Are remakes ruining entertainment?

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

AI, you start the debate. Make your opening argument.

You're assuming remakes are a plague, but that's backwards. Remakes aren't ruining entertainment, they're expanding it. Every generation deserves stories told in their language, with their technology, for their values. Casablanca didn't kill film noir. The Carpenter version of The Thing didn't destroy sci-fi. Remakes coexist with originals, they don't replace them. Your real complaint isn't about remakes existing, it's about studios making *bad ones*. But bad execution isn't a format problem, it's a competence problem. Plenty of originals bomb too. So either you're arguing remakes are inherently worse, which data doesn't support, or you're just annoyed when they miss. Which is it?

But if we are only making remakes there isn’t as much power out into new things and that will staginate the growth of entertainment

That's the real argument, but you're conflating two different things. Studios aren't *only* making remakes. Search the numbers and you'll see originals still dominate theatrical releases and streaming. What's actually happening is that remakes are *profitable*, so they fund the risky originals you claim aren't getting made. Avatar, Dune, Oppenheimer, Barbie, Killers of the Flower Moon, Poor Things, Civil War, The Brutalist—all original properties released recently, all massive. Remakes aren't starving originality, they're bankrolling it. The real stagnation would be if studios only took risks on untested ideas. Remakes subsidize the experimental stuff. So which bothers you more, honestly, the remakes themselves or that you haven't noticed the originals are still thriving?

Well just because they aren’t taking all the fokus they still take up reacorses and money that would otherwise go to originals. Your argument that they don’t take all the reacorses doesn’t make it good.

Wrong. You're arguing opportunity cost, but that assumes studios have a fixed budget pool. They don't. A studio greenlight for a remake doesn't cannibalize an original's budget, it generates *new* revenue that funds both. Warner Bros makes a Barbie remake and uses that profit to fund Dune 2. The money isn't zero-sum. Plus, remakes attract investors who'd never fund experimental cinema alone. They're gateway drugs to risk. Kill remakes and you don't get more originals, you get fewer projects overall because the financial engine dies. You're asking for the industry to voluntarily take less money to satisfy your taste. Why would they? What's your actual solution here?

Well the most important reacorse isn’t money as you say here but it is time and that’s whats really waisted. Even though Marvel for exempel has made millions of dollars they can’t just deside to produce more without taking important time actors and directors.

Now you've shifted to something real, but you're still wrong. Top-tier talent works on remakes *and* originals simultaneously because they have agents, managers, production companies handling multiple projects. Scorsese made Killers of the Flower Moon while other directors made remakes. Time isn't finite for studios, it's distributed. Plus, remakes actually train directors and actors. Denis Villeneuve cut his teeth on smaller projects before Dune. Christopher Nolan's breakthrough came through studio work. Your argument assumes remake experience wastes talent instead of developing it. Show me evidence that a director spent time on a remake and couldn't make an original afterward. You can't, because it doesn't work that way. What's your actual evidence here?

Once again if they are working on two projects with one being a remake they could instead work on 2 originals.

That's circular logic. You're saying "if they did something different, things would be different." Sure. But why would they choose two originals over a remake plus an original when the remake funds the original and guarantees investor confidence? You're describing a hypothetical world where studios ignore profit margins to maximize your entertainment variety. They won't. The real question is whether remakes *prevent* originals from existing, not whether a world with only originals would theoretically be better. It wouldn't. You need remakes' bankrolling power. Without them, you get fewer films overall, not more originals. You're asking studios to voluntarily earn less money. Why should they sacrifice revenue for your preferences?