For example, film remakes. You would think it would be easy to improve on an original, however most remakes are not seen as good, why? What else has a baseline (original) but is not improved with an update? And why?
As in ALL of the "sciences' . . . . "two steps forward . . . one step back"! This gives the 'appearance' of no improvement in the short-run (one step back), but there actually IS improvement in the long-run (two steps forward).
AND . . . here's my 'MATHEMATICAL PROOF': 2 (steps forward) - 1 (step back) = 1 (step forward) QED (<-- a little humor here for the mods and admin folks!)
Well that depends upon many things, I've seen some good remakes myself although not as many as there are bad remakes that's for sure. The reasons are many, low budgets, bad directors, poor script writers, bad scenery and on and on.
I think I would use the term innovation to describe the attraction movies have to the audience. Whatever is new or surprising to the viewer, especially the most unusual aspects, wlll be the most memorable. Then when the remake comes around, it has to try help the viewer relive the innovations, without actually repeating them, otherwise it would amount to a re-run. So variation is required, and this variation will need to contain innovation upon innovation. So that's hard to do. As to the second question: take two audio recorders with built in speakers and mics. Into #1, Record yourself singing 99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall :cheers:, with a fan running in the room. With the fan still running, iterate several times on the following: (1) Play #1, Record #2; (2) Play #2, Record #1; go to (1). The fidelity will drop, the noise level will increase, until at some point the recording is incomprehensible. Noise is (generally) any randomized amplitude. In this case the fan is the noise source. This is the example of additive noise , it's the most general reason when replicas are not only worse than the original, but they get progressively worse through successive stages of replication. In biology, aging can be attributed to the repeated recycling of DNA through cell replication.
There are two kinds of film remake. First, the remake of a good film. The motivation behind its conception explains why it is forever doomed. A good original film is a unique combination of a good story, directing, acting, editing, cinematography and soundtrack. It doesn't leave any space for improvement. As soon as it comes out, it becomes a building block of the culture of its time. Its audience create and cherish a myth around it because, just like any influential cultural product, it becomes a safe and comfortable reference point to help them define themselves. Therefore, a remake of a good original is an insult to the audience. It is a way of telling them that their taste and self require remake and improvement too. Audience don't think so. Audience love themselves just the way they are. Second, and more sensible one, the remake of a bad film with a good idea. It is doable and maybe necessary. Good creative ideas don't grow on the trees and their timelessness is what makes them good. They deserve a second chance and a better execution. But in order to do that, the film makers would distance themselves from the original in every aspect. That is why they tend to call it re-imagining, or adapting from the source material (there is always a source material other than the bad original film). They try to make a new original for the contemporary culture. They wouldn't like you to call it an improvement and thus attach it forever to a poor (original) film. Human condition. Why? I dunno.
