Right. Plus, in today's culture, none of those movies would be green-lit. Or at least, they'd be seen as riskier than simply taking a book/comic/TV show/toy property/previous film, keeping the name and most basic window-dressing, and doing a movie based on THAT.
It's what makes "brand" films so cynical and manipulative -- much of the time, only the thinnest veneer of what makes the original brand special is retained, and a lot is changed. There's always a tension between keeping just enough of the original to satisfy folks, and "updating" things enough so that you aren't literally just aping the original one for one.
With the Kurosawa/Western films, the setting changes, but the basic plot points don't. Sometimes this kind of thing works, but a lot of the time it doesn't because the cultural cues don't translate that well. With the Kurosawa films translated to Western films, they work fantastically well. But a lot of the horror films that get translated to American audiences from their originals don't work that well, or at least don't work as well as the original.
However when it's working, what you're seeing is a translation of the common cultural elements from one culture to another. In that case, a "remake" makes sense. But those aren't "branded" films, or at least not the kind of no-brainer that a film like, say, Gummi Bears: The Movie, or Laser Tag: The Movie, or a remake of Goonies would be. Those branded properties all have way more strength on the NAME ALONE to the point where it doesnt' MATTER what's different between the film and the original material. The point is that you KNOW the basic concept, and that's all they need to get you to "just give it a chance."
Why does this work?
Simple.
"Just give it a chance" means "Just go buy a ticket." And once they have your money, they don't CARE if you like the film, as long as enough people go to see it. I mean, look at how people hate on Bayformers --- and still go to see it and its sequels.
Branding works.
As long as it continues to work, why would they do ANYTHING differently? Why take a risk, when you're FAR more likely to make bank with a safe bet? Especially when "making bank" on the safe bet is basically the same as "making bank" on a risky property? Where's the upside to the risk of backing a film like Inception? What, you get a new franchise you can launch? WHO CARES?! Just go option an OLD franchise or brand. Pitfall: The Movie. Oregon Trail: The Movie. Cap'n Crunch: The Movie. Laugh at this stuff if you want, but I GUARANTEE you that some Hollywood ******* would look at that and say "BRILLIANT! Britney, get my lawyer on the phone!"
)
