Seriously, all the rebooting and remaking movies stuff that is going on, what is the point? I'm sure there's no exec's from Hollywood here to answer me, but I really don't understand why anyone would go through all the trouble of reshooting/rewriting a movie to make a few lousy bucks, when it would eb much cheaper to just re-release it ? Disney does this all the time with their DVD's Blueray's and before that VHS's. And They recently released Mad Max 1 and 2 on Blueray, without changing anything. No extra scenes, no digitally enhanced effects scenes, no added stunts. Just (I'm guessing) maybe fixed the sounds and if necessary cleaned uop the picture. And I'm sure they made money doing it. And re-releasing them on the big screen probably would have made them more money, just like GL when he hacked and slashed the original OT to re-release it (allthough that is really not the preferred way to do it, he really fu**ed them up) Still, he made **** loads of money without hiring a bunch of actors, making new sets, re-writing scripts etc.
Reboot/remake point?
- Thread starter Zykotec
- Start date
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
Because the old films were for people who could sit still for two hours without baysplosions every minute.
Kevin
Kevin
Solo4114
Master Member
Branding.
Seriously. It's all about branding.
Look at it this way. The fundamental goal is to get butts in theater seats, right? Well, if you've got a mediocre, ho-hum, generic story, AND it's unfamiliar to people, maybe they'll see it...but maybe they won't.
HOWEVER, if you slap an instantly-familiar brand name on it, you get to (A) capitalize on the unconscious goodwill associated with the original brand, (B) remove the sense of unfamiliarity, and (C) possibly guarantee that some significant portion of the original's fanbase will show up purely out of addiction/can't stay away/morbid curiosity.
Example:
Take Peter Cullen's voice, and the names of the robots away, and make Transformers into "Battle-Droids: The Movie." Maybe people would like it, but they'd say "Eh, it was just some crappy Transformers remake." You could literally shoot the entire movie, scene for scene, just with different names, and that would be folks' reaction. The film would MAYBE break even.
BUT
Slap the name "Transformers" on, use the names from the old show, and get Peter Cullen to say "Autobots, transform and roll out!!" and now you've got a HIT.
Seriously. It's all about branding.
Look at it this way. The fundamental goal is to get butts in theater seats, right? Well, if you've got a mediocre, ho-hum, generic story, AND it's unfamiliar to people, maybe they'll see it...but maybe they won't.
HOWEVER, if you slap an instantly-familiar brand name on it, you get to (A) capitalize on the unconscious goodwill associated with the original brand, (B) remove the sense of unfamiliarity, and (C) possibly guarantee that some significant portion of the original's fanbase will show up purely out of addiction/can't stay away/morbid curiosity.
Example:
Take Peter Cullen's voice, and the names of the robots away, and make Transformers into "Battle-Droids: The Movie." Maybe people would like it, but they'd say "Eh, it was just some crappy Transformers remake." You could literally shoot the entire movie, scene for scene, just with different names, and that would be folks' reaction. The film would MAYBE break even.
BUT
Slap the name "Transformers" on, use the names from the old show, and get Peter Cullen to say "Autobots, transform and roll out!!" and now you've got a HIT.
Larry Young
Master Member
This thread should be locked for having been answered as soon as the benjamins showed up. 
Still, I would pay to see ANH or Mad Max in a theater without them making any changes to it, so it would cost less to just re-release it, and maybe make a new poster or something
Sure you would, and some fans would. But your dollar is not greater than the dollar value of having some new trash piece remake that "EVERYBODY" runs out to see. Sure some movies you could toss into a theater and folks would go see them, but its hard to show old movie in theaters now and draw a crowd large enough to justify it. Hollywood caters to the masses not to the fans.
Commander Max
Sr Member
In some cases they are trying to recapture the magic of the original film(which is impossible).
These days Hollywood is about no risk(it's about as corporate as you can get), they want properties that will bring in an audience. I think it's backfiring on them. Especially when it comes how much they spend on making movies. The audience is shrinking, because people have more options than movies and television(besides a poor economy). Entertainment is changing, I'm curious just how Hollywood reacts to those changes. Are they going to act like the newspapers, deny the world is changing and go belly up. Or go with the changes, I don't think they will ever lead change again.
These days Hollywood is about no risk(it's about as corporate as you can get), they want properties that will bring in an audience. I think it's backfiring on them. Especially when it comes how much they spend on making movies. The audience is shrinking, because people have more options than movies and television(besides a poor economy). Entertainment is changing, I'm curious just how Hollywood reacts to those changes. Are they going to act like the newspapers, deny the world is changing and go belly up. Or go with the changes, I don't think they will ever lead change again.
Toshi Chris
New Member
I just read a GQ.com article about this very topic check it out. Interesting stuff.
Quick excerpt:
"For the studios, a good new idea has become just too scary a road to travel. Inception, they will tell you, is an exceptional movie. And movies that need to be exceptional to succeed are bad business. "The scab you're picking at is called execution," says legendary producer Scott Rudin (The Social Network, True Grit). "Studios are hardwired not to bet on execution, and the terrible thing is, they're right. Because in terms of execution, most movies disappoint.""
Quick excerpt:
"For the studios, a good new idea has become just too scary a road to travel. Inception, they will tell you, is an exceptional movie. And movies that need to be exceptional to succeed are bad business. "The scab you're picking at is called execution," says legendary producer Scott Rudin (The Social Network, True Grit). "Studios are hardwired not to bet on execution, and the terrible thing is, they're right. Because in terms of execution, most movies disappoint.""
Because they can't tell a good script from bad, and won't take a chance because it might hurt their career.
But a remake is always a remake of a HIT. So they can say 'well this was popular before'. And if it fails it's not their fault. They don't remake failures.
They don't realize that big hits are always half luck. It took so many things to fall into place to make a hit. And now they think they can do better. Better Than Great. yeah right.
But a remake is always a remake of a HIT. So they can say 'well this was popular before'. And if it fails it's not their fault. They don't remake failures.
They don't realize that big hits are always half luck. It took so many things to fall into place to make a hit. And now they think they can do better. Better Than Great. yeah right.
Solo4114
Master Member
Fantastic piece, and so true. So sad and so true.
I watch TV shows now for my dramas. I actually have found that the 2 hr format more often fails to satisfy me, whereas a long-running 1hr show broken into 13 episodes leaves me giddy.
Toshi Chris
New Member
Man, that is spot-on, particularly when it comes to dramas.
Having given the subject a bit more thought, I guess there's no way around it, and I'll probably have too see a lot more of my favourite movies redone. Not that it's necessarily bad always. As 'Rotwang' said, '4) Some of the most famous movies are remakes'
And it's the thruth. Actually even Shakespeare stole his ideas from the past, and they still steal from him
Many of my favourite movies are remakes of japanese classics that I have never even seen, or remakes of remakes of japanese... etc. (Mad Max 2 shares a good few plot points from 'A Fistful of dollars', and it's not the only one famous movie based on the same story. 'The terminator' behaves like a classic movie Mummy, as does Jason in 'friday the 13th'.
'Avatar' is pocahontas on a different planet (I guess that also means the Humans will come back to destroy the planet completely)
And 'Star Wars' stole everything, allthough based around a frame quite similar to 'Lord of the Rings'.
Maybe Hollywood execs should rather start to have some quality control on their movie-making...
And it's the thruth. Actually even Shakespeare stole his ideas from the past, and they still steal from him
Many of my favourite movies are remakes of japanese classics that I have never even seen, or remakes of remakes of japanese... etc. (Mad Max 2 shares a good few plot points from 'A Fistful of dollars', and it's not the only one famous movie based on the same story. 'The terminator' behaves like a classic movie Mummy, as does Jason in 'friday the 13th'.
'Avatar' is pocahontas on a different planet (I guess that also means the Humans will come back to destroy the planet completely)
And 'Star Wars' stole everything, allthough based around a frame quite similar to 'Lord of the Rings'.
Maybe Hollywood execs should rather start to have some quality control on their movie-making...
Sigma-LS
Sr Member
Commander Max
Sr Member
Battledroids movie?I want a Battledroids movie! Yet another kind of branding.:lol
lol:lolRobotjox that could stand to be remade. Will they include a plot this time. There was even a sequel(I never knew that). I wonder if it was any better.
Solo4114
Master Member
I want a Battledroids movie! Yet another kind of branding.:lol
Well, for starters, you're gonna have legal problems because you can't show the Warhammer in film! Nor, like, half of the original set of mechs, or else you'll be in court with a Japanese animation studio and the ghost of Carl Macek.
Battledroids movie?
There was even a sequel(I never knew that). I wonder if it was any better.
I heard the sequel had nothing to do with the first in terms of story. It was just more big robots smashing each other. ANOTHER case of branding.
Not that this is a good excuse, but I think another reason movies are remade is to use popular, young actors that will get the target market in the theatres. Young kids would sooner go to the theater to see an Indy remake starring Justin Beiber and Miley Cyrus before they would the original actors. "Ugh, that's the movie my Dad LIKES, with all the old people in it."
Oh god, I hope no studio execs read this and think this is a good idea....
Oh god, I hope no studio execs read this and think this is a good idea....
Rotwang
Sr Member
Well, for starters, you're gonna have legal problems because you can't show the Warhammer in film! Nor, like, half of the original set of mechs, or else you'll be in court with a Japanese animation studio and the ghost of Carl Macek.
I heard the sequel had nothing to do with the first in terms of story. It was just more big robots smashing each other. ANOTHER case of branding.
Harmony Gold and the international distributor claim the rights to Macross and the other not-seen designs. FASA had a deal with the original production studio.
If it came to a court case it would probably go to the side that could throw the most money at it, so FASA relented.
