My boyfriend sent me the trailer for the new Halloween movie with the message "This looks terrible."

I'll admit I couldn't bring myself to watch it. John Carpenter's first Halloween movie is very close to me because it was probably one of the first movies I watched with my dad that then set us off on being film buffs together. Or more likely made me join in on the buffness.

Then there was the absolute rejection from my boyfriend (who loves Star Wars) towards the new Solo movie. Even if from the look of it, it wasn't terrible, I definitely couldn't blame him for not wanting to see it. There was a boycott for the movie since no one wanted to see a prequel that did not involve Harrison Ford even if it meant they would get an extra extension into the universe they cherish so.

I could mention all the Disney live-actiom remakes of our childhood animated feature films currently in the works (again totally uncalled for) or the two Jungle Book movies hitting theatres in rapid succession.

These examples beg the question: why is Hollywood so afraid to lose a little money to come up with something original?

It is sort of counterintuitive to give something to the masses with the sole purpose of raking millions in that there's no demand for. Or at least a select few care for. It is a wonder that in the heart of capitalism this is not something studios are aware of. Why make a movie for a minority group and expect it not to flop against the throngs who oppose its very existence?

By now they have realised that the power is with the fan base of celebrated franchises. This is what essentially they're building right now. What they forget is one does not have to remake movies for movies to have a cult following or a fan base. Had they not noticed, I'm going to articulate it now: movies do not lose their quality over time. Once well made, they do quite well on the test of time. (Or they're so bad they're good and establish one years after its plummet—see The Room.)

No wonder there are no remakes for Citizen Kane, by Orson Welles, Kubrick's 2001:Space Odyssey, Ingmar Bergman's Persona, or Fellini's La Dolce Vita. Let this be on account of the niche viewership or simple disinterest nevertheless had they attempted to remodernise them the effort would probably be crowned by failure since the original was already a masterpiece in itself.

All above-mentioned are original stories that are still hailed for their value, message, atmosphere and meaning while they remain unique, timeless and beautiful. They do not cease to communicate with the viewer just because they're considered old. They talk to an innate quality that resides in humans that does not change, they take up topics that when discussed will ring true to any ear that is willing to listen.

While this exists still at independent festivals that hold merit such as Sundance, the Venice Biennale and Cannes (although latter unfortunately less and less so), Hollywood has become a prostitute to the profit.

Actors love independent movies. That's where they find the roles that challenge them. Now with the rising quality of television series they tend towards more fulfilling roles that also provide quite a substantial sum. However I do not see why this would be a competition for a compelling feature film. I feel that Hollywood has quit being daring and is afraid to talk about matters of importance. One can recite the typical movies that the Academy praises and make the selection each year: one that makes you feel bad about being white, a Holocaust or Nazi-Germany movie, a biopic and a period drama if it isn't the same as the Holocaust/Nazi-Germany movie. There are some contenders about marriages, some about relationships that enjoy more diversity and lately LGBTQ issues and mental health issues were targeted as well—which is indubitably great. These unfortunately are rarely the winners.

One cannot help but feel like they're only ticking boxes these days by revamping loved stories—that no one asked for. As if they weren't good enough in the era or period they came out. Just because world views change that doesn't mean a work of art produced in a different socioeconomic climate is flawed. It is a reflection of the contemporary views which we should appreciate since it is a time capsule for the upcoming generations.

We do not need to refurbish everything to satisfy the SJWs. They will never be satisfied. I had a lengthy debate about Friends being racist, ageist, homophobic, and about it having toxic-male tendencies for a couple of times. It does not. It reflects upon the daily lives of some quite well-to-do thirty-somethings and their shenanigans. It is beyond me to see how including gay characters as the ex wife of one of the main characters is homophobe or making Rachel relive her only lesbian experience can be considered hateful. Not to mention that the people of colour featured in the series are a university professor, an agent in a leading position, and really attractive women. I doubt these are derogatory in relation to anyone.

People liked the series because of the characters. I do not know about you but I was never discouraged to identify with Pocahonats or Mulan when I was a little girl just because her skin colour differed from mine. I never not looked up to gay men or women for their sexuality. It is the character and the story that matters, it is the personality that defines a person.

It is fundamentally faulty to only bring back and ruin masterpieces with sequels or remakes because people who have watched it now complain about the lack of diversity in the roster of characters. SJWs make a case for the exact thing they allegedly want not to happen—to focus more on sexuality, gender, and ethnicity, instead of intelligence, courage and even human fears and flaws. By employing characters to tick the box of person of colour, non-heterosexual, female without the character contributing to the storyline is not just lazy writing but it is a mistake and a greater offense since it makes the character a token and not a person. I think we can agree that in that instance the character is best not written into the storyline since there's no possibility of it becoming a full-fledged interesting part of the story-arch hence cannot represent a group of people realistically.

I would only like to add to the sentiment that the forthcoming generations should be introduced to old classics as the base-line for the campaign of mostly subpar sequels and remakes that we're going to watch the old movies anyway. They're there. They're better. They don't need to be changed.

People will love a movie because it's well made, because they saw it with someone they loved, because it reminds them of their childhood or because it is teeming with interesting characters. We don't need studios to tell us what we should like or want to watch. Most remakes have proven that more crap will not turn into gold despite the name of a brand that rings with the promise of success.

Yes, we need diversity, but not to the detriment of old classics we love. There are plenty of originals waiting to be cult classics had Hollywood dared again and sought to abandon its dump it imagines to be an ivory castle.