Whatever happened to film re-releases, as opposed to remakes?

[Schiann]

Having finally seen an advert for the Toy Story re-release (in 3D) it sparked my thinking again about why we never get re-releases these days. When I was a kid, it was fairly common for popular films to be released to cinemas again after 10, 20 or more years, and I always enjoyed getting to have the cinema experience with films that I wasn't alive or old enough for originally.

 

Certainly, it must be cheaper to re-release a film than to remake it?

[Beakerzoid]

Re-releases fell out of favour with the advent of home video, and then into DVD and now Hi-Def viewing. Back when I was a youngster I saw many films on re-release (mostly Disney animations), as it would usually be around 10 years before they came on Tv. Even in the early days of VHS it would be around 2 years before a title was available on tape - hence there was more appeal for a re-release at the cinema. I recall when ET came out, Spielberg stated that it would never be released on home video, and for the next few years it was a regular re-appearance at the old ABC cinema near where I was raised (obviously, once they home DVD market showed that it was cheap to sell to home market, and generates substantial profits, Spielberg changed his tune).

 

Re-releases now don't have a large enough audience to make it worthwhile in a lot of cases. Whilst a remake may cost, say, $60million to make, it could go on to generate $150million in box office takings. A re-release will generally make around the $15-$20 million (expected). Thus, the remake is more favourable as it has the higher profit margin.

 

This is why re-releases tend to be done as 'One Day Specials' (such as the recent and very popular showings of The Thing at Cineworld, which did fantastic on the Tuesday, but then not so much when we decided to put extra shows on at the weekend), or (in the case of Toy Story 3D) a limited release for a short time (it comes out a week before Pixar's UP in 3D, so expect Toy Story to vanish from most cinemas after 1 week to make room for the big new film in 3D).

 

So, yes, whilst it is cheaper to re-release a film, it isn't as profitable as a remake, or as selling to the home entertainment market. It is even easier to re-release now thanks to digital projectors meaning sourcing a good enough print is a thing of the past.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Beakerzoid

[Guest]

I think the obsession with remaking films is certainly to do with studios being profit-hungry (with some creative bankruptcy thrown in ). Films such as Fame, Footloose, The Karate Kid and such like were, of course, huge in their day. While their re-release might attract a sizeable nostalgia-driven crowd, the huge pre-teen and teen market are lured more effectively by the prospect of Chace Crawford and [insert name of current popular beat combo of your choice] than Kevin Bacon and Kenny Loggins.

 

I watched the trailer for the Fame remake last week. Kelsey Grammer. Dear God.

[Beakerzoid]

I think the obsession with remaking films is certainly to do with studios being profit-hungry (with some creative bankruptcy thrown in ). Films such as Fame, Footloose, The Karate Kid and such like were, of course, huge in their day. While their re-release might attract a sizeable nostalgia-driven crowd, the huge pre-teen and teen market are lured more effectively by the prospect of Chace Crawford and [insert name of current popular beat combo of your choice] than Kevin Bacon and Kenny Loggins.

 

Indeed. Not a new phenomenon either - two of the recent 'One Day Specials' re-releases were remakes themselves (Scarface and The Thing). Films have been remade for a new audience since the early days of cinema, knowing that crowds will flock to big stars/better effects/etc, rather than see an older film.

 

Then you have the 'remake designed to generate interest for a proper sequel'. Case in point: Sam Raimi is producing a remake of Evil Dead. Why? Well, he would really like to make an official 4th film with Bruce Campbell returning, but Army of Darkness was a bit of a flop so he needs to:-

a) Generate more appeal to the franchise by roping in a new audience with a new cast

b) Convince the studio that there is a market for it

so he can then

c) get Campbell back and have fun.

 

That is, assuming, he stops with the Spider-Man films for a bit (3 more to come folks)

[Schiann]

I'd considered the profit margin between a remake and a "dated" original film, but I'm still left pondering how many of the recent(ish) slew of remakes have been genuinely profitable... but then, when you account for the post-cinema market, I'm sure it does chalk up to a pretty penny.

 

That being said, surely there are a few films that aren't so dated that an "update" is necessary to get a younger audience in? To be honest, though, the only film that jumps immediately to mind is The Wizard of Oz.

 

The Toy Story re-release I really don't see as much of a risk for the studio, because aside from the added 3D gimmick, you've got: "classic" status; animated, so less dated; original audience, and their kids; wider appeal, etc. But I do hope it triggers at least some more re-releases of older animated films.

 

I still cringe at the mention of Footloose and Karate Kid remakes... Oddly, the Fame remake doesn't bother me so much, but it's not on my to-see list.

 

Was Army Of Darkness a flop? I thought it did OK at cinemas, but it's certainly done well enough since to gain "cult classic" status. Heck, 3/4 of the quips in Evil Dead: The Musical are from Army Of Darkness. ;-)

Of course, whether the popularity equates to profit...

[Guest]

Indeed. Not a new phenomenon either...

And add to that list the film 'remakes' which claim to reinterpret the original source material, or remake a foreign language film for an English-speaking audience.

 

Being rather fond of Kevin Bacon in his white vest, I do object to film-makers weeing on the likes of Footloose. Such remakes appear to offer no more than replacing legwarmers with lycra, and the slightly rough-looking Kevin with some slab of perfect plastic blandness from the Disney clone farm.

 

But then if I was part of the tween target audience, I'm sure I'd be wetting myself in anticipation of handing over my wedge of cash to see Chace, Zac et al, just as the film executives are anticipating the box office returns in the light of the success of the High School Musical films.

 

Having said that, I can't say I'm eager to see what Michael Bay does with A Nightmare on Elm Street, a film ostensibly rather more relevant to my interests.

[Schiann]

And add to that list the film 'remakes' which claim to reinterpret the original source material, or remake a foreign language film for an English-speaking audience.

 

This, at least, I can forgive. I doubt I ever would have discovered Akira Kurosawa if it weren't for The Magnificent Seven and A Fistful Of Dollars.

 

Being rather fond of Kevin Bacon in his white vest, I do object to film-makers weeing on the likes of Footloose. Such remakes appear to offer no more than replacing legwarmers with lycra, and the slightly rough-looking Kevin with some slab of perfect plastic blandness from the Disney clone farm.

 

These are the remakes I just don't quite understand. Even if I deem them unnecessary, at least I understand wanting to update effects-heavy films.

 

Having said that, I can't say I'm eager to see what Michael Bay does with A Nightmare on Elm Street, a film ostensibly rather more relevant to my interests.

 

That's another one I'm interested in, even though I shouldn't be. I think I'm mostly drawn to Jackie Earle Haley; I thought that was an excellent casting choice, and I'm curious to see if he's given enough to work with to make it a decent viewing.

[Beakerzoid]

 

Having said that, I can't say I'm eager to see what Michael Bay does with A Nightmare on Elm Street, a film ostensibly rather more relevant to my interests.

 

Ignoring the Michael Bay aspect (I despise him as a director, and have not been that impressed with his producing jobs on horrors of recent years), I have begin to come around to the Nightmare remake since the casting of Jackie Earle Hayley as Kruger, the director saying it is a return to the tone of the first film (so no jokey sillyness which soured the franchise over the years), and the looks of the first shots revealed from the flick (check imdb http://www.imdb.com/media/rm555190272/tt1179056 ).

 

It will probably turn out to be as bad as the Texas Chainsaw messes of recent years...but I live in hope.

[Guest]

I don't necessarily object to remakes which have some real practical or creative relevance; the English language remakes, the effects remakes, etc.

 

I tend to have little time for those which take a successful film from the relatively recent past, and simply extract the 'dated' elements (star, fashions, cultural references) and replace them with whatever is currently appealing to the target audience. Out goes Ralph Macchio, in comes Will Smith's son. Out with John Travolta, in with Zac Effron.

 

Beyond the profit, it all seems pretty pointless and, as I mentioned above, a bit whiffy of creative bankruptcy to rehash such successful, iconic films.* I'd include A Nightmare on Elm Street in that category, as beyond the green screen gore, I don't think there's much to add to what Robert Englund did with the character in the original film. I suppose it might help to erase the memory of some of the corny sequels, but I'm afraid I anticipate another Texas Chainsaw Massacre mess.

 

*Except, of course, if that rehashing involves Jason Statham in an oily vest.

[Guest]

...It will probably turn out to be as bad as the Texas Chainsaw messes of recent years...but I live in hope.

Hah! Snap! You posted as I was composing.