...
Why does a remake or reboot "ruin" anything? How come a film that is a remake and is BETTER not retroactively make the preceding film better? You never hear that do you? Why? Cuz it would be a pretty ****ing stupid thing to think and say, wouldn't it? Like... Inferior to the reasoning of a young child, no?
As an example... There are few that in all honesty think Frank Sinatra's Ocean's 11 is great shakes as a film. It's not bad but it really only was remembered for that emsemble. The movie itself is rather middling despite all the talent. Now the Clooney film is one of the best, coolest, fun and stylish films of the last 20 years. IT is. It's quality doesn't reflect back on the Sinatra version. It doesn't make it a better film somehow. And if the Clooney film sucked it wouldn't have added some kind of extra demerits to the Sinatra version.
I don't get this mindset among people over the age of 21... I wouldn't get it over the age of 16!
And as for saying a film "Doesn't exist" because a new version comes out as a reboot... I mean... In universe? Uh... Yeah. How this somehow translates into valid aggrievement is beyond my reasoning capabilities. Since in the reality we all actually share... The past film still exists to be enjoyed whenever a fan wishes to see it if they so choose.
And no... This isn't pedantic in the least to point this all out given the language used and emotions this always engenders in some corners.
Ya'll have the right to get your Irish up about these things... And I think others are well within their rights to point out the faulty logic used to underpin the arguments against these films.