Movies that should never be re-made

...These days, I only see the really big "spectacle" films. Which pretty much amounts to Marvel movies and Star Wars movies. The rest of the time, my wife and I can't be bothered to go to the theater, even if we'll catch the film later, even if we'll buy it on digital or watch it on one of the multiple streaming services we enjoy.

That leads to a vicious cycle where the only movies Hollywood is going to pour huge amounts of money into are...Marvel and Star Wars movies, or their equivalents.

Meanwhile, I'm watching all kinds of original content, usually in longer-form stories (which I far prefer these days) on Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, HBO, Showtime, etc. The point is, I don't need to go to the theater to see the kind of thing I want. I already get it at home, on my schedule, at my convenience.

The great news, though, is that this means there are actually more avenues for original content to reach your eyeballs. It might not show up at the multiplex downtown, but you can still enjoy it.

Exactly the same for me; and honestly, now I'm even starting to get burnt out on the big spectacle movies at a theater. It's almost not worth it unless I'm going to one of the nifty new theaters with lounge chairs and beer service :p
 
It really is the studios fault for not wanting to take the risk and release more of them. The audience is blameless.

I have some time for a slightly less flip answer--

Here's the top grossing films for the past handful of years:

2017: Beauty and the Beast, Ragnarok, Spider-man Homecoming, GOTG 2, Despicable Me 3
2016: Civil War, Rogue One, Finding Dory, Zootopia, Deadpool, BvS. Secret Life of Pets
2015: TFA, Jurassic World, Age of Ultron, Inside Out, F&F7, Hunger Games 3.5, The Martian
2014: GOTG, Hunger Games 3, Winter Soldier, Lego Movie, Transformers 4, X-Men DOFP
2013: Iron Man 3, Hunger Games 2, Despicable Me 2, Frozen, Man of Steel, Monsters University, Gravity, F&F6
2012: Avengers, DKR, Hunger Games, Skyfall, Twilight 3.5, The Hobbit, Amazing Spider-Man, The Brave
2011: Harry Potter part 45345, Transformers 3, Twilight 3, Pirates 3, F&F5, Thor, Captain America, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Super 8
2010: Toy Story 3, Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, Iron Man 2, Twilight 2, Inception, another Harry Potter movie, Despicable Me, Shrek 4

So what's the pattern here? 95% of these are franchise movies. Or more specifically, everything is based on pre-existing IP, be it a book, comic, old movie or TV show.

The outliers easy to spot. They are either animated family films by Disney or Dreamworks (which are such strong brands they have the same recognition as pre-existing IP to the public), or come from a very short list of auteurs who have a track record that they can do what they want. Basically, there's five guys in Hollywood that can do this-- Abrams, Nolan, Speilberg, Cameron, and maybe Ridley Scott on a good day. There's a few alternates like Scorsese and Fincher who sneak one in there, or guys like Tarrantino or Woody Allen who are in their own worlds making their very specific thing.

Point is, that's a short list of people studios will accept big budget original material from. Again, like Disney or Dreamworlks, these directors have a very strong brand that is basically the same effect as pre-existing IP.

Studios chase the money. They look to things that are proven in other mediums to make money, and they adapt it. They cash in in stuff that's already made money. Or in the case of animation, or this short list, they cash in on the reputation. Sometimes they can cash in on an actor. Johnny, Depp, Channing Tatum-- there's always an actor who has time in the spotlight and can get anything greenlit.

Again, the point-- studios follow the evidence of what makes them money. People flock to these films, so they make more and more of them.

Obviously in the years I listed above there's some original films, but they are never have the money behind them these top tier releases do-- which means less screenings, which means less money made. It's all a formula to the studios-- and what the audience is interested in is a huge factor. There is endless market research done on viewing habits and buying trends to help studios decide on what to make.

So, I'm sorry-- but the audience can absolutely influence what is made. Here's a great example: The Dark Universe.

Universal planned to bring back the classic Universal Monsters in a shared universe-- like a horror Avengers. They built an entire writer's room like a TV show to develop the universe ad hoc, and planned an entire slate of films with characters that would crossover.

They made the first one, The Mummy, and it TANKED hard. It was such a bomb that Universal pulled the plug on the entire project, removed the other films from their schedule, and released the writers. All because the public said "no thank you."

If, as you say, the audience is blameless and has no effect, Universal would be pumping out those movies.

If you listen to the TLJ haters, they take credit for Solo bombing thanks to their shunning. I don't know if I buy it-- but I know for sure that if Star Wars movies continue to bomb the grand plan will be changed.

It's all about the money, bottom line. If vast swaths of the populace stop going to superhero films, or go to see smaller films instead, or simple stay home to enjoy the new golden age of television, the studios will change tact.
 
So, I'm sorry-- but the audience can absolutely influence what is made. Here's a great example: The Dark Universe.

Universal planned to bring back the classic Universal Monsters in a shared universe-- like a horror Avengers. They built an entire writer's room like a TV show to develop the universe ad hoc, and planned an entire slate of films with characters that would crossover.

They made the first one, The Mummy, and it TANKED hard. It was such a bomb that Universal pulled the plug on the entire project, removed the other films from their schedule, and released the writers. All because the public said "no thank you."

If, as you say, the audience is blameless and has no effect, Universal would be pumping out those movies.


It's even worse than that. The 'Dracula Untold' movie in 2014 was intended to be the launch of that universe. When it failed to take off big, Universal downplayed that attempt and started presenting 'The Mummy' as if it was their first attempt to launch it.

But IMO the most epic-fail attempt at a cinematic universe lately has gotta be the 'King Arthur' bomb.


I have zero sympathy when this stuff blows up in the studios' faces. It's so frustrating to pay money for a movie and then it turns out to be compromised because they were too busy setting up the next one. It's insulting on principle. I will put up with some of that from the most successful franchises (Star Wars, LOTR, etc) but not from new upstart crap.
 
Last edited:
Then why do they keep making Transformer movies when they are all terrible? Because they make a crap ton of money.

Look I'm agreeing on the bigger point, studios should absolutely be making more original films. But to say audience ticket sells doesn't influence their decisions on what to green-light is absurd.



...which means absolutely nothing almost two decades later.

Did it occur to you that people can prefer to see both franchise movies, like TF, and original movies?

I never once said audience ticket sales do not influence studio decisions. I said the audience is blameless if studios choose to take the easy road and make low-risk franchise movies.

The pre-1999 listings shows an extremely strong historical trend that audiences will see original movies when on offer. Further corroborated by post-1999 blockbusters like Avatar and several of the movies you list below.

I have some time for a slightly less flip answer--

Here's the top grossing films for the past handful of years:

2017: Beauty and the Beast, Ragnarok, Spider-man Homecoming, GOTG 2, Despicable Me 3
2016: Civil War, Rogue One, Finding Dory, Zootopia, Deadpool, BvS. Secret Life of Pets
2015: TFA, Jurassic World, Age of Ultron, Inside Out, F&F7, Hunger Games 3.5, The Martian
2014: GOTG, Hunger Games 3, Winter Soldier, Lego Movie, Transformers 4, X-Men DOFP
2013: Iron Man 3, Hunger Games 2, Despicable Me 2, Frozen, Man of Steel, Monsters University, Gravity, F&F6
2012: Avengers, DKR, Hunger Games, Skyfall, Twilight 3.5, The Hobbit, Amazing Spider-Man, The Brave
2011: Harry Potter part 45345, Transformers 3, Twilight 3, Pirates 3, F&F5, Thor, Captain America, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Super 8
2010: Toy Story 3, Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, Iron Man 2, Twilight 2, Inception, another Harry Potter movie, Despicable Me, Shrek 4

So what's the pattern here? 95% of these are franchise movies. Or more specifically, everything is based on pre-existing IP, be it a book, comic, old movie or TV show.

The outliers easy to spot. They are either animated family films by Disney or Dreamworks (which are such strong brands they have the same recognition as pre-existing IP to the public), or come from a very short list of auteurs who have a track record that they can do what they want. Basically, there's five guys in Hollywood that can do this-- Abrams, Nolan, Speilberg, Cameron, and maybe Ridley Scott on a good day. There's a few alternates like Scorsese and Fincher who sneak one in there, or guys like Tarrantino or Woody Allen who are in their own worlds making their very specific thing.

Point is, that's a short list of people studios will accept big budget original material from. Again, like Disney or Dreamworlks, these directors have a very strong brand that is basically the same effect as pre-existing IP.

Studios chase the money. They look to things that are proven in other mediums to make money, and they adapt it. They cash in in stuff that's already made money. Or in the case of animation, or this short list, they cash in on the reputation. Sometimes they can cash in on an actor. Johnny, Depp, Channing Tatum-- there's always an actor who has time in the spotlight and can get anything greenlit.

Again, the point-- studios follow the evidence of what makes them money. People flock to these films, so they make more and more of them.

Obviously in the years I listed above there's some original films, but they are never have the money behind them these top tier releases do-- which means less screenings, which means less money made. It's all a formula to the studios-- and what the audience is interested in is a huge factor. There is endless market research done on viewing habits and buying trends to help studios decide on what to make.

So, I'm sorry-- but the audience can absolutely influence what is made. Here's a great example: The Dark Universe.

Universal planned to bring back the classic Universal Monsters in a shared universe-- like a horror Avengers. They built an entire writer's room like a TV show to develop the universe ad hoc, and planned an entire slate of films with characters that would crossover.

They made the first one, The Mummy, and it TANKED hard. It was such a bomb that Universal pulled the plug on the entire project, removed the other films from their schedule, and released the writers. All because the public said "no thank you."

If, as you say, the audience is blameless and has no effect, Universal would be pumping out those movies.

If you listen to the TLJ haters, they take credit for Solo bombing thanks to their shunning. I don't know if I buy it-- but I know for sure that if Star Wars movies continue to bomb the grand plan will be changed.

It's all about the money, bottom line. If vast swaths of the populace stop going to superhero films, or go to see smaller films instead, or simple stay home to enjoy the new golden age of television, the studios will change tact.

Oh look, 7 years VS nearly a century of movie releases I cited. I fully admit there is a current trend of franchise movie releases. I, for reasons already stated, simply disagree that the audience shares an "equal blame" for that "cyclical problem" as you called it.

You'll notice that for most of those 7 years you cherry-picked, that there is one or more original features that go toe to toe with the franchise films. And sometimes, like Frozen, they are the number 1 movie for that year. That shows a current willingness for audiences to buy tickets for original movies no matter their source.

The fact that studios will only let certain high profile filmmakers make original movies further proves the studios are to blame for the choice of movie that gets made. Studios do not want to take the risk and lose those precious gold bricks. The audience is, again, blameless for that. Same with whatever megastar actor the studios want to take risks with.

Yes, studios do tend to chase the money. I said as much when stated that studios are playing the cinematic equivalent of moneyball. You're actually just proving me right here. The studios make decisions that are easiest on their pocketbook and the audience is left with whatever the studio decides is the safest choice of movies to release. The audience is not to blame. They do not make the decision on what movie to release. They can only buy tickets for what is on offer, for the umpteenth time. You claim people flock to these franchise movies, but they also flock to good original films. Which further proves the audience is not to blame when a studio makes the easy franchise choice for their finances.

Dark Universe, wonderful example. This just reinforces my earlier point, citing movies like Ghostbusters 2016, that audiences don't just flock to franchises. It's the studios that flock to franchises because they are perceived as the safe choice. And once again, I never said that audience ticket sales do not influence studio decisions. I said the audience is blameless for what the studios choose to release.
 
It's even worse than that. The 'Dracula Untold' movie in 2014 was intended to be the launch of that universe. When it failed to take off big, Universal downplayed that attempt and started presenting 'The Mummy' as if it was their first attempt to launch it.

But IMO the most epic-fail attempt at a cinematic universe lately has gotta be the 'King Arthur' bomb.


I have zero sympathy when this stuff blows up in the studios' faces. It's so frustrating to pay money for a movie and then it turns out to be compromised because they were too busy setting up the next one. It's insulting on principle. I will put up with some of that from the most successful franchises (Star Wars, LOTR, etc) but not from new upstart crap.

This 100%! It literally is a middle finger to the audience. I kinda liked Terminator Genisys while fully admit it was flawed in many ways was but once it turned out that there will be no continuation to expand on what was set up I started to loathe the whole thing because it was a half-done product sold and anyone who was interested in where it would go will never ever get the missing parts. It’s like buying a table with only 2 legs and the promise of getting the other two later...and then you’re stuck with something completely useless.
 
This 100%! It literally is a middle finger to the audience. I kinda liked Terminator Genisys while fully admit it was flawed in many ways was but once it turned out that there will be no continuation to expand on what was set up I started to loathe the whole thing because it was a half-done product sold and anyone who was interested in where it would go will never ever get the missing parts....

to be fair though. I don't remember Genisys being billed as the start of a new trilogy. while its ending was set up that way, and I'd have liked to see more, it's not like I started watching the film, thinking "oh boy oh boy oh boy, a bunch of new terminator movies", and found out I was lied to. it just finished, and no news of a follow up ever came.

I guess my preference for never being re-made, is any instance where you're going to try and retell the same overarching story, with a LOT of the same plot points. I feel like you're better off looking at a movie that may be a little dated, seeing what the core story behind it is, and building a new world off of that. go up two levels, then come back down to your new story; gives you the opportunity to toy with some of the same things, without just being a hit for hit retelling of an older story "with a twist!".
 
to be fair though. I don't remember Genisys being billed as the start of a new trilogy. while its ending was set up that way, and I'd have liked to see more, it's not like I started watching the film, thinking "oh boy oh boy oh boy, a bunch of new terminator movies", and found out I was lied to. it just finished, and no news of a follow up ever came.
It was originally set up as a trilogy and then the plug was pulled when Genisys underperformed. Plot lines like who sent old Arnie, what’s going to happen with Skynet, how’s it all gonna go down with John Connor, the Dr Who Terminator that infected him, etc etc...

I guess my preference for never being re-made, is any instance where you're going to try and retell the same overarching story, with a LOT of the same plot points. I feel like you're better off looking at a movie that may be a little dated, seeing what the core story behind it is, and building a new world off of that. go up two levels, then come back down to your new story; gives you the opportunity to toy with some of the same things, without just being a hit for hit retelling of an older story "with a twist!".
Agreed. Remake something that can be improved. Don’t remake bloody Robocop, Ghostbusters and the like. One example of a remake done right for me is True Lies.
 
Oh look, 7 years VS nearly a century of movie releases I cited. I fully admit there is a current trend of franchise movie releases.

Contradiction.
We are talking about the trend of non-original films being made. A trend that has grown to be the majority of the business over the last decade and a half.

I, for reasons already stated, simply disagree that the audience shares an "equal blame" for that "cyclical problem" as you called it.

Nope.
I'm saying it's symbiotic. The blame tends to shift as micro-trends ebb and flow, but ultimately, no one party is fuklly to blame, but neither is one completely innocent.

You'll notice that for most of those 7 years you cherry-picked, that there is one or more original features that go toe to toe with the franchise films.

Again, no.
Read what I said more carefully I said that all the original films that broke the top ten in those years were the product of entities with very strong brands-- a studio or director known for doing a thing so well that it basically functions the same as a pre-known IP to audiences.

And sometimes, like Frozen, they are the number 1 movie for that year. That shows a current willingness for audiences to buy tickets for original movies no matter their source.

You are re-stating what I said. Thanks for supporting my point.

The fact that studios will only let certain high profile filmmakers make original movies further proves the studios are to blame for the choice of movie that gets made. Studios do not want to take the risk and lose those precious gold bricks. The audience is, again, blameless for that. Same with whatever megastar actor the studios want to take risks with.

How do you think the studios decide those directors are worth said merit? By ticket sales. Who buys tickets? The audience. How are you missing that?

Yes, studios do tend to chase the money. I said as much when stated that studios are playing the cinematic equivalent of moneyball. You're actually just proving me right here.

I've said, repeatedly, we agree on a lot of points. You want to argue so much you're missing that there's only one little thing we differ on.

The studios make decisions that are easiest on their pocketbook and the audience is left with whatever the studio decides is the safest choice of movies to release. The audience is not to blame. They do not make the decision on what movie to release. They can only buy tickets for what is on offer, for the umpteenth time.

So you're saying they HAVE to go to the movies? The studios are sending assassins to people's homes and demanding they go buy movie tickets? They couldn't possibly choose to watch TV? I don't know about you, but most people I know complain about the cost of going to the movies and only do it if they feel it's worth it. The days of somebody going to a movie theater just to see a film because it's what they do is gone. I'm not saying those people don't exist, but your average Joe with the average Jane spouse and a kid or two, with tickets and snacks, is going to drop at least $50 to go out to the movies. I don't know many people who will do that unless it's something they really want to see.

You claim people flock to these franchise movies, but they also flock to good original films. Which further proves the audience is not to blame when a studio makes the easy franchise choice for their finances.

Compare the numbers. Pick any year between 2012 and 2018 and add up the totals of all the franchise/pre-existing IP films versus all the numbers for original movies. It's not an exact science obviously, because less-known movies won't be as available across the country, but the numbers are still pretty staggering. And we already agree studios chase the money, so I'm not sure what exactly doesn't compute for you when I say the studios will keep making more of what is proven to make money... which is determined by tickets sales...

I never said that audience ticket sales do not influence studio decisions. I said the audience is blameless for what the studios choose to release.

This is such a crazy contradiction. If you don't see how these two factors are intrinsically linked I'm wasting my time.
 
I think that another factor playing into the endless sequels/prequels/reboots is the overseas market, or, to be more specific, China. The studios have realized that there's big money to be made overseas and that a so so movie here in the States could be a huge success overseas. That's why we get all of these endless Transformer movies or Fast and Furious, or movies based on well known IPs that have little to do with the original IP, they do well overseas because they don't have as much familiarity with them as we do so to them it's something new and exciting. A lot of these movies also translate well overseas because they focus heavily on the action without a lot of dialogue and cultural aspects that might not translate well, sort of like how some people in the US don't like or get British humor.
 
I think that another factor playing into the endless sequels/prequels/reboots is the overseas market, or, to be more specific, China. The studios have realized that there's big money to be made overseas and that a so so movie here in the States could be a huge success overseas. That's why we get all of these endless Transformer movies or Fast and Furious, or movies based on well known IPs that have little to do with the original IP, they do well overseas because they don't have as much familiarity with them as we do so to them it's something new and exciting. A lot of these movies also translate well overseas because they focus heavily on the action without a lot of dialogue and cultural aspects that might not translate well, sort of like how some people in the US don't like or get British humor.

That's a fantastic point. Several studios, especially smaller ones who work with direct to video pipelines, make nothing but things they have pre-sold to foreign markets, China being one of the big ones.
 
I think that another factor playing into the endless sequels/prequels/reboots is the overseas market, or, to be more specific, China. The studios have realized that there's big money to be made overseas and that a so so movie here in the States could be a huge success overseas. That's why we get all of these endless Transformer movies or Fast and Furious, or movies based on well known IPs that have little to do with the original IP, they do well overseas because they don't have as much familiarity with them as we do so to them it's something new and exciting. A lot of these movies also translate well overseas because they focus heavily on the action without a lot of dialogue and cultural aspects that might not translate well, sort of like how some people in the US don't like or get British humor.
Just because a US movie is successful in China doesn’t mean it’s terrible. While for the most part it’s true (take any transformers movie ever or some of the MCU movies if my understanding is correct), but Ready Player One and the last two Mission Impossible movies have done well in the US and in China (as well as being excellent productions in my opinion). Heck, the Chinese were sensible enough to finically back the last two M:I movies because they knew they were going to be hit there.
 
Last edited:
Contradiction.
We are talking about the trend of non-original films being made. A trend that has grown to be the majority of the business over the last decade and a half.



Nope.
I'm saying it's symbiotic. The blame tends to shift as micro-trends ebb and flow, but ultimately, no one party is fuklly to blame, but neither is one completely innocent.



Again, no.
Read what I said more carefully I said that all the original films that broke the top ten in those years were the product of entities with very strong brands-- a studio or director known for doing a thing so well that it basically functions the same as a pre-known IP to audiences.



You are re-stating what I said. Thanks for supporting my point.



How do you think the studios decide those directors are worth said merit? By ticket sales. Who buys tickets? The audience. How are you missing that?



I've said, repeatedly, we agree on a lot of points. You want to argue so much you're missing that there's only one little thing we differ on.



So you're saying they HAVE to go to the movies? The studios are sending assassins to people's homes and demanding they go buy movie tickets? They couldn't possibly choose to watch TV? I don't know about you, but most people I know complain about the cost of going to the movies and only do it if they feel it's worth it. The days of somebody going to a movie theater just to see a film because it's what they do is gone. I'm not saying those people don't exist, but your average Joe with the average Jane spouse and a kid or two, with tickets and snacks, is going to drop at least $50 to go out to the movies. I don't know many people who will do that unless it's something they really want to see.



Compare the numbers. Pick any year between 2012 and 2018 and add up the totals of all the franchise/pre-existing IP films versus all the numbers for original movies. It's not an exact science obviously, because less-known movies won't be as available across the country, but the numbers are still pretty staggering. And we already agree studios chase the money, so I'm not sure what exactly doesn't compute for you when I say the studios will keep making more of what is proven to make money... which is determined by tickets sales...



This is such a crazy contradiction. If you don't see how these two factors are intrinsically linked I'm wasting my time.

There is no contradiction there. You cut up my quote into different parts to create a false contradiction. Just like you cut up my post #139 quote to falsely accuse me of claiming audiences ticket sales do not influence the studio in your post #140. A claim I never made. You have to take my statements out of context to make your arguments.

It's not symbiotic at all. The audience is willing to see movies, franchise or original. It's the studios that are afraid to take the risk and release more original films. The audience is blameless since they are willing to see both.

I don't care what the source of well-performing original films are. You are simply trying to make false equivalency to franchise films in order to further your argument.

I'm actually contradicting your point with Frozen. It's an original film and audiences swarmed to it. That defeats your claim that audiences share the blame for studios releasing franchises and supports my stance that audiences are willing to see original films when they are offered.

No matter the metric the studios choose a certain director or actor. They are still the ones making the safe choice to protect their pocketbook. Netflix offers tons of original content, gets something like 5-7 million new subs every quarter. And when studios do offer original movies, the audience buys tickets to that. Stop acting like the audience is to blame for the franchise problem. They are obviously willing to pay for original content.

We actually aren't agreeing on a lot of points or this wouldn't have gone on so long.

There's you making fake arguments and taking my statement out of context again with a giant dose of hyperbole to boot. I said the audience can only buy what tickets are available, not that anyone is forcing them to do it. In fact I mentioned Netflix, multiple times now. Which is an alternative to the theaters, much like TV. And now you are arguing that people cannot even afford to go to the movies, which would lessen their contribution to the franchise problem. Since they cannot even afford to contribute to it according to you.

Now you're just regurgitating arguments I've already addressed.

No, it's not a contradiction. You're just ignoring the very obvious fact that audiences are willing to see original films.
 
Hahaha, okay, chief. Whatever you say. I'm not going to derail this thread trying to make you understand reality. It's a lost cause.
 
This thread is more than 5 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top