Are we all more forgiving towards music covers than to movie remakes?

This is like apples and oranges. Apple and oranges might both fall under fruit. Like both Music and Movies fall under media. However they are different enough where you cant really make a fair comparison. Though I want to point out a cover being remade by several people is more the less the same no matter who makes it. A lot of movie remakes can change core aspects of the story-line that totally alters the feel, the story-line, or the characters. There is something you can compare this too but they are not really REMAKES in my opinion. They are films that follow the same story and only change things like the actor. Like they might have grudge the same in japan and in America but one has American actors and one movie is japan actors. Regardless its the same script, same people ecs. They did not try to make the story better. So a better comparison would be broad way and plays.

I am, a bad song cover is a few mins of unpleasantness whereas a bad remake is hours of annoyance, plus I'm going on past experience, I can think of several song covers I like but I'm struggling to think of a single remake\reboot thatni actually liked, plus, when an artist covers a song I assume it's because they like the song, the song means something to them and they want to give it their own twist, but remakes tend to have none of the heart of the original films, they tend to be a cynical hollow cash grab

The only thing that bothers me about song covers is when people don't realise its a cover, I know it shouldn't though, I knew a girl who refused to believe that skinny love wasn't actually a birdy song and it drove me nuts for some reason

I don't really have any emotion toward song and movie remakes. If they're good, I'll watch and listen. If they're bad I just forget about them.

Great poll and it's certainly food for thought. I love talking about this stuff, so novel incoming:

Like with many things, covers/remakes/reboots keep things fresh and whether or not they're necessary/unnecessary is ultimately in the eye of the beholder.

I think it's certainly more socially accepted for song covers than film remakes/sequels/reboots. It may sound strange but length may have something to do with it. A song is something one gets lost in for a few minutes while a film can be potentially more engrossing with more details spread over multiple hours.

I think purists would almost refer to remakes or reboots as the equivalent of a sample, or hearing an older song's chorus in a newer song, like Fall Out Boy did to the hook of Suzanne Vega's "Tom's Diner" in their song "Centuries". Many fans of the original song wouldn't care to hear it being used in another song entirely.

On the other hand, film remakes aren't all that bad. At the very least, they expose a good story to a newer audience. Mostly it's because of the almighty dollar or because the original source material is in a language other than English. However, many people are up in arms over a live-action American "Akira" because the original story is almost quintessentially Japanese. There may be philosophical reasons behind a film getting remade.

It also might conflict with something many people already see as perfect. While no one told Madonna to remake "American Pie", no one complained as loudly when The Byrds decided to give an electric spin to Bob Dylan's "Mr. Tambourine Man" in the 1960's. Many consider their version the more memorable version. Aretha Franklin's signature song, "Respect", is actually a slightly remade version of an already-awesome song by Otis Redding.

What I'm trying to get at is, yes, works of music and film are almost designed to get remade. It's the nature of art. Will fans be happy? Yes and no, but it's at least a way for more people to hear about a song or film and see for themselves. Sometimes it's best to keep an open mind.