Rehashing Classic Movies

[sackett22]

What is it today with directors rehashing classic movies. I mean come on Amityville Horror, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dawn of the Dead(which was a good remake) and now When a Stranger Calls. Has Hollywood lost its originality. Lord lets hope they don't start remaking movies that were just made 10 years ago. I don't think I could stand it.

[wusmmik]

Yes Sackett22, it does seem that Hollywood is not the fountain of original ideas it once was. The horror movie remake has turned into a staple of sorts.
Believe it or not, those are the only real remakes I stand behind.

I guess it all started with William Castle redos of "The House on Haunted Hill", etc. These films are first low-budget, second need no top line actors and since "Scream" prove that this genre of film can open anytime of year to be profitable.

While movies like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Dawn of The Dead" don't really need to be remade to me, newer viewers seem to need updated versions of these stories. Classic horror seems to be left untouched in favor of the "based on a true story" type. So, no one expects a remake of "Frankenstein" anytime soon; but those movies we watched on HBO as kids huddled in the dark are coming back again and again along with J-Horror remakes. Look for a slew of "Hostel" like movies in the near future, as that one and "Saw" seem to be the best of the new horror films.

As for "When A Stranger Calls", that one was pretty creepy when I was 10.
But the new one, at least from the trailers, looks to be a worthy successor to the '79 version (and eradicate the 1993 TV-movie sequel from memory).
The one I always wanted to see remade was the super-creepy "A Stranger In The House", that one always left me pretty scared.

[Buggy]

Did Hollywood ever even have any originality? Most, if not all, of the movies you mentioned were low budget indy movies (the originals I mean).

[Lylabean]

yeah it does seem there are an awful lot of remakes out there and not just horror movies.. Cheaper by the Dozen, flight of the phoenix, and Yours, mine and ours come immediately to mind.

My rule of thumb is to not see the remakes in the theater but just to wait for them on dvd.

Lynn

[wusmmik]

Great examples..stay tuned for the "Miami Vice" flick this summer.
Anyway, I was using the horror genre as one example. Yes, those were low-budget in the 60's and 70's (some were like micro-budget wonders too)
and they continue to be low-budget today. I totally agree, all of this blah blah blah these entertainment types have about how no one goes to see Hollywood movies anymore is wearing everyone down. So, since I'm one to pick my battles..I'll insert two points you don't often hear on trainwreck shows like CNN's "Showbiz Tonight".

The reality of Hollywood movies making money is ridiculous. They act like "The Dukes of Hazzard" remake has to make 100 million dollars to cover the expenses of making the film and marketing it. The fact they commonly ignore revealing is that today's motion picture in theatres really only makes on average 10% of its cost. 10%, that's it. The rest is first DVD sales and rentals, then pay-per-view revenues, then cable fees and finally if someone like TNT buys the movie outright for their own exclusive viewing.

Now, we've all been to the video store and rented dumb movies, and we've all pay-per-viewed something we couldn't get at the video store (in the case of a bomb called "Gigli", we actually turned it off after 20 minutes)..the real loss is that they can't sell these movies outright, before they've been in theatres to networks because the big three aren't interested in paying $40 million upfront for a movie after losing everything on a turkey called "Wild Wild West."

OK, so now before you listen to another Hollywood type whine about the business, load this into your chamber as well. They sell off the movie costs for advertising. "Austin Powers:Goldmember" contained so much product placement that it practically paid for the movie. But wait, there's more.

The movie studios want your money up front, in the first weekend, right off the bat. They spend nearly every penny ramping up junk movies to get as much back as humanly possible on the opening weekend. They know they can get you in the theatre if they hit you over the head enough times with cross-marketed trailers (one looks like a romantic comedy, the other a stark drama..wait it's the same film) and review blurbs from untalented hacks like Earl Dittman of Wireless Magazine (who'd likely give a snuff film a thumbs up)..because the film studios take the biggest piece of the revenue pie from those theatres on the opening weekend. After that, a film that continues for weeks and weeks at your local theatre actually winds up making more and more money for the theatre itself.

So, the next time someone starts talking about how no one goes to the movies anymore because people talk, answer their cell phones, sit through 20 minutes of ads, high costs etc. Here's some ammo to show people that in the end, the studios don't care about that..they are still making money..I gotta run Gus van Sant's remake of "Psycho" is coming on TV.

[hee hee]