Thank you, Zemeckis.
[dropcap size=small]G[/dropcap]reat Scott! Could they really want to remake Back to the Future? What has the world come to?
There has been an increasing trend in recent years which has seen a wave of 80’s classic movies get some 21st century treatment. Some such titles include the likes of Total Recall, Karate Kid and, of course, Ghostbusters, but if there’s one 80’s franchise that should be left well alone more than most, I’d have to say it’s Back to the Future.
And, as we’ve now learnt, this is clearly a sentiment the director and writer of the original movies – Robert Zemeckis – shares.
In an interview with The Telegraph (via USA Today), Zemeckis slated the idea of a remake when the interviewer broached the subject, and essentially stated that it would happen over his (and co-writer Bob Gale’s) dead body:
“Oh, God no. That can’t happen until both Bob and I are dead. And then I’m sure they’ll do it, unless there’s a way our estates can stop it.
“I mean, to me, that’s outrageous. Especially since it’s a good movie. It’s like saying ‘Let’s remake Citizen Kane. Who are we going to get to play Kane?’ What folly, what insanity is that? Why would anyone do that?”
We’d have to agree here. Whilst we understand remakes can draw in new generations and a few remakes have been pretty decent (21 Jump Street), Back to the Future is a near perfect 80’s classic, and with a revamp it’d lose all the charm and style that made it so memorable.
And quite frankly we don’t want to go back to the future – heh, see what I did there? – if it means Michael J. Fox and Christopher Llyod aren’t Marty and Doc. It’s just not right (sorry, Stoltz).
It’s a wonderful 80’s adventure that we can’t imagine being any better. We don’t think a remake is called for in this case, and since Zemeckis and Gale agree, it looks like we’re going to be safe from one actually happening for the time being. Phew.
Whenever the day comes when Zemeckis and Gale leave us, we’ll just have to leave the fate of a potential remake up to, well, see the below:
