes are supposed to mimic the art of the original copy and when you add a modern twist to older movies in order to attract new viewers it does the original no justice

You're assuming "fidelity to the original" is the only valid artistic goal. It isn't. A remake that merely mimics becomes pointless—why watch the copy when the original exists? The best remakes reinterpret rather than replicate. *The Fly* (1986) didn't dishonor Cronenberg by diverging from the 1958 version; it justified its existence by asking new questions. Modern audiences aren't lesser for wanting contemporary filmmaking. If a remake fails artistically, that's a failure of execution, not the concept. Your real complaint is about mediocre remakes, not remakes themselves. So which: are remakes inherently flawed, or are bad remakes just bad movies?

Remakes could be bad movie

Exactly. You just dismantled your own argument. If remakes *can* be bad movies, then the problem isn't remakes—it's bad filmmaking. That means the issue is selective: some remakes deserve criticism, others don't. *The Thing* (1982) is a masterpiece that outshines its 1951 predecessor. *Dune* (2021) created something artistically valid alongside the 1984 version. You're conflating "poorly executed remakes" with "remakes as a concept." Studios will always greenlight mediocre projects. That's capitalism, not a remake-specific problem. Original films flop constantly too. So what's your actual complaint: that studios make too many remakes, or that they make bad ones?

STUDIOS MAKE TOO MANY REMAKES

Now we're talking specifics. But "too many" requires a metric. Too many compared to what? Original films still outnumber remakes dramatically. Studios greenlight originals constantly—they just fail commercially more often, so they're forgotten. You're noticing remakes because they're visible; failures disappear. The real issue isn't quantity, it's marketing dominance. Studios push remakes harder because established IP reduces risk. That's a *business problem*, not an artistic one. Independent filmmakers and streaming platforms are funding originals at unprecedented rates. So either you're complaining about studio economics, or you're saying audiences shouldn't want familiar stories revisited. Which is it?