- Share this article on Facebook
- Share this article on Twitter
- Share this article on Email
- Show additional share options
- Share this article on Print
- Share this article on Comment
- Share this article on Whatsapp
- Share this article on Linkedin
- Share this article on Reddit
- Share this article on Pinit
- Share this article on Tumblr
The impressive opening of “Fast & Furious” during the weekend not only proves there’s gas in that franchise, but it also gives fuel to Hollywood’s obsession with movies based on, well, other movies.
Studios have been remaking movies pretty much since they began making them, but during the past year and particularly the past few months, the remake machine has gone into overdrive.
The 1980s have turned into a full-fledged garage sale of titles. “Romancing the Stone,” “Footloose,” “A Nightmare on Elm Street,” “Dune,” “The Karate Kid,” “Red Dawn,” “RoboCop,” “The Big Chill,” “Arthur,” “Ghostbusters” and “The NeverEnding Story” are but a few of the titles from that decade being developed around town.
The trend has broadened to include lesser-known properties from other media whose full value was thought to have been realized — and, in some cases, forgotten — long ago (“Candy Land,” anyone?).
When Warner Bros. solicited open writing assignments in February, eight of the 10 requests were for projects based on a previous movie or other branded property.
Producers say it is common for them to go down a list of hits from another decade to see what might be easiest legally and creatively to package and set up at a studio.
“If you’re trying to get a movie made now, you can push the rock up a mountain or you can push it on flat ground,” said one studio-based producer, explaining the rationale for remake mania. “Most of us would rather push it on flat ground.”
Development execs say it’s now routine for anyone who has had a branded property to explore big-screen possibilities.
When “Transformers” took off two years ago, its filmmakers got a pitch from the Mattel toy line Hot Wheels wondering whether they’d like to find a good guy-vs.-bad guy arc in the venerable brand. (In that case, at least, the response was a negative, though the toy line is in development as a feature at Warners.)
As the remake net gets cast ever more broadly, the cycle from original to redo continues to shorten.
Like “Furious” — which, going back to the 2001 original for talent and writers, occupies the ground between sequel and reboot — other movies are coming back in new guises sooner than ever before.
Neal Moritz, who produced “Furious,” is developing a new version of the 1990 sci-fi hit “Total Recall” as well as relaunching “XXX,” which first hit the screen just seven years ago. “Lara Croft” is getting a new treatment from Dan Lin and Warner Bros. just eight years after the Angelina Jolie original. Fox already is eyeing a relaunch of its “Fantastic Four” franchise; the two entries were hits just a few years ago. And at ShoWest last week, Sony said it will bring back “Men in Black” for another escapade.
While no one’s saying “Titanic” or “Forrest Gump” is getting a redo — yet — the fact that teen audiences don’t generally remember any pic more than 15 years old is fueling the impetus: In a couple of years, the multiplex could be programmed with the same titles that were current under the Clinton administration.
As one producer put it, “The ’90s are totally fair game.”
While earlier manias for remakes tended to fade if the movies did poorly — remember the late-’90s craze for TV makeovers a la “The Mod Squad” and “Lost in Space”? — the current remake reflex is stronger and more automatic. Even when a project fails to take off, as “American Girl” did in the summer, it doesn’t stop other branded properties from moving forward. For example, Hasbro, which has a deal with Universal, is full-speed ahead on several movie projects for its board games.
Every party in the development process has a reason to be invested in redo culture.
If it’s harder for agents to sell a spec, then they’re embracing the possibility of putting their writer clients on existing properties.
If it’s harder for producers to sell a pitch, then they enjoy the option of letting the familiar title speak for them. If marketing budgets are tighter, then studios can rely on built-in brand awareness when they prepare promotion and publicity campaigns.
“For original movies, you need to advertise the idea, the story — it’s about convincing people that it’s worth seeing,” one executive said. “With something that is branded, no education is required.”
If development budgets are smaller, then studios can plumb their libraries, as MGM is doing with such properties as “Red Dawn” and “RoboCop.” Such remakes from the vaults are less expensive from a rights perspective and enhance the value of catalog titles.
Part of the strip mining of the recent past is generational, where execs want to play with properties that had an effect on them as youngsters.
“To execs who grew up on these movies, this is high art: I was doing my own ‘Dawn of the Dead’ with a 8mm camera when I was 9,” said Eric Newman, co-head of Strike Entertainment, which remade “Dead” with Zack Snyder and is developing new versions of “The Thing,” “They Live” and “Creature From the Black Lagoon.” “I don’t think it means we are out of ideas. I think these movies are great stories, and great stories are told over and over again.”
Beyond these reasons, it’s the recession and, by extension, nervousness that’s driving the trend. Fewer projects mean placing fewer bets, and execs would rather go with what are safe bets — and a remake is perceived as that, even if the movie doesn’t turn out to be safe at all.
“With so many studios now having uber-manager CEOs looking over their shoulders, it’s much easier to blame someone else if a remake flops,” one studio exec said. “You can say, ‘It wasn’t my fault. The movie should have been a hit. It was the execution — the director screwed up.’ “
Still, Hollywood insiders have mixed views on the remake craze.
“Creatively, it can be bad, but it’s an endless money train to be on,” one studio exec said. “You’re profitable by Saturday afternoon on that movie. And until audiences say, ‘We’ve had enough,’ you can event-size these movies.”
On the other hand, profit participation can be a problem because remakes often involve more previous players than an original idea does.
And not every brand benefits from being reimagined as a movie.
“There are plenty of brands out there, and plenty of them shouldn’t be made into movies, but everyone thinks that the new holy grail is a branded movie as a key to success,” Moritz said. “I think there are certain brands or certain properties that can be turned into movies. A brand doesn’t guarantee success.”
Whether it has or hasn’t gone too far, the remake craze is changing how and what producers do — for good or for ill. “You’re still developing, but it’s a different kind of developing,” producer JC Spink said. “It becomes a business of matchmaking — where can you find a great property, and what great piece of talent can you pair up with? That is exciting.”
Others are less enthusiastic.
“I now sit down and scroll though IMDb looking for movies, and I spend time researching rights to old TV shows,” one studio exec said resignedly. “That’s where I spend more of my development time.” (partialdiff)
Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day