I can't say I'm scared as a viewer. Honestly, watching the Lion King in 3D a couple weekends ago was amazing. I think it is a brilliant idea. And who doesn't want to see classics on the big screen? Even as a writer I'm not too bothered. When it comes down to it, if you write a good script you will have a pretty good shot at selling it which then opens doors to work more as a writer. On top of that, writing for television is a dream job. It's the writers world, so if I was a TV writer and I saw more classics in theaters I'd be glad, it doesn't exactly change the fact that I'll need to keep writing for my show. All in all, I think it is good. Not to mention there will be fewer bad movies in theaters.

The irony of his statement is that the Lion King itself was once new. We'll always need that first classic movie to create those sequel experiences down the road. I also think he's neglecting the "familiarity" aspect of genre. You don't have to be seeing a sequel or retread to get the comfort of the familiar with like-minded people, because genres can also be familiar. For instance, anytime a new sci-fi movie comes out, you're likely to see the same guys and girls you saw at the Star Wars prequels, or at Alien vs. Predator. Even though a specific tale itself may be new, chances are its genre isn't, so everyone is still in that familiarity zone, but they get the bonus of possibly being in on the ground floor of something great, witnessed in an exciting communal setting. Also, comparing "what movies can do narratively" with what TV can do is a little like comparing apples to oranges. A movie, when done right, gives you a compelling narrative with interesting characters and several moving or entertaining scenes in a neat, two-hour package. This is quite a feat, being able to tell a good, self-contained story in that space. On the other hand, TV demands that you keep coming back week after week, show after show, year after year, as writers try to sustain the narrative, to greater or lesser degrees of success. There will be some "shark jumping" material in there, some filler; characters with arcs that go nowhere; new writers will come in and change the "voice" of the show or the characters, or make them start acting more out of character just to have a twist or something fresh. If we look at a show from its first episode to its last as we might look at a movie from its first scene to its last, then two of the greatest shows have fallen flat on their faces at the end when our hopes were highest: The Sopranos and Lost. Many often pointed to how they're better than what we see at the movies but in the end they turned out muddled and unsatisfying. True, if done right the show can delve deeper into the characters than a two-hour movie can, but I don't always need that. Sometimes I like a well-told, two-hour story, too.

All I think (and hope) this will do -- is crush the glut of remakes. There's always going to be hunger for originality. I don't see that market ever going away. But there's no point to remake classic movies when you can simply re-screen them. Why waste money creating an inferior product when you can simply show the original?

First impression from quick read, author makes a couple of assumptions I wonder about: (1) "...a communal experience that no living room can offer. And that experience, almost inevitably, is best enjoyed by viewing something familiar" and (2) ",,,while the storytelling role of cinema is being eaten at by television networks". (1) "Almost inevitably"? I don't know about that. I think a bunch of folks eager for some thrilling new caper could communally agree they're very excited to experience something fresh. Does not need to be shared mental real estate, just shared enthusiasm, to get that communal rush. (2) I don't understand what he's saying. That we reach story saturation through networks specifically? Or TV in general (including cable)? (Re networks, network audience as percentage of population is trending downward, only population growth keeps the numbers looking okay.) That we have a story saturation threshold? (I wouldn't think so.) That the easy pleasure of a series ruins our appetite for movies? (I wouldn't think so.) Zeitchit wasn't so clear, and likely neither was I, but all in all, I don't think he added much illumination, and I hope no studio exec uses his words as defense for another retread.

James, that was precisely my thought when I read the article. Why remake Straw Dogs when you can re-release it in theaters all cleaned up with digital conversion? We've had revival theaters for years. This just seems like a much grander version of that. And I'd like to think it would slow down the remake frenzy. But of course it won't...

"Theatergoing in the next decade may increasingly need to concentrate not the frisson of the new but the comfort of the familiar." News flash, Zeitchik: it's happening already. And no, the results aren't good.

because we have a bunch of kids who won't watch something "old", let alone in black and white. god forbid, we should make movies for anybody but the kids.

I'm absolutely fine with a glut of retreads replacing Hollywood's learning-disabled adoration for increasingly ignored remakes. Prior to the home video era, the retread approach was really the only way to see a film favorite for a second or third time. And as much as I enjoy the VHS/DVD/BluRay films amassed on my bookshelves, I'd always opt for a theatrical screening. I mean, if we're talking about films like The Maltese Falcon, The Wizard of Oz, and Young Frankenstein making their was across the multiplex landscape, how can that possibly be a bad thing? Geez, who knows, maybe Drive-Ins will start popping up again, give Roger Corman a chance to score even more profit on things like "It Conquered the World" or "Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine!"

I believe the author severely underrates the ‘family film' genre. People who saw Lion King when they were young, now want to give their own kids that same experience. But re-releasing Casablanca nationwide would probably not have the same results. I’d argue any classic “family films” such as Aladdin or Fantasia could do similar box office numbers to Lion King.

Bingo. Most mini-major studios actually started by finding old "classic" films and distributing them to people / generation(s) that had never seen them. Or foreign action films and redubbing them. Most notably, NEW LINE acquired and released REEFER MADNESS. They would do this as a means to stay afloat while developing original material. It's actually this practice that is most likely why the big studios started heavily favoring remakes. They saw it as easy money (as did the mini-majors). The problem is the business mentality. Mini majors were doing it because it was cheaper than actually making films (which they could barely afford to do) and were an almost guaranteed profit. Majors were doing it because they saw the backend side of it and figured -- hell, making these ourselves would be cheaper than doing original content (less development, right?) and that you had two groups of people going to see these films -- people who had never seen the film in the first place -- and people who were fans of the original. These practices occurred prior to the home viewing entertainment market VCR, DVD, etc. Home viewing and the digital era means - if REEFER MADNESS were made today, it would never truly fall out of rotation. That means, the "haven't seen it before" market is almost non-existent now. Today, what they really are selling is the experience of seeing the film in a theater. Which is why it seems no surprise to me that the LION KING, STAR WARS re-releases, etc do so well. Haha, love your response, "but of course it won't." I really want to disagree. I really want to point out that smart money would go where returns are higher. Risk is less. Initial investment is smaller. But I think you're right. As long as remakes show any potential of generating revenue, they'll continue to be made.

This is probably a large contributing factor as well. I'd still wager, a re-release of Casablanca would generate more revenue than a remake of Casablanca -minus cost. Unless you cast Arnold as Rick, of course. That I'd happily pay to see.