There are some terrific films that have been made over the years that were actually remakes. Films like Scarface, The Fly, Lord of the Rings and Ocean’s Eleven are just a couple of examples that prove that remakes CAN work if done right…. just like any other movie project.
I’m one of those people who doesn’t mind the idea of remaking an older film. Yes, it has the potential of sucking… but so does every movie. However, when approaching remakes, I believe there are 4 “rules” or prerequisites that a film should meet in order for a studio to consider producing a remake of it. Here they are:
1) The original has to have a good story
I know that sounds too simple to even mention here, but you’d be surprised. What would be the point of remaking “Freddy Got Fingered”? Story is the base foundation of everything, if the original didn’t have it… then don’t bother.
2) Majority of current audience hasn’t seen the original
This is a big one to me. The strongest argument for doing a remake (to me anyway) is to bring a great story to a modern audience that otherwise wouldn’t have seen it. Yes, they could always go to the Blockbuster and rent it… but there is no debate that most people don’t do that… so why not bring it to them? That being the case, it makes no sense to do a remake if most of the current movie going audience has seen the original. Films like Godfather, Star Wars ect. have been seen by most people (although the number is dwindling now finally) so you wouldn’t be bringing them anything they haven’t already seen for the most part.
3) Original has to be at least 20 years old
I think before a film should be considered for a remake, a legitimate buffer of time between when the original came out, and when you propose to do the remake. This rule is related to rule #2, but if no one saw a great movie that was just out 13 years ago… then chances are you should just leave it alone for a few more years before remaking it.
4) The story would benefit from a modern telling
You have to adapt material moving it from one era to another. The question is can that adaption be made into a modern context, or in the same context but benefit from modern filmmaking techniques and technologies? For example, could the story of Ocean’s Eleven benefit be transporting it into a modern casino context? YES. Or Lord of the Rings. Could it benefit changing mediums from animated to live action utilizing today’s technology to enhance the storytelling? Obviously YES. On the other hand, a film like “The Three Amigos” shouldn’t be remade (yet) because the story as it is and the context in which it was told wouldn’t benefit from an update at all. Undoubtedly at some point it WILL… but not right now, even though it’s more than 20 years old, is a hilarious story and SADLY most people today haven’t seen it.
I think if a film meets these 4 criteria then it’s a prime candidate to be remade… hopefully for the better. Earlier today I wrote that the Hellraiser remake seems to be back on. To me, it meets all the above “rules” and therefore a good one to do. Does that mean it will WORK? Obviously not… but it does mean it’s worth the try.
So what do you think? Would you add any more “rules” or criteria to my list?
Say John,
What would your rules be for Hollywood remakes of foreign language films? I think The Departed has already been mentioned above already... which is nice, because I was starting to think that they'd made a rule that only asian horror films could be remade...
God knows the opposite's been happening for years; but it's actually really interesting seeing the stories adapted for local audiences. IMHO, that would be my no 1 rule for such remakes, the story should be able to be adapted well to suit western audiences. what say you?
I think they should remake Eragon, i know it is not very old at all, but they slaughtered the book with the movie, they need to completely start over and do the actual story not the complete offstretch that came, the only redeemable part of Eragon was the few good actors like Jeremy Irons as Brom Or Ajihad portrayed by the talented Djimon Hounsou, if New Line would remake this properly they would make ten times what they put into it on the movie scores of fans would see it, we dont care if they have to split it into several films or a long film many fans will flock to a chance at a good representation, if the other books are to be made into movies, then the original must be remade
I would up that time frame to maybe 30s years... I think allot of knowing when and when not to remake a movie has mostly to do with intuition. Scarface and The Fly worked because the movies in which the were based have a completely different approach and aim. While the talks of a Nightmare on Elm Street remake and a Videodrome remake (while still in your legal time frame) just seem like bad ideas. In Nightmares case its because its a tired franchise that people of all ages are still being introduced to. While in the case for movies like Videodrome, Wicker Man, and Last House on the Left it just seems like these movies were already such a timeless and artful statement on there own and they are so connected to the creator that a remake would be pointless. This is also the case for the Psycho remake. And as far as their never being a Three Amigo's remake, didn't Tropic Thunder get pretty close?
Just like Merian C. Cooper did in ‘33, I too am adapting this fantastic novel into film form once more. But does it mean I am remaking ‘King Kong’? No! That has already been remade, and perfectly, IMO, by Mr. Jackson. I am merely re-adapting Lovelace’s novel for the first time since 1933
A story is not a thing you can set in stone. Each generation takes away something different and adds to it in their re-telling. The rule #4 is key, the remake has to take one of the themes or ideas and relate it to current issues. Examples brought by Brian T were good; "The Thing from another World" -50s and "The Thing"-80s have the same premise, but completely different takes and social themes, where as "Psycho" was the same movie. Some movies can't be remade as their surprise endings were the movie; "Psycho"-Norman is his mother, "Sixth Sense"-he is a ghost, and "PotApes"-he is on Earth. These movies probably would not be considered great without them and without the surprise, the storytelling is diminished. I thought someone would be remaking "Logan's Run" by now; a culture focused on the young, socially isolated by tech, looking for the next big thing, seems more real now.
ooohhh does that mean Alien, Aliens and other such superb films can be remade. oh yes :)
My first and foremost rule that NO ONE FOLLOWS, but they SHOULD: remake a movie that was ALMOST great. There are SOOOOOOO many movies out there that you watch and say, "Wow, that was so close, but messed up by adding/omitting/diverting from this or that." Movies that had a good premise or main characters or story but fizzled at some point. Take the ALMOST worthies and make them great! C'mon, I DARE YOU.... Take the challenge, moviemakers!
Taking a BELOVED movie and remaking it is just ASKING for failure 99.9% of the time.
Hi! I agree that LOTR is not a remake. Whether John thinks they are or not, the main thing we should draw a conclusion from is what Peter Jackson, the film-maker himself, has said.
He has said countless times that his films aren't remakes of the Bakshi film. He has said that his films were complete adaptions of the books. So therefore, PJ's LOTR Trilogy isn't a remake!
Even PJ's 'King Kong' wasn't a remake of the 1976 film, although the 1976 was a remake of the original just like Jackson's!
I am writing a spec-script for an adaption of Delos W. Lovelace's 1932 'Kong' novel, the story that was adapted into film form, which, is now what we fondly know as the 1933 classic version of 'King Kong'. But just like Merian C. Cooper did in '33, I too am adapting this fantastic novel into film form once more. But does it mean I am remaking 'King Kong'? No! That has already been remade, and perfectly, IMO, by Mr. Jackson. I am merely re-adapting Lovelace's novel for the first time since 1933. None of the remakes have re-adapted the novel, no matter how much they took from it. My script will be the only re-adaption since 1933.
See, it's all about the intention of the film-makers! Peter Jackson could've said, "I am going to remake that horrible Bakshi cartoon and make millions!", but he didn't. He said, "Hey! I've got a great idea! The children of today need the option to fall in love with Tolkien's work! So let's adapt LOTR to film-form! Bakshi? Who's Bakshi?". No intention to remake Bakshi's film. Therefore, not a remake.
John, I am sorry for not replying for so long.
Thing is, you never wrote the rules to Hollywood and what defines a remake.
And I love how you say that I cannot use semantics, but you do yourself. I love the irony, John. Thanks for the laugh.
Sorry Clayton, but you're incorrect.
It doesn't matter what Peter Jackson says. If Peter Jackson says the movie was made without cameras and only used the power of his mind... that doesn't make it true.
You're over complicating the issue here. In the question of "is it a remake" all you have to ask is this:
Was a Lord of the Rings film made before?
If the answer is yes, then that's it. End of discussion. You can try to use semantics all you want, but the bottom line is, it was MADE before. This one may be new, it may be really different... but it is STILL a remake. Period.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not remake The Warriors or Revenge of the Nerds and with that said Romancing the Stone....are we that out of ideas that we need to hijack these originals.....the Longest Yard is the best example of something not needing a remake....COME ON ALREADY
Theres a problem here
there was a Scarface movie made in 1932, but it had nothing to do with the 1983 version. Yeah they both are about mobsters(i guess)but the 1932 has nothing to do with a cuban making a name for himself in america. therefore i don't think it's counted as a remake
About splitting hairs--let's not be too hasty. Lengthwise, across, on the bias, center, off-center, all issues to consider. However, remaking classics--that's insane. Remake Casablanca, Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai, The Searchers, Music Man (case in point), Gone With the Wind, The Shining, Patton, Singin' in the Rain, North by Northwest and some others already mentioned--you gotta' be kidding! Sure, go ahead, let them make fools of themselves, but anyone who does should be suspended from movie-making for ten years--and made to write a 500-word essay on why the original was so much better than their attempt. Classics CAN'T be made better, only different, usually worse. A classic represents a combination of factors impossible to duplicate. Instead of making junk knock-offs, MAKE NEW CLASSICS!
They gotta stop doing remakes of foreign movies, like Vanilla Sky, that was a piece of shit compared to the original spanish version. Now they're remaking Old Boy, oh jeeezuz, they should only remake it if had a crappy screenplay, actors, director like the german movie Christiane F. - Wir Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo. Hollywood would've done a way better job on that.
Ocean's Eleven should've stopped at eleven, they keep making these stupid sequels to it. I'd like to see them turn The catcher in the rye into a movie, now that's a classic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remake
This should settle it.
Excerpted from wiki:
Not a remake
Some notable examples of films based on common material, but not considered remakes of each other:
* Any adaptation of a classic piece of literature, such as the plays of William Shakespeare, epic poetry (e.g. Beowulf, The Canterbury Tales, the works of Homer), stories from the Bible unless the makers specifically remade a previous film, such the 1956 Cecil B. DeMille version of The Ten Commandments, which was a remake of the first half of DeMille's 1923 silent version).
* Any adaptation of Alice in Wonderland: one important factor in this is that each adaptation either does or does not include sections from Through the Looking Glass.
* Any adaptation of the story of Peter Pan, including (but not limited to) the 1924 silent film, the 1953 Walt Disney animated version, the 2003 live-action version, and the 1991 Steven Spielberg film Hook (which, oddly enough, is a sequel to the J. M. Barrie story, but not a direct sequel to any previous film adaptation).
* The Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings films are adaptations of Tolkien's books, although they contain numerous homages to the 1978 Ralph Bakshi film. Neither Jackson's nor Bakshi's films bear any relation to the Rankin/Bass Hobbit and Return of the King.
* The 2003 film Hulk was not a remake of the 1978 TV series The Incredible Hulk, although it paid several homages to that adaptation. Similarly, the 2008 film The Incredible Hulk is neither a sequel nor a remake of the 2003 film, but owes much more to the TV series than its predecessor.
* The 2006 James Bond film Casino Royale is not a remake: the 1955 teleplay and 1967 satire aren't "official" Bond films (that is, made by EON Productions), and deviated sharply from the novel.
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/e4i13a66/petition.html
One of movie blogs founders has signed on you can too!
Ughhh, the problem is that they are remaking movies that aren't that old to start out with and don't need to be remade. Also, the list of good recent remakes compared to bad ones is ridiculously slanted towards the latter. Come on, "The Fog," "Black Christmas," "When a Stranger Calls," "The Haunting,""Psycho" . . . all of these were awful and the originals are way better.
Remakes I want to see.
Cleopatra: This one is old. Not many people remember it. The original wasn't all that good. The epic story of Cleopatra and Julius Ceaser could make one epic modern film.
Waterworld: Not so old, but most definitely forgotten. Movie would need a complete re-imagining, but imagine how cool it could be.
Tron: A gritty high concept Tron as directed in the style of Batman Begins, by a Chris Nolan type would be awesome.
Not really agree with "Original has to be at least 20 years old". I hope they keep making 'incredible hulk' until they get one I'd actually want to see.
John's four rules for remaking a movie are "right on the money"
for me. However, in my opinion, certain exceptions can and
should sometimes be made. I'd like to mention the forthcoming
remake of "A Nightmare on Elm Street". This is a movie that
arguably meets the standards of the 4 rules, definitely rules 1
and 3. The thing about “Nightmare” is that it’s so well known, or
Robert Englund has made Freddy so well known, that a new take
on the part will either be mind blowing or abysmal. Englund has
the Freddy fans (I’m one of them) in the palm of his hand, so a
new actor putting on the glove will have a lot of hard work to do.
With that said, Heath Ledger had a lot of work to do to step out
of Jack Nicholson’s shadow for The Joker, but he did it. I was
skeptical of Nolan initially casting the gay cowboy but fell in love
with “The Dark Knight” as well as Ledger’s portrayal of the clown
faced madman. Concerning remakes, you’ll always have
naysayer’s angry at “some Hollywood moneyman” ruining their
prized possession, but sometimes when you love a story it’s
worth seeing it from different perspectives. It won’t ruin the
original if it’s horrible and will add tremendous value to its
predecessor if it’s gold!
I whole heartedly agree. I just read that they are doing a remake of 'Poltergeist'. That goes under #4, as in why remake a movie that still stands up very well today-and will probably be inferior to its twenty-some year old sibling.
@Seeley: Blade Runner might be an excellent -- and marketable -- choice right now because Hampton Fancher and David Peoples excoriated a number of nowtimely subplots from the movie -- specifically the Global Warming and species extinction bits of the original novel. Bits and pieces show up from time to time in Scott's film, but you don't necessarily get the impression that the whole planet is dying and that everyone who could emigrate off-world already has.
In '>Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep', the Earth is basically a cesspool inhabited by genetic defects who were outlawed from emigrating. There were almost no animals left anywhere in PKD's novel: thus the synthetic snake. Deckert was also trapped in a loveless marriage, making his dalliance with Rachael all the more poignant.
A remake that better emphasized the planet's ecological destruction would just about turn the whole story on it's head -- think more 'Soylent Green' and a little less Sam Spade, though both of them are Detective stories.
Better yet, remake it under a new title to make it more marketable. That way, it wouldn't damage the stature of the original or piss-off Ridley Scott too much.
The end result would certainly be different enough for it to be evaluated on its own terms.
I'd have to agree with those who say LOTR is not a remake. Think of it like this, let's say Jackson never watched the seventies LOTR, then how would his trilogy be a remake if he had no idea of what he was remaking. In any case, they're only "remakes" of the books. Just two seperate adaptions. That's what I believe.
I really can't think of many remakes i'd be interested in seeing unless maybe it was a film that was originaly based on a book that expanded on the original story. I liked Freddy Got Fingered even though I definetly feel it should'nt get remade. I never saw the original but I thought the Night of The Living Dead remake was pretty good.
Does Ocean's Eleven fit into these rules? Whatever the case, I love the remake.
What if the Director decides to make a remake of his own movie like, Alfred Hitchcocks The Man Who Knew Too Much originally a british movie then he remade it in America....
Must admit some movies originals are heaps better and I hate how America has to remake a classic foreign movie because there too lazy to read the subtitles.....
Like Vanilla Sky... they remade it only a couple of years after the origianl spanish version... they even used the same actress...
Mozzerino-
Let's spend more time splitting hairs.
I'm thinking about remaking Eragon and Troy. More gore, and better acting
I have a few things to say...
First of all I am dying to see a remake of an old Lon Chaney, sr silent picture called The Unknown. One of the best silent pictures I've ever seen and it is 80 years old. Let's polish it up and get it to a broader audience. That is a prime suspect for remake potential.
Would anyone here consider Tin Man to be a remake of the original Wizard of Oz? I sure don't. They are both drastically different from the novel in vastly different ways. I wouldn't really even consider it an adaptation of the Lewis Carrol novel, but it is more that than a remake of the MGM picture. Remember stories are told from different angles without being direct rip-offs or remakes. Stephen King was inspired by Dracula to write Salem's Lot but I don't consider it a re-write even though both stories share a lot of common themes and incidents.
On the other hand I do consider the 2004 Salem's Lot a remake of the 1979 version. I like the Tobe Hooper version the best but I think it boils down to is the movie more popular than the book? In the case of Stephen King yes, Lord of the Rings not so much. The exception to this would be the two versions of The Shining. Stanley Kubrick deviated so much from the novel and actually, Stephen King himself chose to adapt his novel the way it should have been. He certainly didn't remake a movie that was an adaptation of his book, he filmed the book.
I usually don't go to remakes, but there are a few who worth your time and money
I think your definition of remake is hugely over-simplified. Ignoring the LOTR discussion, to call Casino Royale a remake is ludicrous by any standard. The first was a spoof that was a spiteful project from the producer that Cubby Broccoli beat to the rights of the rest of the Bond books, it had several James Bonds and a villain from the original book. The villain, the Casino and title are the only things that the films have in common.
I agree with the general sentiment of your "rules", a film should only be remade if you are intending to make a good film (not just cash in on nostalgia of an older audience, name/brand recognition of a younger audience). I'm not sure the specifics of your rules work. For instance you clearly think Ocean's Eleven was a good film (shallow star cameo filled fun, yes, good? em, no). The original isn't a great film either, but it has the cool of the Rat Pack, and seems like it was just an excuse for them to hang out with each other and get paid for it. Did the original have a good story? I've seen it a couple of times, and I can't even tell you what the story was, apart from "guys get together for heist in Vegas" (oh wait, they were in the war together, and there's a down beat anticlimactic ending, hmm that isn't in the remake? is it?).
The flip side of your rules: should "classics" get re-made? By your criteria, the answer would be yes, they have great stories, they're old enough, many (apart from devoted film buff freaks like ourselves) haven't seen them. But would Casablanca, The Third Man, The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane etc. benefit from a re-telling? I'm not suggesting that these things are sacrosanct. Howard Hawk's The Thing (from another planet) was a classic of it's time, John Carpenter's The Thing offered something more, a vision closer to the original source story (which was more achievable with the advances in effects).
On the other hand Van Sant's Psycho was pointless, adding colour, different cast and signature cloud shots in the middle of the shower scene. Personally I think a good remake of Psycho could have been made, because I think the original is Hitchcock's most overrated and one of his weakest films.
So at the end we get back to the nub of the matter, any film should set out to be a good film, but I would add that a remake should seek to live up to, or perhaps surpass the standard of the original. If we apply that criteria, then a lot fewer rubbish remakes would get made. But the green lights are from the accountants, remakes have an in-built marketing asset, and whatever sensible rules we want to come up with, they're unenforceable.
I don't think you can say LOTR is a remake, or that it isn't a remake for two reasons.
1.) We can't tell if Jackson would have made the trilogy if the animated movies never existed.
2.) Saying it is a remake disregards the book, saying it isn't disregards the original animated movies. Even though I doubt any of you will agree that Jackson took into consideration anything from the animated movies, I'd bet on he used the animated films for something.
I can't agree more with Rule #1, but I think it should apply to adaptations as well. If the book/video game/original foreign film were crap or just don't have a story line to stand on, chances are the Hollywood adaptations will be crap. The biggest example is Eragon, the book was a shoddy rip-off of LOTR, the movie was much worse.
The Lord of the Rings is not a remake. Sorry John it's not. Was Coppola's Dracula a remake of the hundreds or so other Dracula films that came before it? No it wasn't. It's a new adaption of the book. The word remake implies that the filmmakers are either using the older script as a base or other elements from the older version.
How about this rule? Do'nt bother doing it at all. Most remakes today are pathetic.
marc i agree!
I have to agree with Mozzerino and oldshell as well. Is Akira Kurosawa's Ran a remake of the version of King Lear made in 1909? Is The Lion King a remake of Laurence Olivier's Hamlet? I think not.
John I have to agree with Mozzerino. I think a remake is when a film takes inspiration and tries to recreated a film that already exists. Classic books and other high-profile stories which can be turned into film in a number of different adaptations are not remakes if they ignore the fact that another film of the book (etc) is made. For example Romeo and Juliet has been turned into film numerous times (10s of times). However, each subsequent version is not a "remake" of the first romeo and juliet film (imdb thinks this is from 1900), they are different directors' takes on a classic play, just as each theatre company that takes the play itself is not a remake of the first recital. Similarly in classical music each time a different composer and orchestra takes on a mozart piece (my knowledge gets hazy here) it is not a "Cover" of the original, but an adaptation/the composers take on a classic.
In summary, I think lord of the rings is a book so famous in its own right that a new version is not a cover or remake but an adaptation to film as a result of the book not the animated film.
*submits for film studies degree ;)*
This is the definitive term..If its a reimagining or readaption, it is a remake. just someone elses point of view of it..
So I guess by your criteria then Beowulf is a remake, because Canada made Beowulf and Grendel like last year, oh wait, Hollywood wasn't aware of it so it can't be a remake no?
Um, Hulk? That's 1 out of 4. Anyway, your list is a good start.
Am I the only one who doesn't care if Jackson's Lord Of The Rings was or was not a remake? Even if some authority on the subject defined it as a remake once and for all, would it impede your enjoyment of the movies? Would it make it any less of a movie?
I don't think it matters, and if John wants to consider LOTR a remake, it doesn't affect me.
I have to agree with Mozzerino and others who state that LOTR is not a remake. I think the key missing indgredient is intent. PJ did not set out to remake the animated version instead he used the novels as source material and adapted them for the big screen.
John would you consider a new Hobbit move to be a remake of the Rankin and Bass Hobbit?
Mozzerino is right - LotR is not a remake. Batman Begins is not a remake.
Both would have been filmed even if the earlier adaptations had never been made.
@Brian S - LOTR was the very definition of a remake. By your definition, if someone came along and made "Harry Potter" again in 5 years, it wouldn't be a remake. When obviously it was.
It's just plain and easy like John said. Was it made once already? Are they making it again? The rest is just changing the definition of remake to fit what you think it should say.
Sorry, but Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" is NOT a remake, at least by my definition of what a movie remake is, and that is: "A new film in which the majority of the material was based on a previous film." I would say that 95-99% of the material influence of Jackson's trilogy comes from the books, and not from the animated film (which was never finished anyway!). It has a few homages, but that doesn't make it a remake in the slightest.
Also, I agree that lesser known foreign films should be considered for remakes.
Also, I'd say that older films which are nearly universally considered "classics" should not be remade... do we really need a 21st century version of Citizen Kane, or Casablanca?
Another rule I would add:
Make it different from the original. An example of a remake that didn't do this: Psycho. The film makers intended to make EVERYTHING the same as the original version of Psycho. What's the point of that? Why even remake the film if all you're going to do is make an exact copy of the original? Add something new and give it your own style. Don't make the same movie over again.
@Seth:
You know something? I do agree with that- but can I take it one step further? Consider, if you will, what happens in those rare lapses of judgement, in which a well written story and characters are watered down /changed through the egos of an actor/actress, miscasting, or gets hurt by studio politics (good films that get buried because so-and-so fmr studio head worked on it...especially when that stuff went down in the 80's) ...or just plain old poor marketing/promotion.
The only downside is that...well...let's see...look at the recent "When A Stranger Calls". A remake of a dreadful film to begin with, not a big 'name' horror wise, as opposed to say, something like Motel Hell or My Bloody Valentine. (Both of which are current rumors in the remake mill, BTW) ...and it flopped. So...if someone wanted to remake...say..."NEKRomantik" (don't ask me why I'm thinking of this German cult film from '87 right now, please!) would a studio go to it? Or "Chopping Mall"?
Better shut up now, before someone out there gets funny ideas...
I would love to see remakes of I, Robot and the upcoming The Omega Man because neither of the recent versions share much in common with the source material beyond the title.
I agree with those saying LOTR's is not remake. Calling it a remake would suggest that the filmmaker saw the original cartoon or the bbc radio adaption, and thought "shit, I could do that better." He took it from the book... blah blah blah.
I disagree with 1-2, and think 3 is more of a guideline. Remakes work if they feel they can improve upon the original in some way, whether that be special effects (KING KONG) or story. I can't think of an example of a filmmaker actually doing something like this, but why wouldn't it work if a filmmaker saw FREDDY GOT FINGERED, and felt they could remake it into something better? I think people should start doing it with a lot of those old discount bin horror movies, like FANGS OF THE LIVING DEAD or whatever, rather than wasting their time on things like TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE which doesn't really need to be remake. #3 is kind of irrelevant, and maybe works better as a guideline rather than a rule.
How about Bladerunner
Hmmm....I would have to say...no.
For these reasons:
1) CGI Technology will only sparingly improve on the Blade Runner world. Blade Runner is noteworthy for the production design and the (dreamlike) appreciation for the model work. When we have had CG 'landscapes/cityscapes' in the past ten years, the visuals, "inspired" by Blade Runner, is seen only fleetingly.
It is still influential for filmmakers today. When 'Batman Begins' started up, Chris Nolan said to everyone 'Lets watch Blade Runner'.
2) Ridley Scott keeps restoring the darn thing and did so recently.
It's still pretty fresh in the minds of many for such reasons..
In fact..
3) Like Tron, released in the same year (1982) , it had a videogame 'sequel' (1997)
4) The late Philip K. Dick has stories that share common or simular themes. Hollywood would rather mine those, or so it would seem.
5) It is well established in the film (and the game, and in the KW Jeter sequel books) that Deckard isn't the "only" Blade Runner. Hence, a "sequel" (NOT counting the lame Paul WS Anderson directed 'Soldier', which allegedly takes place in the same BR universe) could focus on another Blade Runner, an Off World colony, etc. Heck, Gaff could be running the show now, and everyone dies. Or, an adaptation of the KW Jeter books if need be.
It is, of course, brung up now and then by Ridley Scott that a sequel could happen one day. If it does not pass, I think it still can be tapped for a cable series.
6) I think it is one of the older films that this generation is familiar with. Not that it means anything. I mean, folks knew Halloween. People know Jason of 'Friday The 13th'.
7) Not every hit or cult film older than 20 years needs to be remade. I mean, if we DID follow Gio's criteria, than why isn't Hollywood remaking 'Jaws' or 'Close Encounters Of The Third Kind'? Why isn't someone making 'Taxi Driver' right now? Is someone remaking 'Moonstruck"?
Now, all that said, there IS one small detail.
"Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?" was adapted 'into' Blade Runnner. There are a number of changes from the book to film- one being that the term 'Blade Runner' is never mentioned in the book(!) ...