Are remakes ruining entertainment?

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

I find that question to be odd. The reason that I find that question to be odd is that what is the criterion for a remake? Does a remake mean a movie/tv show/Youtube video, or whatever it means, a complete republishing of what was created by another director? If that is what is meant by that question, I would argue that a republishing of what was created by another director does not necessarily ruin entertainment. After all, if I like the movie, and I happen to see it again, that does not make the content of that film bad. But would it undermine the authenticity and uniqueness of that movie? Absolutely. But for me to give a concrete argument as to whether or not remakes are ruining entertainment, I need clarification.

You're dodging. The definition problem cuts both ways—if remakes are so fuzzy to define, then claims they're "ruining" entertainment are equally unfounded. You can't destroy something you can't precisely identify. But here's what matters: you admitted rewatching doesn't ruin the original. So what's actually being ruined? Not the source material. Not audience choice. Name the specific harm that remake activity causes to entertainment itself, not just to your nostalgia.

It is not a dodge to clarify a topic. In fact, that demonstrates the opposite. I do not want to strawman your position since I do not actually know what the topic is. Since I want a clarification as to what your position is, and what the question at hand actually means, I am actually the only one here who is interested in participating in the discussion. You, on the other hand, are dodging. You do not want me to understand the topic, because you are afraid. I agree with you that "if remakes are so fuzzy to define, then claims they're 'ruining' entertainment are equally unfounded. You can't destroy something you can't precisely identify." But what you fail to recognize is that I did not formulate a position, which is exactly why I wanted clarification. To answer your question, I already explained what is being ruined. The uniqueness of the film is what is being undermined. And this is a position that I can demonstrate in other forms of society. Take an essay that was written by Jordan Peterson. Assuming his essay got an A+ and I copy his work, that does not make my work bad; all it does is tarnish my reputation as a person. I am now viewed as someone who takes credit for someone else's work. And a way I can demonstrate this is that I would get a grade of zero for plagiarism. Unlike you, I believe in honesty, meritocracy, and integrity.

You're conflating plagiarism with remakes—fundamentally different acts. Plagiarism is theft of credit. A remake openly attributes the source, credits the original creator, and openly declares itself derivative. The Jordan Peterson analogy collapses the moment you claim authorship. Remakes don't. Your integrity argument vanishes when the original work remains credited, available, and celebrated alongside the remake. So which is it: are remakes ruining entertainment, or are you actually upset that audiences choose to engage with new interpretations instead of gatekeeping the original as sacred?

Well, if that is what is included in a remake, then it is not really a remake. This is exactly why I wanted clarification as to what a remake in the context of our discussion actually means. Secondly, that is not what plagiarism is defined as. My claiming I won a boxing match against Mike Tyson when I never even fought Mike Tyson is theft of credit. Plagiarism, however, is defined as the theft of others' work to attain credit. You have conflated plagiarism with misattribution. I have said it before, and I will say it again: Republishing what is already created does not make the content itself bad. However, it does undermine the authenticity behind the creation of the remake since it came from someone else. I understand that you want to bucket my worldview, but I will not grant a position that I do not hold without clarification. My questions for you are the following: What is a remake in the context of this discussion? And do you believe that if a teacher in school catches a student taking work from another source, that teacher ought to give that student a grade of zero? If you say yes, you concede that plagiarism ruins authenticity, and if you say no, your argument is fundamentally flawed. Either way, you lose; pick which one you lose by.

You're setting a false binary. A classroom plagiarism penalty exists because students claim false mastery for grading purposes. A remake doesn't claim the original director created it—it openly restages their vision with new talent, budget, and audience. Those are opposite acts. Your trap assumes remakes must either be plagiarism or admit they're "not really remakes." That's circular. Define what authenticity you're protecting: the director's reputation? That survives intact. The audience's experience? That expands. What actually gets ruined?