When I was 13, I was in a production of "Beauty and the Beast Jr.," and acted as Knife #4 and “Fish Lady.” It was a magical production, and I spent so much time watching the classic Disney cartoon (in preparation for my three word line, “Is he dangerous?!” which to this day stands to be the highlight of my acting career) that I grew a love for the movie that, while most develop in their early youth, I developed in my 8th grade year of middle school. The music, the singing, the animation- all of it was incredibly magical, and it still stands to be one of my favorite movies to date.

Friday evening, I fulfilled my very-late-birthday wishes and went to see the highly anticipated live-action version of "Beauty and the Beast," starring America’s British Sweetheart Emma Watson, alongside a remarkable cast including the likes of Ewan McGregor and Stanley Tucci among others. I was incredibly excited, and while I went in with high hopes, I left feeling, while not disappointed, rather somewhat incomplete. Aside from the feeling of discomfort I experienced from seeing a real woman fall in love with a somewhat real CGI monster-buffalo, which was much more creepy and bestial having not been done in classic Disney Animation, I also felt the only feeling I seem to ever have after seeing a remake of an incredible film. "It just, I don’t know, wasn’t as good as the original!" *elongated sigh*

This is why I am now living by the firm belief that:

MOVIES SHOULD NOT BE REMADE.

This is especially applicable to movies that were great to begin with. And while I can’t say the same about the remakes currently under production of "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" and "Smurfs,"which weren’t particularly timeless classics when first produced, I still don’t see the necessity in remaking a movie. It’s an uncreative attempt at drawing consumers in to buy tickets to see something they already (or will presumably) love, and as the saying goes, perhaps we should just “leave well enough alone.”

I recently heard about the release of a new "Spiderman" movie. Not the one with Andrew Garfield, or the one previous to that with Toby Maguire, but an entirely new movie with an entirely new Spiderman (played no doubt by some form of teenage eye candy hired to lure in non-comic-book-movie fans) and an entirely new cast. Let me note that this is not the same as making a movie with multiple sequels, which I believe to be a whole other realm of undesirable and unnecessary. Instead, it is a similar premise played over and over again in hopes of gaining another group of admirers and, with that, hopefully, box office success. While it makes sense, if everyone was unnerved by the 2002 production of "The Ring," why not use our new, contemporary technology to remaster the classic horror film into something even scarier?

Some might argue that we shouldn’t remake movies simply because we could be making new movies, with new premises, using our new technology, to make something completely new. Instead, producers funnel money into certified blockbusters, and it’s no wonder: "Beauty and the Beast" grossed over 600 million dollars since opening, and counting. There’s little to no guaranteed money in creativity- anyone with a liberal arts degree can tell you that. In contrast, there’s almost always money in throwing celebrities and a beloved story onto a screen with proper advertising.

Certainly nobody needed another "Beauty and the Beast," or another "Wicker Man," for that matter (not that it grossed much, but I often wonder what left directors with the desire to remake that movie, and do it with Nicholas Cage). But they did it, and sure enough, it made money, and sure enough people will continue to do it until there’re no more movies to be remade. Nobody was on the edge of their seats, waiting for yet another "Smurfs" movie to come to fruition, but undoubtedly swarms of young children and their nostalgic grandparents will flood the theaters. And this implements what has always been the foundation on which movie production is built — money will be made.