whats with all the remakes

[the bouncer]

Of late there has been the texas chainsaw massacre remake and now in production are remakes of the amytiville horror and king kong.I dont mind remakes but most of them aren't even half decent of the originals. What are your opinions.

[raj]

Most remakes aren't worth the film they're printed on.  It just shows that Hollywood is really low in the original idea barrel.

[Ash]

One word.....

MONEY

The studios want to milk every franchise for every last possible dollar.

[AndyC]

A remake of a successful film is a relatively safe investment, and Hollywood is all about safe investments. Original films require risk.

That said, remakes aren't all bad. Some stories deserve retelling, just not so many, not all at once, and certainly not when the most recent version is only a couple of decades old.

And a remake can sometimes generate interest in an older, better version.

There are only two really disappointing things for me. When the filmmakers don't show appropriate respect to the original, the fans, or the source material. They take too many liberties with the story, and make boneheaded casting choices. For example, casting Ellen DeGeneres as the equivalent of George Burns. When a role is so closely associated with a particular actor, you can't hand it to just anybody.

The other disappointing thing is when people don't even realize the movie is a remake. Last spring, I had a conversation with our 25-year-old boarder, about this very topic. Her response to most of the examples I gave was "that's a remake?"

A crappy remake I can handle. It's when people accept it as the real thing that I'm bothered.

[the bouncer]

Rosemary's baby is also being remade.

[l]

l

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Yeah, if you think of it in terms of risk,,, it essentially amounts to.

New film regardless of how great it might be = risky and potentially expensive.

Remake of a classic, remake of a sequel = easy money.

That's what runs through the puny brains of Hollywood studio execs.

Until such a time when the cinema going public starts actually punishing Hollywood for this playing it safe approach, don't be surprised when 90% of films are insipid sequels/remakes/star vehicles.

[Max Gardner]

Carpenter's remake of "The Thing" remains of the best horror films ever made, certainly far superior to the original film, which in my opinion was crap.  Lousy horror movie, lousy adaptation of Campbell's story.

[AndyC]

I don't even consider Carpenter's movie to be a remake, because he went back to the source material, and made a new adaptation that was more faithful to the story, and bore little resemblance to the previous movie.

[Mr. Hockstatter]

It's getting to the point where...why do they even bother?  I see some of this crap they put out these days and it's like, why don't they just take the money for the movie, and instead invest it in a mutual fund where it would make some interest?  

Besides making the accountants happy, it would actually be more interesting and entertaining for everyone involved.  To be perfectly honest, I would rather watch Neil Cavuto give a report on how the bond portion of their portfolio returned a 4.25% yield during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year than to sit through any more of this garbage.

[Yaddo42]

Plus so many remakes are in name only, or just use an element familar from the first film. That's Hollywood playing it safe again, by marketing a film based on the reputation of the title or the impact or popularity of part of the first film.

While the remake was so-so on it's own, I'm convinced the reasons "The Italian Job" was remade had to do with product placement tie-in with the new Mini Cooper and that the chase/getaway from the first film (mostly the Minis driving through the storm drain) has kind of lodged in the pop culture consciousness. Clips have been used or refered to enough that even people who haven't seen the first film are aware of the name and that part of the film. So of course a remake would generate interest just from name recognition.