An irreverent, inclusive, alternative parenting community
Reeling Q&A Part 2: Remakes
When I trolled for questions, one of the things you wanted to know most was: What’s the deal with all of the remakes? Is Hollywood out of ideas?
The simple answer is: yes.
The more complex answer is: yes and no.
With the shiny new version of The Karate Kid threatening to sweep the leg of audiences, it feels like a perfect time to examine what’s truly up with all of the remakes.
Believe it or not, it’s all Michael Bay’s fault.
Really. I’m not just saying that because I loathe him as a filmmaker. The birth of the current remake boom can be tracked back to around 2001 when a study was done that revealed most of the 16-24 year olds had heard of the title The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but very few of them had seen the movie. Thus a slick new remake was shot (produced by Bay). It was released in 2003 and it made (ahem) a killing.
The main thing you need to understand about current Hollywood is that it’s completely risk-adverse. So when something works, like a remake of an old horror movie, studios are going to try to duplicate that success again and again and again. And in the early ‘aughts a lot of the remakes were made inexpensively and thus turned a profit. Studios caught on quickly that having a title with some pre-awareness gave them an advantage at the box office.
Movies have to compete with a lot of other media these days. Not only do we have 500 channels, but we’re able to view TV and movies on demand. Video games have become rich movie-like adventures. And let’s not forget about this thing called the internet. Attracting the attention of the average moviegoer has become an increasingly difficult and costly endeavor. Studios can easily spend more than double or triple a movie’s budget on what’s called P&A, prints and advertising.
Though math is not my strong suit, let’s crunch a few numbers: It costs about $2000 for each print of a movie made—that’s a copy of the movie sent to each theater playing the flick. The average movie is released on anywhere from 2000 to 4000 screens. On the low end that’s $4 million just to physically get the thing in front of audiences. But that doesn’t take into account the cost of TV ads, posters, trailers, etc.—all of the ways that Hollywood works to entice people to part with their $12 to see it. The bigger budget the movie, the more they will spend to advertise it. So it’s easy to see why from a business standpoint a remake ideally can cut through the clutter by delivering a title we already know.
All of this also explains why in the past few years we have not only been treated to remakes, but movies based on anything with a pre-existing title from TV (GI Joe, Transformers), comics (Garfield, Marmaduke), video games (Prince of Persia), amusement park rides (Pirates of the Caribbean) and board games (the upcoming Battleship).
It seems hard to believe now, but many people were thinking that Avatar was going to be a flop solely based on the fact that it was an original idea and not part of a franchise or based on something familiar. Thankfully, over a billion dollars in box office proved them wrong, thus proving that audiences don’t necessarily care about pre-awareness as much as the studios seem to think we do.
Because the business in “show business” is the dominating factor in which movies get made, I don’t think we’re going to see less of the remakes, reboots or retreads. Like with all movies, some of them are going to be good flicks that re-energize a franchise, like Star Trek, and some of them are going to be completely unnecessary, bad movies like A Nightmare on Elm Street.
If you’re sick of all of the remakes, the best thing you can do is vote with your wallet. To borrow from the Simpsons, “If you stop paying attention to the monsters, they'll lose their powers.” And if you are amongst the people who can’t stand remakes, remember this—just because somebody remade a movie you love, it doesn’t erase the existence of the original.
The simple answer is: yes.
The more complex answer is: yes and no.
With the shiny new version of The Karate Kid threatening to sweep the leg of audiences, it feels like a perfect time to examine what’s truly up with all of the remakes.
Believe it or not, it’s all Michael Bay’s fault.
Really. I’m not just saying that because I loathe him as a filmmaker. The birth of the current remake boom can be tracked back to around 2001 when a study was done that revealed most of the 16-24 year olds had heard of the title The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but very few of them had seen the movie. Thus a slick new remake was shot (produced by Bay). It was released in 2003 and it made (ahem) a killing.
The main thing you need to understand about current Hollywood is that it’s completely risk-adverse. So when something works, like a remake of an old horror movie, studios are going to try to duplicate that success again and again and again. And in the early ‘aughts a lot of the remakes were made inexpensively and thus turned a profit. Studios caught on quickly that having a title with some pre-awareness gave them an advantage at the box office.
Movies have to compete with a lot of other media these days. Not only do we have 500 channels, but we’re able to view TV and movies on demand. Video games have become rich movie-like adventures. And let’s not forget about this thing called the internet. Attracting the attention of the average moviegoer has become an increasingly difficult and costly endeavor. Studios can easily spend more than double or triple a movie’s budget on what’s called P&A, prints and advertising.
Though math is not my strong suit, let’s crunch a few numbers: It costs about $2000 for each print of a movie made—that’s a copy of the movie sent to each theater playing the flick. The average movie is released on anywhere from 2000 to 4000 screens. On the low end that’s $4 million just to physically get the thing in front of audiences. But that doesn’t take into account the cost of TV ads, posters, trailers, etc.—all of the ways that Hollywood works to entice people to part with their $12 to see it. The bigger budget the movie, the more they will spend to advertise it. So it’s easy to see why from a business standpoint a remake ideally can cut through the clutter by delivering a title we already know.
This was the problem facing the new Karate Kid. Though always conceived as a remake, the new story places Daniel…excuse me...places Dre in China where Mr. Miyagi…I mean Mr. Han teaches him kung fu. For a while the movie was going to be called The Kung Fu Kid. But where’s the brand awareness in that? So despite the inaccuracies of the title, it remained The Karate Kid.
All of this also explains why in the past few years we have not only been treated to remakes, but movies based on anything with a pre-existing title from TV (GI Joe, Transformers), comics (Garfield, Marmaduke), video games (Prince of Persia), amusement park rides (Pirates of the Caribbean) and board games (the upcoming Battleship).
It seems hard to believe now, but many people were thinking that Avatar was going to be a flop solely based on the fact that it was an original idea and not part of a franchise or based on something familiar. Thankfully, over a billion dollars in box office proved them wrong, thus proving that audiences don’t necessarily care about pre-awareness as much as the studios seem to think we do.
Because the business in “show business” is the dominating factor in which movies get made, I don’t think we’re going to see less of the remakes, reboots or retreads. Like with all movies, some of them are going to be good flicks that re-energize a franchise, like Star Trek, and some of them are going to be completely unnecessary, bad movies like A Nightmare on Elm Street.
If you’re sick of all of the remakes, the best thing you can do is vote with your wallet. To borrow from the Simpsons, “If you stop paying attention to the monsters, they'll lose their powers.” And if you are amongst the people who can’t stand remakes, remember this—just because somebody remade a movie you love, it doesn’t erase the existence of the original.
-
Comment by mcglory13 on June 8, 2010 at 5:27am -
In some cases I'd love to see a remake because I think the first one "got it wrong," but I have no faith a modern version would be better. Case in point, I'd love to see one of the many Oz remakes they're contemplating be much more true to the book, at least in philosophy and politics, but I seriously doubt that's gonna happen (judging by Alice in Wonderland).
-
Comment by Mamawho on June 8, 2010 at 6:19am
-
McG, I love the Oz books, so I'd love an Oz do-over.
Thanks for this analysis! I'm happy to pin anything on Michael Bay. I don't like him much, for some reason, even though I count a few of his movies among my guilty-pleasure favorites.
I was also thinking that with a war on two fronts and economic uncertainty, stories that folks are already familiar with might be a bit comforting and unchallenging, but that goes back to what you were saying about Hollywood being risk-averse.
And, there's nothing new under the sun. At least according to a very old piece of Hebrew poetry.
-
Comment by hermit crab on June 8, 2010 at 6:29am -
The only movie I've been excited about seeing in the last several years was Star Trek. Before that, I was probably last truly excited to see The Lord of the Rings movies. Add me to the group of data points that only want to see movies where we already know the plots.
-
Comment by Meghan on June 8, 2010 at 6:31am -
mcg try Return to Oz, it was one of my favorites when I was a little girl, though, it may be a bit campy.
Also the SyFy channel is coming up with some fun remakes. The husband and I thought Tin Man was mostly good (Wizard of Oz continuation), and I loved Alice which is a revisit to Alice in Wonderland.
-
Comment by mcglory13 on June 8, 2010 at 6:59am
-
Meghan, I love Return to Oz, it is MUCH more like the books. In fact I was just telling my spouse about it's superiority last night. Apparently many people found it terrifying as a kid, but since I'd read the books it didn't bother me at all. They're currently developing a number of Oz related projects (Robert Downey Jr. as the Wizard is one current pitch) and all of them sound dreadful. I mean, Robert Downey Jr. is really hot in a I-wouldn't-like-his-crazy-ass-in-real-life kind of way, but that's not the wizard. I didn't care for Tin Man, though I tried to watch it, and that dissuaded me from Alice. My favorite version of Alice is the one with Carol Channing and a bunch of other stars that was a tv miniseries a decade (or 2) ago.
-
Comment by mcglory13 on June 8, 2010 at 7:00am
-
alas, wrong use of its and no ability to edit
-
Comment by zenmom on June 8, 2010 at 8:51am -
This was very informative. Thanks!
I don't have anything against remakes in general: Some of them can actually be good. But I think it's sad that Hollywood is so averse to trying out new ideas.
I love Shakespeare's plays. I've seen dozens and dozens of "remakes" of his dramas and comedies: Some done in a very traditional manner, others in new, modern or imaginative re-settings or re-tellings. I take something different away from each well-done remake and I almost always enjoy the innovations. They do not, for me, diminish the original.
I still think people should see the "classics" in a traditional production. (And they should read them, too, but hat's a whole different discussion.) I mean, there is a reason that they make such great source material: Because they were SO good to start with. But if one of these "remakes" delivers the story and message in a "new" way to a new audience, I can't really see that as a bad thing.
But, as much as I personally love The Bard, life would be pretty boring if the only plays produced out there were just remake after remake of those classics. I would really miss getting to explore new stories and ideas.
For similar reasons, I don't mind it so much when Hollywood recycles GOOD old movies or tv shows (though I sometimes wonder why they choose the ones they do). But I think it's sad that they are so focused on producing what's "familiar" to audiences. I bet we are missing out on a lot of great movie ideas that Hollywood is afraid to take a risk on while they go back to the "comfort food" trough again and again.
-
Comment by StitchyWench on June 8, 2010 at 10:39am -
Love the post. I've been slowly getting back in to the movie going world, now that my daughter is old and mature enough to watch her brother while we go out on date nights with enough regularity that I no longer feel cheated if it is spent at a movie theater. Not that there is anything wrong with a movie theater, but when you never get alone time with your spouse, it kind of sucks to sit somewhere where you can't talk for the majority of the time you are together.
Anyway, having a husband in marketing I totally get why the industry wants to make the high probability sales job. It's hard to convince somebody they will love a movie that is a true work of art, complete with an original story - when you can tell them they already know they are going to love this movie because it is a story they know, with actors they love.
-
Comment by Boring User Name on June 8, 2010 at 6:14pm -
Please don't tell me that The Karate Kid remake sucks. I want to see it! Although I prefer Jackie Chan when he's dubbed ala Rumble in the Bronx.
Comment
© 2012 Created by Offsprunger.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Offsprung to add comments!
Join Offsprung