For me, it's a case-by-case basis. There are some remakes, or "inspired-bys," I'd rather call some of them - that I truly love, such as Don: The Chase Begins Again. Many stories can be told lin many ways, either to entertain in a new way or to make dififerent points than were emphasized before. If either of those goals is successful, then I'm all for it. I read somewhere that playwright/director/screenwriter Neil LaBute, when asked about remaking The Wicker Man, said that his background in theater really shaped how he felt about multiple movie versions of the same story - because in theater, it's completely standard for many, many people to work with the same texts. I'd never even thought of that. Why do we have such different standards for film? (I'm not saying it's wrong to - I'm just curious.) I wrote a bit mroe about this when I first saw the new Don: http://bethlovesbollywood.blogspot.com/2006/11/forget-1978-original-what-about-nod-to.html

Basically, though, I think whether a movie is good has a lot more to do with what it creates/inspires/evokes than what it starts out with.

What bothers me about the plagiarism of existing films, whether from other countries or other regions in India, is that they are so often unacknowledged. I have no problem with Hindi cinema wanting to do a film that Tamil cinema did. But just say what the source is!

Side note: as for Umrao Jaan in particular, my understanding is that it was another movie adaptation of the novel, not a deliberate redo of the earlier movie.

@Beth: I have to agree with you. Filmmakers just don't feel they need to acknowledge directors of other Film Industries. Why? Because they think no one will know? Because they wont to avoid the costs associated with rights acquisition? Why why why?! But...you can't teach an old dog new tricks I guess....and the Indian Film Industry is a pretty old dog.

Yes you're right - Umrao Jaan would be considered an adaptation of the original novel not the earlier film (this is something many people commonly err in understanding).

-Aakash

I can't quite figure out how to phrase this, so bear with me.... The film industry may be an old dog, and I wonder how its habit of "borrowing" fits - or doesn't fit - with other creative industries? I've never heard of this happening in literature, visual arts, etc.; on the other hand, we've all read about it in film music.

I just saw Partner today. Although I knew from other online reviews that it was supposed to Bollywood's version of Hitch, I had no idea that some scenes would be direct copycats, almost line for line! I thought Partner was a poorly made film overall, but the play by play similarities to Hitch really sealed the movie's fate because it forced me to compare Salman and Govinda's performance with Will Smith and Kevin James'. And in my book, there was no comparison.

So I guess I would have to say while I'd be okay with Bollywood trying to take something that has been done already and do it their own way, it had better be either original enough to make it memorable or better than the first. If its not, there will be no reason to watch it again...As in Partner, the similarities are so strong that I may as well grab Hitch next time (since it was made better) and leave the other one on the shelf.

So, Aakash, you stated above that maybe the filmmakers think people won't make the connection... Funny because I was thinking the same thing while watching Partner today. I mean, do you really think they don't expect their viewers to notice? Don't you think that's insulting to fans of Bollywood? Or is it possible they really just do it all for fun, to tell things their own way? Just wondering what your take was, or what feedback you've seen or heard from other Bollywood lovers.