The monster squad getting a remake?

Tell me about it.

The remake insanity continues.

Theyre actually remaking Overboard. Overboard!

Considering the original film was a giant bomb when released and made the director NO money, at least this way he'll get some cash into his pocket.  Once again, take a look at the box office.  Original works aren't bringing anyone in so why take the risk?

I can't tell you how much that statement makes me feel physically ill.

No way will I be seeing this, the original is a classic and it's place in my heart will remain untouched.

If someone lives in a fantasy world they can wish this stuff away but take a look at the box office numbers each week.  The dumber something is or the less original it is then more people are going to come.  There's a reason the work of a Herzog can't be shown on more than 90 screens and that's because no one wants to watch it.  There's also a reason something like PROM NIGHT brings in $30+ million in three days.  I doubt anyone is going to say PROM NIGHT is more quality than Herzog but that's what people want and producers are going to go where the money is. 

As much as you and I might love the original, it was a dud when released and has a small cult following now.  Even if all the fans of the original stay away, they're still going to have a hit on their hands and it's going to be seen by more people than the original ever did.  If anything, it will bring more people to the original.  I doubt the original filmmaker made very much from the film so at least this will get some cash into his pocket.

I'm sorry but discussing how little people are interested in watching original material matters little to me, whether it's true or not it's a profoundly depressing thing to talk about.

Your intitled to your opinion or depression if it really makes you actually depressed.  Some would say milking an idea to seven, eight or nine sequels is an unoriginal thing to do.  There are countless original horror movies released each year but no one knows any of them.  They do know the sequels and remakes.

I feel the same way about certain favorite movies. I'll go the "remake/reboot route" for some of them, but there are just some special films that mean something to me where I'm not willing to waste my time.

It is indeed worse than ever; everything is getting rebooted and remade; everything and anything, doesn't even matter what it is anymore. 

I know you and I have dissected this many times before, Michael, but I still don't believe it's always a "sure thing" about trying a remake over something new. Many remakes tank as well. Take a look at something like ROLLERBALL.

And then you mentioned PROM NIGHT. Why remake this when even the original was a dud? Why would a remake of the original version supposedly be a "sure thing"? Most of the 17-year-olds out there watching a remade horror movie in 2010 don't even know it's a remake. So it's not like they're saying to themselves "oh, this is a remake of an older film I loved, so I want to see the new one too!". I know a girl who wanted to see the new version of THE CRAZIES, and she's 36. She never even heard of the Romero original. She did not go to see it specifically "because she loves remakes and doesn't want to see anything original". She thought it was a whole new film. I know a guy at work who's just celebrated his 50th birthday and went to see the new TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE and was shocked when I told him it was a remake; he's never heard of the 1974 movie. So the overwhelming majority of typical moviegoers of all ages do not go to remakes "because they enjoy remakes more than original ideas".

Do you have any numbers to actually back this up?

Only my eyes and ears. And articles written fairly regularly where even the most skilled critics and movie experts and down to the average moviegoer on the streets are fed up with "remake-itis". One screenwriter wrote an article bemoaning the fact that in today's movie world he's been instructed to search out the IMDB and seek out specifically any movie that hasn't been remade yet! It's just so blatantly out of control and obvious today that it's not even worth debating. Everyone can sense it, everyone feels it. They didn't always. I didn't notice all of this craziness so acutely back during the 70s, 80s, or even early 90s - but I certainly have in the last 10-15 years or so; there's no escaping it even if you're not looking for it.  When I saw INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS remade, in a theater in 1978, that was a rather rare occurrence as compared to remakes and reboots today! It was the exception back then, not the rule; today it's the rule rather than the exception. There were still generally a lot more avenues to be explored back then.

 I'm not going to get into that "there have always been remakes" discussion, because I understand that --  but not to this length. It's become a common joke from people of all walks of life. Back in past earlier decades they understandably remade silents for sound or some b&w for color -- but nothing like taking '80s films and needlessly redoing them in the '00s. 

If you're going to try and state facts then you need to have numbers to back it up.  A common joke from all walks of life?  Are you freaking kidding me?  Who outside of movie dorks on message boards are complaining?  I don't see these all walks of life staying away on weekends.  I don't see these "all walks of life" staying away and watching those original and new movies released each week.  Again, if people are so upset by all of this can you please provide examples or facts to back up what you're saying.

Now, if you want to say that they're remaking movies that you actually know about then that's one thing.  But to try and say that there are more than ever is an outright lie and would only come from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about and I know that's not you.

Here are some numbers for you:

1	The Ring	DW	$129,128,133	2,927	$15,015,393	1,981	10/18/02
2	The Grudge	Sony	$110,359,362	3,348	$39,128,715	3,245	10/22/04
3	The Haunting	DW	$91,411,151	2,881	$33,435,140	2,808	7/23/99
4	The Texas Chainsaw Massacre	NL	$80,571,655	3,018	$28,094,014	3,016	10/17/03
5	The Ring Two	DW	$76,231,249	3,341	$35,065,237	3,332	3/18/05
6	The Amityville Horror (2005)	MGM	$65,233,369	3,323	$23,507,007	3,323	4/15/05
7	Friday the 13th (2009)	WB (NL)	$65,002,019	3,105	$40,570,365	3,105	2/13/09
8	The Wolfman	Uni.	$61,979,680	3,223	$31,479,235	3,222	2/12/10
9	The Stepford Wives	Par.	$59,484,742	3,057	$21,406,781	3,057	6/11/04
10	Dawn of the Dead	Uni.	$59,020,957	2,748	$26,722,575	2,745	3/19/04
11	Halloween (2007)	MGM/W	$58,272,029	3,475	$26,362,367	3,472	8/31/07
12	The Omen (2006)	Fox	$54,607,383	2,723	$16,026,496	2,723	6/6/06
13	My Bloody Valentine 3-D	LGF	$51,545,952	2,534	$21,241,456	2,534	1/16/09
14	When a Stranger Calls	SGem	$47,860,214	3,004	$21,607,203	2,999	2/3/06
15	Prom Night (2008)	SGem	$43,869,350	2,821	$20,804,941	2,700	4/11/08
16	Thirteen Ghosts	WB	$41,867,960	2,781	$15,165,355	2,781	10/26/01
17	The Hills Have Eyes	FoxS	$41,778,863	2,621	$15,708,512	2,620	3/10/06
18	House on Haunted Hill	WB	$40,846,082	2,710	$15,946,032	2,710	10/29/99
19	The Fly	Fox	$40,456,565

I think most horror fans would say that LET THE RIGHT ONE IN is one of the best and most original horror films from the past few decades.  Only $2 million at the box office.  Oscar winner CRAZY HEART $36 million; well below PROM NIGHT.  I guess these all walks of life want quality films like THE HURT LOCKER.  Nah, only $15 million.  Perhaps they want quality like A PROPHET, one of the best reviewed movies out there.  Oops, my bad; I guess not since only $1.5 million.  Surely people want high-art like THE LAST STATION since it got the Oscar noms.  Nope, only $6 million.  PRECIOUS, one of the best reviewed but still well below our trash titles listed above.  Surely great movies like THE READER, THE WRESTLER and MILK with their Oscars made more money.  Nope. 

You complain about the remakes yet how many of the original works have you went out and supporting?  Zero?  How many of the remakes have you gone out and seen?  I'm willing to bet that you, myself and many others in these threads have seen more of the remakes listed above and that's exactly why someone is going to give them to green light over something "original".  THE WOLFMAN and THE STEPFORD WIVES were complete bombs but the rest of the list, and many others, were hits and made back a lot more money than they cost to produce. 

If people from all walks of life are done with them then I'd like to know where you're find these numbers.  We're just looking at one genre but we can expand this to others and the rule will be hits with a few exceptions (ROLLERBALL, BLACK CHRISTMAS) that are bombs.  I'm willing to bet that $20 that you owe me that THE KARATE KID (which looks horrid) and THE MONSTER SQUAD will make a lot more money than the majority of your "original" movies that get released this year or the various critic-friendly, Oscar winners. 

Your making this thread more complex than it needs to be, Michael.

Point is, there are too many remakes that have come out and are coming out and we're sick to death of them.

Your retort will probably be something along the lines of the numbers don't reflect that but it doesn't matter, we're, meaning us here, are tired of them.

I know I am.

You might be tired of them but the masses aren't.  I'm sick to death of dumbed down movies but the masses aren't.  I'm sick to death of no one seeing a Herzog or Lynch movie yet $250 million going to something like THE BLIND SIDE. 

Didn't Mulholland Drive pull in $300 million?

A little below that but it did come in seventh on Box Office Mojo's list of "mindbenders"

1	Vanilla Sky	Par.	$100,618,344	2,842	$25,015,518	2,742	12/14/01
2	The Forgotten	SonR	$67,133,509	3,144	$21,022,111	3,104	9/24/04
3	Fight Club	Fox	$37,030,102	1,966	$11,035,485	1,963	10/15/99
4	Jacob's Ladder	TriS	$26,118,851	1,264	$7,500,760	1,052	11/2/90
5	Memento	NM	$25,544,867	531	$235,488	11	3/16/01
6	Altered States	WB	$19,853,892	-	$174,650	3	12/25/80
7	Mulholland Drive	Uni.	$7,220,243	247	$587,591	66	10/8/01
8	Lost Highway	Oct.	$3,675,201	337	$212,710	12	2/21/97
9	Donnie Darko	NM	$1,270,522	58	$110,494	58	10/26/01
10	Open Your Eyes	Art.	$370,720	34	$38,289	10	4/16/99

Yes, I think the "masses" are also tired of remakes. That's who I mean when I say "people from all walks of life". You don't only hear movie buffs bemoaning the over-abundance of nonstop remakes today; even your typical average aunt, uncle, grandmother, co-worker, etc., are saying "What are they gonna remake next?? This is getting ridiculous". At least I come across it pretty regularly, because it's getting to the point now where so many movies are being re-done that eventually everyone starts to notice it. You no longer have to be a film scholar to see it.

And most significantly, it's the current fad that the movies which are presently being remade are largely '70s and '80s films!  I could see remaking BEN-HUR in 1959.... after all,  silent films were not always easy to see, some of them were lost movies, and it made sense to take a black and white silent film and glamourize it and boost it up with sound and color. But why in the world is there any artistic need to remake THE MONSTER SQUAD, for example? Why do they need to remake FRIGHT NIGHT (1985), which I hear is also on the way? These are not lost films or hard to see movies; we now have DVD and NETFLIX.... it's not like we have to wait for these older movies to be shown at some revival theater or to pop up on television... everything is readily available for viewing. This current trend of going down the list of titles and remaking just about every '80s film they can think of is absurd.  How long is it going to be before 1990s films or 2000s are getting re-worked? Are the 1990s really so "long ago" that their movies are severely outdated somehow? THE MONSTER SQUAD was made in 1987 -- it's a kid's movie that can still apply for today's kids. Just like MARY POPPINS or THE WIZARD OF OZ  still do.

And I'm not sure, Michael, if you see what I'm suggesting. You seem to feel that "Remakes = Big Money", and that is simply not the case all the time at all (you can pull box office figures out, but you'd have to pull out figures for every remake ever made of the last 15 years). You also say "People Want to See Remakes, But They Don't Want To See Original Films".    Yet, all I am hearing is most people protesting remakes... and what's more, people going to the movies don't even KNOW they're watching a remake 99% of the time. I gave you the examples with two people I know who saw THE CRAZIES and PELHAM, and neither one of them knew they were seeing remakes. So they did not specifically say "Oh how cool - a remake! I just love going to see remakes!" What are you basing your belief that "people want to see remakes but not originals" on? Some specially cherry-picked box office figures? I still believe that if Hollywood ONLY made original films, then those would be what the public would be paying to see. And what about original films that get limited release? THE RUNAWAYS just flopped at the box office because it did not get a wide release and it only made slightly over 1 million, I think. If something like a PROM NIGHT remake does better because the studios open it up to a wider amount of theaters, then that's the studios who are calling the results and sabotaging the chances of a more original film doing well.   

Actually, it just opened wide yesterday (and I'm about to go see it again). I'm sure it won't make a lot of money but it's not really a movie aimed at a wide audience either.

 "Yet, all I am hearing is most people protesting remakes... and what's more, people going to the movies don't even KNOW they're watching a remake 99% of the time."

Don't these two statements negate each other?  How can people be protesting something that they don't know about?

Okay, the way I joined those two together at the same point  may have been poorly done. I'm just telling you what I experience. I hear people of all ages, some who are movie buffs, most who aren't though - saying they're remaking everything today and it's gotten out of control. I'd say that the general public are now aware that we're facing a trend of "Remake-itis" . That term "Remake-itis" was a term I read from a critic in a recent article about the subject; it was not a term which was ever used back in the 1930s-1990s. The closest I can recall to such a term was "sequelitis" back in the '80s.

But I am suggesting that Michael's observations negate each other. He has said (if not here in this thread, then in other discussions over the years I've known him online) that most people don't even know that these newer versions are remakes... yet he feels that people tend to want to seek out remakes more than original movies. How does that work? It can't be that they're buying their tickets because they're remakes if they don't know they're remakes.  

I wish you were correct, but I don't think it's the case. I heard it was supposed to open wide on April 9th, but it turned out not to be the case. There are no ads in the New York area newspapers for it, it's dropped completely out of sight, and there are no theaters in my New York area playing it. On the Joan Jett message board there are fans from all states who are saying they still can't see it, and that the nearest theater for them is a 3 hour drive.  

The story I heard from someone who is familar with the business is that sometimes a film gets a small release to create a "buzz" before it opens wide. In the case of THE RUNAWAYS though, there was no buzz and it backfired, so films like that do not often get that intended wider release.

The movie itself may not be aimed at a wide audience, but I would have thought that the casting of the now-popular Kristen Stewart (and Dakota Fanning) might have been enough to make some younger fans interested. Besides, it is a "teenage rock stars" story which I think could appeal to teenagers. But whatever.  

Michael Elliott wrote:
"I stopped reading after this.  I'll revisit this thread throughout the year to see if your theory on this is correct.  If so, the non-stop remakes coming up should tank and those original, Oscar-winning pictures every aunt, uncle, grandmother and co-worker wants should bring in large numbers." 

Well, that's unfortunate that you didn't allow yourself to read the rest of what I wrote. There may have been something else there which we could have agreed upon. Did you stop reading because you thought if you read on, there might be something further I would point out that could convince you? I've made some good points for you to respond to, but if you choose not to address them and simply say "I stopped reading after this", then I guess we can only discontinue this discussion and agree to disagree. 
Edited by Joe Karlosi - 4/11/10 at 5:35am

Earlier this week, I saw a banner ad on Yahoo saying it was opening wide on April 9. I doubt it has 1,000 screens or anything like that but I'm curious to see how many screens it is on. It's too early for Box Office Mojo to have a full list for the weekend yet.

If there was one thing that the internet has made me realize, it's that I'm lucky that alot of movies play around me (and I'm even luckier because I live in suburbia). It seems like most movies that I want to see are within a reasonable drive time for me. And I hate driving so a "reasonable drive time" for me is about 15 minutes.

EDIT: According to Box Office Mojo, The Runaways was on 204 screens (up from 84 last weekend) and its gross was $470,000 this weekend for a grand total of about 2.5 million.
Edited by TravisR - 4/11/10 at 3:15pm

$2,300 a screen isn't bad for an indie with little to no buzz outside the TwiHard community.

The funniest part about that is that the average Twilight fan would likely be shocked by alot of what is in The Runaways.

On a side note I don't get that Kristin Stewart chick, she never smiles and in every interview I see her in she seems to have no personality that is visible to the naked eye.

Ah well, back to the topic at hand...

Not jump back off, but I agree 100% and she always looks really unsure/uneasy/nervous...

Ok NOW back on topic!