Why Does It Seem Like Every Movie This Year Is a Remake?

I know, we say this every year. But Hollywood ran out of new ideas about 70 years ago, and each year it only gets worse.

Last year was the year of the threequel, as there were 7 different movies last year that were the third movie in a trilogy, and 10 other entries in other movie series. It looks 2008 is the year of the remake, with 12 remakes -- that is, 12 new versions of movies that have already been made -- poised to hit theaters. There are also 17 other straight sequels, six TV adaptations including a Hannah Montana concert movie, and two Tyler Perry movies. (Plus there's Meet the Spartans and Superhero Movie.) All in all, that's 17% of all movies (213 in total, by my count) coming out this year. It's a good thing the WGA wasn't striking for originality, or they'd still be on the picket.

There are twelve remakes coming out in 2008, from J-Horror like One Missed Call and The Eye (and a remake of the Thai film Shutter) to comic book fare like The Incredible Hulk and The Punisher: War Zone to sci-fi (Scanners, Death Race, The Day the Earth Stood Still) to awful-looking family movies like Horton Hears a Who and Journey to the Center of the Earth 3-D. Only 11 years after the original, Michael Haneke is remaking Funny Games in English; only a year after Hairspray, we'll get a new version of Fame.

Last year, when I was trying to explain why it seemed like every single movie was a sequel, I concluded it was because movies were like TV pilots: buy enough tickets to a movie, and the series gets picked up and you'll get to see the characters in another go-around. This seems to be exactly what happened with Pirates of the Caribbean and The Matrix, not to mention Star Wars.

But remakes are even curiouser. Remaking a movie sends a mixed message about the source material: it implies that the source material has merit, but nonetheless can't be completely enjoyed on its own merit. Many remakes update a foreign movie for domestic audiences, a tacit acknowledgement that most moviegoers would prefer to watch a movie in their own language. Others update the context, usually to jazz it up for the current political climate (and, often, the film stock from black and white to color), like the recent All the King's Men or The Manchurian Candidate or this year's The Day the Earth Stood Still, playing on a marketing assumption that most people don't like to watch old movies.

But many relatively recent movies are getting remade, hoping that audiences will forget the past and look at the material in new light. This summer will see new attempts to correct the historical record left by comic book flops of The Hulk and The Punisher, which between them have inspired three turkeys in the past twenty years. Both will hope for the success found by Batman Begins, which revived the moribund Batman franchise by bringing in a new star, new director, and new screenwriter, and brought in so much cash at the box office that it earned its own sequel, coming out this summer: The Dark Knight. Undoubtedly, if the Hulk or the Punisher are successful this time around, they'll win sequels of their own. If most big-ticket movies today are like pilots, auditioning for a franchise, then remakes are like a second bite at the apple, trying to find a new dedicated audience -- and cash stream for future entries in the series -- for old source material.

Remakes are less of a sure thing than sequels, because their audience isn't as built-in. Fans of the originals may not want to see a new version they feel betrays the source material. But they're not as risky as original idea, because they still involve characters that have been greenlighted by Hollywood and seen on the big screen. They clearly can be made into a movie, even if it isn't a good one. If a sequel is frequently a purely commercial ploy, a remake may look comparatively like a calculated risk, a compromise offering limited artistic freedom without sacrificing the bottom line.

Sometimes, that compromise works, as Batman Begins was one of the best comic book movies in years. But usually remakes are just as bad as sequels. And I'm not looking forward to Keanu Reeves coming to earth this December and stonefacedly whoaing his imprint onto three of the most famous words in movie history: Klaatu Barada Nikto!

Comments

[NeverRepublican]

The Kinks called it Celluoid Heroes.

[Guitarsandmore]

Spyderman four: Lyndsey Lohan threatens to bust up Kirsten Dunst and Tobbie McQuire through suggestive memory implants and fiery sex appeal. Kirsten Dunst counters by seducing both of them together in a hot tub. Rated NC17.

[django707]

The reason there are so many remakes and sequels and a dearth of originality is the same reason studio films require huge stars: The safety of the executives who do the green lighting. An executive puts his head in the chopping block by taking a chance on some thing new or a new talent or even an old talent that isn't in favor. Name recognition is more than a marketing strategy, it is a safety net for corporate cowards. If your movie flops and you have name actors or previously successful titles, you won't be faulted for green lighting it. If you take a real chance on something unique and it bombs, you are dead meat.

[JustAnotherJoe]

It's all about trying to repackage a proven commodity, I guess. Maximize profit and minimize risk. The thing I don't understand is why movie studios throw their money behind a handful of expensive to make blockblusters and not back more smaller budget films. One film can't be all things to all people, so why try to force it? Make several films that target different audiences. It's not like original material isn't out there.

[BlackJAC]

They make the "tentpole" films to set their bottom line for the year. This results in horse trading for actors and directors to do pet projects that might be loss leaders. Case in point: the OCEAN'S movies have really been the only movies of George Clooney's that have done really well financially, but doing them allows him to go make GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK.

Nobody knows what's going to be successful. They market the crappy films with the same vigor as the good ones. The problem is that the guys who make the command decisions on what gets greenlit are all illiterate business school grads while the writers are English majors. William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway wrote movies, and Budd Schulberg was the only student to get an A from this one creative writing professor at Dartmouth.

[SevereTireDamage]

oops. sorry

[OttoMann]

It's frustrating that when a filmmaker does do something original (There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men), the critics almost have to band together and order everyone to see them. And the philistines would still rather see the latest Nicolas Cage or Matthew McConaughey trifle....

[AlexRemington]

Of course, There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men are book adaptations, so they're not exactly original. (They're really only marginally more original than the upcoming Max Payne, based on the video game, which in turn ripped off "bullet time" from The Matrix.)

But what they do have is a completely idiosyncratic tone, chosen by the filmmakers and carried to fruition. Even though I didn't like TWBB, I respect the fact that P.T. Anderson had a vision in his head and didn't compromise it. As I pointed out in my Oscar previews, there were actually a surprising number of writer-directors whose movies were nominated this year: the Coens, Anderson, Tamara Jenkins (The Savages), Brad Bird (Ratatouille), Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton), and Sarah Polley (Away From Her). So that's a heartening counter-movement to the overall trend toward sameness.

[BlackJAC]

Even though Nicolas Cage is himself an Oscar winner?

For starters, critics hate everything because they're failed writers themselves. Second, the guys who run the studios are not filmmakers but businessmen, and consquently greenlight whatever the hell the Marketing Department's focus group--usually comprised of unemployed losers and failed writers--says is good. I've been trying to move a couple of screenplays myself and can't get any traction because it's all conform-or-die with the studios and production companies.

[AlexRemington]

"Critics hate everything because they're failed writers themselves." Harsh, dude. Do I suck that badly?
Here, read this, by far better critics than I: http://www.avclub.com/content/node/53558

[SevereTireDamage]

You think that's bad? Have you checked out what's on Broadway lately?

Not an original idea from 42d St. all the way to 50th...

[AlexRemington]

Broadway's dying. It's been dying for years. And there will never be enough Urinetowns or Avenue Q's to save it.

[3fingerbrown]

From Crains New York Business:

Broadway Grosses Hit Record High in 2007

"Broadway revenue rose 3.5% to top $938 million in 2007, despite the 19-day strike that shuttered over two dozen shows on the Great White Way in November.

"Attendance for the year climbed 2.7% to a record 12.3 million, according to data released Thursday by the Broadway League, formerly known as the League of American Theaters and Producers, a trade association that represents producers and theater owners. Average ticket prices in 2007 hit $76.32, up from $75.69 in 2006."

Death, where is thy sting?

[BlackJAC]

Talk about remakes: nearly every new Broadway show is adapted from a movie these days.

[rektruax]

Passing Strange fucking ROCKED at the Public. I don't know how it will be interpreted at the Belasco but it was a pretty fresh "coming of age" take.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

So true. Haven't been to a movie in years. Just don't think any of them are worth the $20 it takes to go see one.

[SevereTireDamage]

You think that's bad? Have you checked out what's on Broadway lately?

Not an original idea from 42d St. all the way to 50th...