Hollywood, you should be ashamed of yourself.
No, I'm not talking about your celebrities with their plastic surgery and their stupid baby names and their inflated salaries. Nor am I talking about your absurd reality shows that infest our televisions.
I'm talking about shameful movie remakes. Some movies are just unremakeable. Fact.
For those of you who do not know what I am talking about, a perfect example of this phenomenon is the recreation of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" that premieres this weekend.
Now, I held my tongue when Rob Zombie remade "Halloween" and New Line Cinema resurrected "Friday the 13th" again, but now they're bringing back Freddy Krueger too? What is the point?
The beauty of these movies, when they hit theaters in the '70s and '80s, was that they were the first of their kind. The shock factor was all there.
That's why they are considered horror movie classics.
These remakes are simply recycled plotlines with revamped, over-the-top gore and twice as much nudity.
Or, as I like to call them: total nonsense. So, once again I ask, what is the point?
One could argue that movie producers are trying to introduce classic masterpieces to new audiences, but the people who are young enough to think of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" as new are way too young to be in that rated-R theater in the first place.
The truth is, it's all about the money. With today's technology, movies can be produced with utmost efficiency, and if you pair that up with little-known actors, you've got yourself a small budget that DVD sales alone will cover easily.
And hey, they save even more money with remakes because their scripts have already been written.
Hollywood is beginning to favor quantity over quality, and for that I say shame on them.
Now, don't get me wrong, not all movie remakes are a terrible idea. I am limited on cash, so I haven't actually seen "Clash of the Titans" yet, but I think it looks flippin' sweet.
The special effects in this remake will most definitely trump the claymation and action figures of the original, so it should get a thumbs up no matter which way you slice it.
Also, there's a "Robin Hood" remake coming out in mid-May that has Russell Crowe in it, so … well, I really think that Russell Crowe is enough said.
But, even with these cinematic gems, I still remain disappointed in the movie industry.
To quote my stepdad whenever he sees a new movie trailer on TV: "Sigh. They just don't make movies like they used to."
Did you know they are recycling the plot of "Beauty and the Beast" this July for an updated, live-action version called "Beastly"? Really, Hollywood? Now Disney?
At least Tim Burton had enough respect for Disney that in "Alice in Wonderland" he cast such aficionados as Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, but "Beastly" stars Mary-Kate Olsen as the evil witch.
No. Not acceptable.
Let's face the facts here, people. How many movie remakes have won Best Picture at the Academy Awards over the years? Don't think too hard, because the answer is none.
I'm sorry if this editorial makes me sound like that crotchety old woman who just doesn't understand kids these days, but it's the way I feel.
And I know that no amount of complaining is going to change the fact that the economy is terrible, therefore less people are going to movie theaters and Hollywood has to compensate in any way they can.
However, you can rest assured that you'll never see me standing in line to see an Olsen twin ruin a classic Disney tale. Or any tale for that matter.
Unless of course it's during Free Movie Night. Like I said, I'm poor and I haven't been to the movies in a long time. t&c;
LINDSEY HOBBS IS A FRESHMAN JOURNALISM MAJOR AND IS THE NEWS EDITOR FOR THE t&c.;