Not just an effort, but a risk.
A remake is SAFE because people already are familiar with the product. You know the brand. You have, most likely, SOME positive connotations in your mind with that brand. Even if you don't, the mere fact that you are FAMILIAR with the brand means the studio has less work to do in convincing you to see the film. Why? Because -- merely by virtue of the brand itself -- you know what you're getting into.
Take Transformers, for example. You call it Battle Bots, change the robots' names, and make ONE voice-cast change (Peter Cullen) and suddenly all you have is some crappy Transformers knockoff film. BUT, you slap that Transformers label on it, cast Peter Cullen, and people line up to see it. Even if they enjoy the Baysplosions, I doubt the studio would be able to launch a Battle Bots franchise. BUT, again, the Transformers name and intellectual property window dressing gets people into the theater.
Same deal with the recent G.I. Joe film. Rename the characters and strip out the associated IP, call it "TacCom: Global Commandos," and it's just some lame G.I. Joe knockoff. Even with a decent cast, and big 'splosions, the film maybe makes a minor profit at the box office, does middling in the DVD market, and that's it. $200 mil spent to make maybe $50 mil profit.
Why the hell would ANYONE do that when they can simply graft on the intellectual property from these franchises and in so doing probably QUADRUPLE the amount of money they'd make? I mean, are the executives cynical? Sure. But they're also right. Seriously, I challenge ANYONE here to play the thought exercise I described above (IE: stripping out the IP from the two films mentioned above), and then try to tell me that either film would've been the success it was.
Brands act as shorthand. What's the first thing you ask about a movie, usually, if you don't know anything about it but the title? Me, I usually ask "What's it about?" By contrast, if ALL I tell you is "Hey, new movie coming out. Title is Goonies," you INSTANTLY know what the movie is about. I don't have to tell you who's in it, I don't have to tell you the plot. I don't have to tell you ANYTHING except the NAME and you know everything you need to know to at LEAST pique your curiosity (or your ire).
That is the power of branding. That is why you see remakes, re-imaginings, and reboots of franchises even after only about 4-6 years from the last entry. I guarantee you that if there had NEVER been a Robocop film made in 1987 and nobody knew about that brand, there is no way in HELL that film would be green-lit, even though we can all agree that any way you spin it, the concept is pretty damn solid ground on which to build a cool sci-fi or superhero film. But why, if there is no brand familiarity, would a studio RISK that the film might not do that well, when they can simply reboot Spiderman now that none of the original cast are bound to their original 3-picture contracts, unless the brand wasn't JUST "Spiderman" but rather the ACTORS who play the roles IN ADDITION to the characters in the films? I guaran-****ing-tee you that Disney would "reboot" the Pirates franchise IN A HEARTBEAT if they thought that ANYONE would go see those films WITHOUT Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow. But that's the thing: the Pirates Franchise basically IS "Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow." At least for the present. But if they could figure out how to do a Pirates film WITHOUT him, I guarantee you they would.
But Spiderman? Pfft. Who cares about crybaby Tobey MacGuire or snaggle-toothed pasty-skinned Kirsten Dunst? We can recast 'em in a heartbeat, reboot the films, set them back in high school, and appeal to a whole new demographic....until we run out the three-picture deal in another, oh, 8-ish years and reboot AGAIN.
