Remakes (Do they REALLY make that much money?)

[Jeremy Knox]

I just checked the numbers on the new Dawn. 43.3m and counting. Not bad, but not that great. It might herald the end of these pointless remakes.

Since studio people don't really understand much else, let's talk about it in money terms.

Dawn of The Dead 1978 cost 1.5m dollars to make and make a worldwide profit of about 40m dollars. That's a bit less than what Dawn 2004 made but look at the profit ratio. 26.6!!!! For Dawn 2004 to equal it's predecessor it would have to make 744m dollars worldwide. That's not including posters, stickers, DVD's, VHS, rentals and whatall. Can you imagine?

Dawn 2004 cost 28m and has made about 43.3m. It'll have a lifespan of about another 4 weeks I'd say so it should hit 150m worldwide by the time it exhausts itself. Not too shabby, but the profit ratio is 5.4

Dawn 1978 would have made 8m dollars worldwide if it had been as profitable as the remake. Which means that we wouldn't be talking about it today, because no one would have bothered to rerelease it in theatres or make a sequel or do any damn thing with it for that piss poor return.

Hell, to be honest I feel that Dawn 2004 is functionning merely as a commercial for the older film. I'm not saying the new one isn't worthy of praise. However, ten years or twenty years down the line it's still the original Dawn that people will watch, the new one will just be a companion piece for the completists.

A 2500% profit at the theatre, a legion of hardcore fans, an instantly recognizable brand name and a seemingly endless shelf-life.

Not bad for 1.5m smackers.

Sometimes I think studios are nuts not to take chances on lower budget films. They're like gamblers who toss their money on one turn of the roulette wheel. Anyone will tell you that it's the guy with his fingers in many pies that builds an empire, not the get rich quick asshole who manages to score tons of money one year ten has to sleep in his brand new Porsche the next. I can't fathom why the logic of investing in MANY low budget movies doesn't seem fiscally sound. Odds are damn good that you'll make your money back every time and by having a lot of properties one's bound to pay off big. Hell, the worst that could happen is that you lose a few mil. So what? Most studios lose
several HUNDRED millions every year on stupid projects that were doomed from the start. Not to mention that with low budget films you amass a talent pool of creative people that are going to be useful when you need new and exciting properties.

Again, this is something that took me ten seconds to realize. Why people in Hollywood are so stubborn about it is a mystery to me. Of course, there is the fact that it's harder to line your pockets with funds from a 2 million dollar movie than it is from a 200 million dollar movie.

Hmm... maybe I've figured this out after all.

JK13

NOTE: Jeremy Knox is not a professional accountant, but merely good in math. His ideas and opinions are pulled out of his ass at random and may not be sound advice. Mr. Knox takes pains to make sure his figures are accurate but there is always a chance that they are not 100% correct. Nonetheless his views rock your world and you should all give him 1$.

[Furious D]

The real reason the studios will always do remakes and movie versions of old TV shows is that it seems safer to them than taking a chance on an unproven new idea.

It's a bastardized form of name recognition theory, that coupled with the fact that a small percentage do turn a profit, that creates the illusion that it's a worthwhile exercise.

It's another phenomena that I call a 'self-fulfilling idiocy.'

I'll crank more in the morning. Right now I need sleep.

[Rory L. Aronsky]

On the note of remakes:

Love Boat: The Movie (in the vein of The Brady Bunch Movie....run for your lives, now) (http://www.comingsoon.net/news.php?id=4024). I'll bet anything that Snoop Dogg signs up to play Isaac.

Fat Albert (http://www.comingsoon.net/news.php?id=4064) (Minus director Forest Whitaker, with the addition of Joel Zwick who directed "My Big Fat Greek Wedding", a shitload of sitcoms from the mid-1970s on, and an upcoming film called "Elvis Has Left the Building")

[automanic]

Has there ever been a remake that surpassed the original? (In quality, not in dollars.)

[El Duderino Diablo]

I'm still trying to think of a really good remake, I'm sure there's one out there somewhere...
In the meantime, automanic, I can't help but think that the caricature in your avatar bears a striking resemblance to Det. Meldrick Lewis from Homicide.

[Peter_Lowry]

Originally posted by automanic
Has there ever been a remake that surpassed the original? (In quality, not in dollars.)

If you were going to make a list of the best remakes ever made, it would have to include a 1941 Howard Hawkes comedy titled 'His Girl Friday' which starred Carey Grant, Rosalind Russell and Ralph Bellamy. This amazing movie is a remake of the 1931 film titled 'The Front Page'... and while the original is all right, His Girl Friday is ten times better because of its great acting and high speed dialogue. It's just unfortnuate that most of the remakes tha came out after this movie are all complete crap, especially 'Switching Channels' which was an 80's remake that starred Burt Reynolds.

Peter

[El Duderino Diablo]

By mentioning Howard Hawkes Peter just reminded me of The Thing. I'm not so sure I'd consider Carpenter's The Thing as a remake of Hawkes' which took an awful lot of liberties with the original source material but, in my humble opinion, Carpenter's version is the superior of the two.

[Ellen M.]

Originally posted by The Dude
In the meantime, automanic, I can't help but think that the caricature in your avatar bears a striking resemblance to Det. Meldrick Lewis from Homicide.

Holy crap Dude, you're right!
And I can't really think of a good remake.
In fact, I'm REALLY pissed that one of my favorite movies "Willy Wonka" is being remade!
Apparently there are just no fresh ideas in Hollywood anymore...

Ellen

[El Duderino Diablo]

Originally posted by Ellen M.
Apparently there are just no fresh ideas in Hollywood anymore...

Ellen

There's plenty of fresh ideas just an unwillingness to take a chance and see them through. It's just as D. said, the desperate pursuit of the ever elusive proven formula via hackneyed remakes and sequels.

[Seedy Edgewick]

There's a vicious cycle (circle?) going on among Hollywood studio execs.

As has been stated, filmmaking is a business. A film must turn a profit. The suits have decided that the best way to turn a profit is to jam-pack a film with stars (who demand large paychecks), special effects (which demand large paychecks) and re-hashed situations (which demand, well, middling paychecks but serve to further deaden the cultural landscape). In other words, bigger investment equals bigger profit.

Apparently, no one in Hollywood has read Roger Corman's book How I Made A Hundred Movies in Hollywood and Never Lost a Dime. Sure, Corman's flims are low-rent throwaways, but they always turned a profit. Turning a profit requires warm butts in seats, so there must have been enough of an audience to recoup expenses. Personally, I think most of Hollywood's output these days isn't much better than Corman's; the difference is that Hollywood can afford to pretty up the turd. But Corman proved that an ugly turn can still turn a profit.

Maybe someone can explain to me why a Hollywood studio wouldn't take a chance on an unknown property by unknown talent IF they make a minimal investment. "Sure, kid, you can make your movie. Here's $100,000." In this day of a "low-budget" flick costing $10 MILLION, $100K shouldn't make anyone blink. Hell, I bet that was the catering bill on LOTR. And, you just might be greenlighting the career of the next Kevin Smith or David Cronenberg.

Imagine the cost-cutting if the following occurred on a movie set:

Everyone brings their own lunch
Actors do their own makeup (stage actors do this all the time). Wouldn't count for appliances.
The director works the camera.
The designers implement their own designs (sets, costumes, lighting, etc.).

Maybe if a film wasn't seen as a massive cash cow, some of these ridiculous films wouldn't get make. Ernest Saves Christmas, anyone?

[Furious D]

Originally posted by Seedy Edgewick
Imagine the cost-cutting if the following occurred on a movie set:

Everyone brings their own lunch
Actors do their own makeup (stage actors do this all the time). Wouldn't count for appliances.
The director works the camera.
The designers implement their own designs (sets, costumes, lighting, etc.).



The unions would probably eat you alive.:eek:

And as for the Director operating the camera. I was trained in using pro-grade film equipment, but I lack the specialist talent needed to be a professional quality camera operator. I'm no Svend Nykvist, that's for certain. That's why I'll always need a D.P./Camera Operator.

But you do have a point. There are ways and means to save money behind the camera and not lose any quality on the screen. I read somewhere that HELLBOY and MONA LISA SMILE cost about the same budget wise. Now HELLBOY's an action/fantasy with lots of FX, make-up, and big set-pieces. MONA LISA SMILE is a small group of young women walking & talking in period dresses. Somebody, somewhere was wasting a lot of money somehow.

I once read one of J-Lo's contract riders for a five minute talk-show appearance. It cost the talk show over $100Gs.:eek:

First rule on saving money. No J-Lo.
;)

[Jeremy Knox]

I think the unions should make new rules governing the benefits/salaries of cast and crew on movies costing less than 2 million dollars (a movie being defined as a film lasting longuer than 60 minutes made expressly for theatrical or video release)

This would allow unions to make money as well since they'd be able to charge dues on people working non-union right now and it would help low budget people because they'd be able to work with union crews or cast and pay them less without raising hell.

People have to be realistic about this. Of course people should be paid top dollar on big budget films, but when you're doing something for almost no money, you simply can't afford unionized people. That means that even IF someone like Jack Nicholson wanted to be in your movie he couldn't since the union wouldn't let him. With an amendment to the rules like I wrote above this would change, yet at the same time the cast/crews would still be protected and no one would lose any money.

JK13

[judex]

Originally posted by Peter_Lowry
If you were going to make a list of the best remakes ever made, it would have to include a 1941 Howard Hawkes comedy titled 'His Girl Friday' which starred Carey Grant, Rosalind Russell and Ralph Bellamy. Peter

Old studio movies use to reuse the same source material almost as often as modern studios. A prime example is The Maltese Falcon. It was released in its first version in 1931 starring Bebe Daniels and Richard Cortez. Of course this earlier version could not hold a candle to the 1941 Bogart, John Huston version.
Also two of the greatest swashbucklers, The Adventures of Robin Hood and The Mark of Zorro were remakes of silent Douglas Fairbanks movies. The list goes on and on. Remakes are nothing new.

[automanic]

Originally posted by The Dude
I can't help but think that the caricature in your avatar bears a striking resemblance to Det. Meldrick Lewis from Homicide.

Shit.... I've never even seen that show. That's just an old pic of me, by the way.

Oh, Dude-- I'm with you on The Thing. I own it; I can't believe I didn't think of it before.

You'll probably all hate me for this, but I liked Red Dragon better than Manhunter.

[El Duderino Diablo]

Hmmm... just saw on the tube that Neve Campbell is starring in a musical tv remake of Reefer Madness. :WTF?:

[The Baron]

For years now, I've been screaming that since unions have a "scale," or minimum pay for work, they should also establish a "ceiling," the maximum salary that can be required by talent or technicians.

You can tell that I'm not real popular at the SAG annual meetings.

If movies cost less to be made, you'd see a lot more of them being made, and the work getting spread around.

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

[Ellen M.]

Originally posted by The Baron
And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Baron,
You just reminded me of one of my favorite sayings... "Balls, cried the Queen! Had I two, I'd be King!"

And Neve Campbell's seriously doing a version of "Reefer Madness"? What is this world coming to?...

Ellen ;)

[bronsonseven]

Originally posted by The Dude
By mentioning Howard Hawkes Peter just reminded me of The Thing. I'm not so sure I'd consider Carpenter's The Thing as a remake of Hawkes' which took an awful lot of liberties with the original source material but, in my humble opinion, Carpenter's version is the superior of the two.

I second that notion.

Also, Traffic was a remake of a British TV miniseries. I thought the movie was much better than the show.

[Richard Feren]

Originally posted by judex
Old studio movies use to reuse the same source material almost as often as modern studios. A prime example is The Maltese Falcon. It was released in its first version in 1931 starring Bebe Daniels and Richard Cortez. Of course this earlier version could not hold a candle to the 1941 Bogart, John Huston version.
Also two of the greatest swashbucklers, The Adventures of Robin Hood and The Mark of Zorro were remakes of silent Douglas Fairbanks movies. The list goes on and on. Remakes are nothing new.

Well, that may be true, but that's different than taking a film which has rightfully earned its place as a cinema classic, and cranking out an inferior remake because producers are afraid of new ideas.

I mean, now there's a remake of The Manchurian Candidate!?!
Does anyone really expect that they'll be able to surpass Frankenheimer's film? Because if they don't surpass it, what's the point? (other than potential box office which is no guarantee, as Jeremy's analysis points out)

If you want to do a remake, you should pick something that had an interesting premise, but a flawed result, so you can try to do it justice second time around (I guess that's what Hitchcock was thinking when he remade his own The Man Who Knew Too Much??). Perhaps The Maltese Falcon fits this category too. But remaking the classics is absurd.

There are very few cases where a remake has ever been as good as the original, let alone better. I would include Carpenter's The Thing... and actually the remake of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers was kind of cool, too. I wouldn't say it was better than the original, but it held its own.

OK, Willard with Crispin Glover has its merits too. And Cronenberg's The Fly deserves a mention, although it is sufficiently different from the original that it almost counts as a different film (I still love the original with Vincent Price too).


...... and don't get me started on the Pink Panther remake.
There is NO ONE in the entertainment world today who can fill Peter Sellers' shoes. :mad:

[sean black]

Perhaps the best example there is of a good remake- A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS. That was remade from Kurosawa's film Yojimbo and transplanted to the west.

The Magnificent Seven is a remake of Seven Samurai. It too is a great movie.

Vanilla Sky was remade from Open Your Eyes, and although its not a great movie, it's certainly a good one.

However, those are only three movies. Many remakes are either piss-poor or inferior to the originals. I'll say this though- the remake of The Manchurian Candidate actually looks pretty good. Denzel Washington and Liev Schriber as the leads? Jonathan Demme directing? Could be a pip.

Then again, Demme's last film was The Truth About Charlie, so all bets are off.

[Paul R]

Originally posted by sean black

Then again, Demme's last film was The Truth About Charlie, so all bets are off.

Which is a remake of "Charade" with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn. So they get Mark Wahlberg for the Grant role? The only thing I can figure is that they knew having someone try to be like Cary Grant would fail miserably, so they went the other direction. Mark Wahlberg...the Anti-Grant. This is my thought without actually seeing the remake, so if I'm wrong and it's worth a look, let me know.

[sean black]

Crap. I forgot that Truth About Charlie was a remake of Charade. (Which, incidentally, I just saw a lovely DVD of. Great movie. Bravo Criterion collection.)

Mark Wahlberg succeeds in no way in imitating Cary Grant. (Can anyone?) And the movie's not a piece of crap, but its nothing great, and it can't hold a candle to Charade, obviously.

[Rory L. Aronsky]

Mark Wahlberg succeeds in no way in imitating Cary Grant. (Can anyone?) And the movie's not a piece of crap, but its nothing great, and it can't hold a candle to Charade, obviously.

Nope. Cary Grant had a "smooth charmer" way about him, and I've always liked the cast of "Charade" better than "The Truth About Charlie" because not only was there Grant and Audrey Hepburn, but the film also co-starred Walter Matthau, James Coburn, and George Kennedy. And there was always a sense of fun to Stanley Donen's direction in a number of his films, including the ones he co-directed with Gene Kelly, "On the Town", "Singin' In The Rain", and "It's Always Fair Weather". His solo directorial outings, such as "Royal Wedding", "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers", and "Bedazzled" had that same fun too.

[SkippytheMarine]

This very discussion about remakes came up with some friends of mine a few weeks ago. While there was some mixed feelings, here are a few remakes that I thought was better than the original:

Oceans 11 (I love Frank and all, but I really enjoyed this version)
The Thomas Crown Affair (Steve McQeen is god, but Hal Ashby went crazy with the editing.)
The Thin Red Line (Don't ever see the 1964 version.)

Those are the three that I can think of off the top of my head.

"The 1934 version was the work of a gifted amateur. The 1956 film was the work of a seasoned professional." Alfred Hitchcock on the Man Who Knew Too Much.