To Remake Or To Not Remake?

Are Show Remakes Worth the Hassle?

Photo by Krists Luhaers on Unsplash

Harry Potter and Percy Jackson are two of the most popular book series in the early two-thousands. Both series have a massive fan-base and both generated block-buster movies. Recently, remakes in the form of television shows for both based off of the books have been in progress. There has been substantial commentary surrounding both series, with people questioning whether or not studios should be producing them.  These franchises definitely should, especially as they continue to withstand the test of time. 

These shows are being made with care and respect for the original works, not as  a rushed project. The movies made for the Percy Jackson franchise are universally looked over by the fandom due to the poor quality and production value, holding only a 48% on Rotten Tomatoes. In comparison, the show has 95% from the website. So placing the two next to each other, one can clearly see that not only has the show been produced better, but it has been received better by the audience. The Harry Potter movie franchise has a generally positive rating, but there are details and moments that a two hour film simply can not do justice. With approximately eight hours per season, the series will be able to capture the book specifics, truly bringing the enchanting world to life.

“The Harry Potter stories are this extraordinary phenomenon,” John Lithgow, set to play Dumbledore in the series, said. “To reimagine the Harry Potter canon, to let it breathe, we get to enact all the things you know are going on in the wings but you don’t see them. You wait forever to do something that means that much to people.”

By making new versions of the series, the studios are opening up a whole new generation of people to such  beloved worlds. The Harry Potter books were released from 1997-2007, with the movies released from 2001-2011. The main five books in the Percy Jackson saga were released from 2005-2009, with the first movie releasing soon after in 2010. Since the new remakes of the shows are being produced nearly 20 years later, it introduces a new, younger  demographic of audience members.

There is an argument to not producing these programs: it is only done for money. These worlds have become such a household name nowadays, anything made with either franchise's name stuck on it is guaranteed to generate a large amount of profit. Therefore some have deemed the shows unnecessary. 

“The problem is that everything looks familiar to the point of redundancy,” a journalist for Inverse Magazine said. “Hogwarts has the same fog-covered castle feel, the childlike wonder of the students is present in spades, and the Quidditch scenes look action-packed.”

While there might be similarities from the movies to the trailer, who is to judge any media form as ‘redundant’? All entertainment in any variety builds off of itself, with new ideas channeling and forming because of it; it is part of what makes art and productions intriguing. New versions of preexisting works happen all the time, simply because these two series are extremely popular should not be a reason to dismiss their quality.

Studios should continue what they are doing, producing well-made adaptations of beloved stories. These new versions are done carefully and with respect for the fans. They present a new generation of viewers with spectacular story-telling. These shows should not be labeled as unnecessary or redundant purely because they have been done before.