Anyone up for the Fright Night remake? - Page 3

I think both audiences and studios want something that they're familiar with. Like I said, if something worked before, a studio is more inclined to put money into and box office grosses show undeniably that the audience wants something they know.

As for what if Hollywood stopped making sequels and remakes, maybe you're right but you might as well say "If Hollywood only makes great movies, they'll make more money", it's never going to happen.

 

 

Then what about when the first PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN was new? What about when KUNG FU PANDA #1 was new? At one point the people went to see something "new", didn't they? 

 

And I think there are just as many audience members who are becoming more vocal about being sick and tired of the same old thing, and would welcome something fresh. At one time, PIRATES and PANDA were fresh.

 

People do want new and are getting disgusted. You hear people saying it all the time, and there are reports on it in mags and newspapers all the time.
 

 

Yes, everything has to start somewhere but the Pirates Of The Caribbean series illustrates my point more than yours because the first one is the lowest grossing movie of the series in terms of worldwide grosses. The newest one has only been out for a month and it's already made $200 million more than the original made in its original run worldwide. I agree that people say that they want something new but the list of what actually makes the most money proves that, as of now, there's more people who want the same old thing and as long as they keep paying, they'll keep getting it.

My take on this issue is this, no it isn't accurate to say "the studios are just giving the people what they want.", what IS accurate to say is that "studios are giving people what they're throwing their money at because that's all we're giving them."

 

If I were hungry and all there was were stale donuts I would of course eat them because that's all they have, but if something like pizza or spaghetti were offered along with the stale donuts I'd eat the pizza and spaghetti instead.

 

My point is if the studios suddenly stopped making remakes, people would never miss them, not raise a fuss and go see whatever is available because I truly believe that when it comes to movies people adapt very quickly to what is coming out and have a short memory for what the trend was a few months ago.

 

People don't care about remakes, it's the studios perception that they do because they are giving audiences nothing original to choose from so a false reality is being created in the minds of those studios.

I'd be curious to see a list showing how remakes stack up against original movies in terms of earnings over the last, say, 5 years. I know Paranormal Activity made alot of money but even something like Insidious is really only a hit because it was inexpensive.

EDIT: Box Office Mojo breaks things down into subgenres but I compiled a list of horror movies from 2006 to today.

Remakes that made $50 million or more from 2006:
My Bloody Valentine- $51
The Omen- $58
Halloween- $58
The Wolfman- $61
A Nightmare On Elm Street- $63
Friday The 13th- $65

Original movies (no remakes or sequels) that made $50 million or more from 2006:
The Strangers- $52
Insidious- $53
The Haunting In Connecticut- $55
Paranormal Activity- $109

Unless you can catch lightning in a bottle like Paranormal Activity, I think this list helps to show why studios pump out remakes. HOWEVER, it doesn't look at important factors like how many original horror movies were made in that period vs. remakes (though I'd guess that original movies did outnumber remakes) and it doesn't look at what remakes failed (though it doesn't look at what original movies failed either) so it's certainly not proof of much more than what those 10 movies made in the U.S.
Edited by TravisR - 6/15/11 at 1:18pm

Quote:

That's it, exactly - and just what I have been trying to get across.

You can pick a few that "didn't make their money back" but for the most part everyone of these made cash back and this is before foreign, video, cable and so on.  The odds of you making a film like these that doesn't make money is a lot less than throwing something "original" out there.  **It's worth noting that two of the bombs (THE WOLFMAN, THE STEPFORD WIVES) still made great money but their large budgets killed them.

 

I think it's also fair to say that the majority of these titles were "poor" to "fair" at best in terms of quality.  Various stages of horror have happened over the past several decades but they usually die out.  Those beloved 80s slashers eventually ran out of gas as did the SCREAM type films of the 90s.  This trend has lasted a lot longer and we've got dozens more coming and this is just one genre nevermind everything else.

 

 

 

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	A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)	WB (NL)	$63,075,011	3,332	$32,902,299	3,332	4/30/10
9	The Wolfman	Uni.	$61,979,680	3,223	$31,479,235	3,222	2/12/10
10	The Stepford Wives	Par.	$59,484,742	3,057	$21,406,781	3,057	6/11/04
11	Dawn of the Dead	Uni.	$59,020,957	2,748	$26,722,575	2,745	3/19/04
12	Halloween (2007)	MGM/W	$58,272,029	3,475	$26,362,367	3,472	8/31/07
13	The Omen (2006)	Fox	$54,607,383	2,723	$16,026,496	2,723	6/6/06
14	My Bloody Valentine 3-D	LGF	$51,545,952	2,534	$21,241,456	2,534	1/16/09
15	When a Stranger Calls	SGem	$47,860,214	3,004	$21,607,203	2,999	2/3/06
16	Prom Night (2008)	SGem	$43,869,350	2,821	$20,804,941	2,700	4/11/08
17	Thirteen Ghosts	WB	$41,867,960	2,781	$15,165,355	2,781	10/26/01
18	The Hills Have Eyes	FoxS	$41,778,863	2,621	$15,708,512	2,620	3/10/06
19	House on Haunted Hill	WB	$40,846,082	2,710	$15,946,032	2,710	10/29/99
20	The Fly	Fox	$40,456,565	1,201	$7,007,423	1,195	8/15/86
21	The Grudge 2	Sony	$39,143,839	3,214	$20,825,300	3,211	10/13/06
22	The Crazies	Over.	$39,123,589	2,479	$16,067,552	2,476	2/26/10
23	Halloween II (2009)	W/Dim.	$33,392,973	3,088	$16,349,565	3,025	8/28/09
24	The Last House on the Left (2009)	Uni.	$32,752,215	2,402	$14,118,685	2,401	3/13/09
25	House of Wax	WB	$32,064,800	3,111	$12,077,236	3,111	5/6/05
26	The Eye	LGF	$31,418,697	2,470	$12,425,776	2,436	2/1/08
27	Mirrors	Fox	$30,691,439	2,664	$11,161,074	2,664	8/15/08
28	The Fog (2005)	SonR	$29,550,869	2,972	$11,752,917	2,972	10/14/05
29	The Stepfather (2009)	SGem	$29,062,561	2,734	$11,581,586	2,734	10/16/09
30	The Uninvited	P/DW	$28,596,818	2,344	$10,325,824	2,344	1/30/09
31	One Missed Call	WB	$26,890,041	2,240	$12,511,473	2,240	1/4/08
32	Shutter	Fox	$25,928,550	2,756	$10,447,559	2,753	3/21/08
33	Dark Water	BV	$25,473,352	2,657	$9,939,251	2,657	7/8/05
34	Invasion of the Body Snatchers	UA	$24,946,533	445	$1,298,129	445	12/22/78
35	The Wicker Man	WB	$23,649,127	2,784	$9,610,204	2,784	9/1/06
36	Psycho (1998)	Uni.	$21,456,130	2,489	$10,031,850	2,477	12/4/98
37	The Hills Have Eyes 2	FoxA	$20,804,166	2,465	$9,686,362	2,447	3/23/07
38	Pulse	W/Dim.	$20,264,436	2,323	$8,203,822	2,323	8/11/06
39	The Thing (1982)	Uni.	$19,629,760	910	$3,107,897	840	6/25/82
40	The Hitcher (2007)	Rog.	$16,472,961	2,836	$7,818,239	2,831	1/19/07
41	Black Christmas (2006)	MGM/W	$16,273,581	1,544	$3,723,364	1,544	12/25/06
42	The Invasion	WB	$15,074,191	2,776	$5,951,409	2,776	8/17/07
43	Sorority Row	Sum.	$11,965,282	2,665	$5,059,802	2,665	9/11/09
44	Village of the Damned	Uni.	$9,418,365	1,919	$3,222,450	1,890	4/28/95
45	The Blob	TriS	$8,247,943	1,081	$2,644,920	1,081	8/5/88
46	Cat People	Uni.	$7,000,000	600	$1,617,636	600	4/2/82
47	Willard	NL	$6,886,089	1,762	$4,010,593	1,761	3/14/03
48	Night of the Living Dead	Col.	$5,835,247	1,544	$2,884,679	1,544	10/19/90
49	Invaders From Mars	Can.	$4,884,663	1,212	$2,046,576	1,212	6/6/86
50	Funny Games	WIP	$1,294,919	288	$544,833	286	3/14/08
51	Body Snatchers	WB	$428,868	34	$31,494	13	1/14/94
52	Night of the Living Dead 3D	MME	$271,000	145	$215,300	145	11/10/06
53	I Spit on Your Grave	Anch.	$93,051	12	$32,440	12	10/8/10

 

 

July has TRANSFORMERS III, HARRY POTTER, CAPTAIN AMERICA,A THE SMURFS and WINNIE THE POO lined up but since people want original movies (if they're out there) then they can pick from these:

 

Delhi Belly
The Perfect Host
Beats, Rhymes & Life
Fading of the Cries
Project Nim
Ranchero
Rapt
Sholem Aleichem
Buzzkill
Daylight
Life Above All
Salvation Boulevard
Snow Flower and the Secret Fan
Tabloid
Another Earth
A Little Help
The Myth of An American Sleepover
Sarah's Key
Attack the Block
The Devil's Double
El Billi
The Future
Good Neighbors
The Guard
Life in a Day
Point Blank 

 

 

A lot more original, small movies than blockbusters so let's see how many of you against these remakes/sequels/unoriginal films actually watch any of them.  How many of those fans lining up for midnight screenings have heard of ANY of those films mentioned?  I'd question how many people in this very thread (myself included) had heard of them.  Posting thoughts on a message board isn't going to do anyone any good.  Vote with your money.  Skip the Hollywood stuff and visit your arthouse theater. 

 

And don't worry, when FRIGHT NIGHT hits theaters there are just as many small movies for people to flock to.

A high percentage of those films will never see a wide release that trickles down to the multiplexes of middle America. The "art house theater" is nothing but a fairy tale in most areas.

But don't you think if SARAH'S KEY could open at 3700 theaters and bring in $30 million on an opening weekend then the studio would do it?  Theater owners are going to bring in whatever puts butts in the seats and they'd be stupid to book any of those films.  As a business man would you rather have a 10-screen theater with THE HANGOVER II, TRANSFORMERS III and HARRY POTTER 22 on ten of those screens with sold out shows or EL BILLI, an original work, on one screen and getting three ticket sales the entire week.  It's fairly clear to me that if the owners could make money off these films then they would.

 

I wish CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS could be released on 3000+ screens but if owners did that then they'd go broke.

Quote:

 

But what I don't think you understand is that the studios and theater owners  themselves created this monster. It's now become a vicious cycle, but it is a cycle which could be broken one day -- IF THEY CHOOSE TO BREAK IT. If the only films released to multiplexes were movies like those "arthouse" titles you've listed, then this is all the public would have to choose from. Eventually, they would make the big bucks. People will not stop going ot the movies, and if there are no movies like HARRY POTTER or TRANSFORMERS offered on the menu, then they will not be able to order them. If big films like HARRY POTTER and TRANSOFRMERS were only viewable over at tiny arthouse theaters, they'd do less business. It's a very simple concept. But Hollywood and theater ownerswould rather contribute to the Dumbing Down Of America.

 

 

I would also say that those small movies you've named also make money back, because they're not as expensive to produce. I was just watching an interview with Woody Allen and he said that very thing about his own small films. Every single person I've heard from who has seen MIDNIGHT IN PARIS think it's a good or great movie... it's a damn shame that somewhere along the line, moviegoers became dumbed down to mainly wanting stuff like TRANSFORMERS. 

In a perfect world, the studios would be most concerned about art but they're a business so they have to care about money. If they only put out art house movies, people wouldn't go and see art pictures, they'd just stop going to the movies until a studio decided that they want to make money again and brought back the big dumb blockbuster. There's three art house theaters within reasonable driving distance of me and they're crumbling dumps that are generally pretty empty (at least whenever I go there). Meanwhile, nearly all the multiplexes have carpeting, non-torn apart seats, stadium seating and, most importantly, they are packed with people seeing whatever the new 'big' movie of the week is.

I guess it's a pessimistic view but I don't think people have gotten any more dumb. I think they're about as dumb as they've always been and movies are about as good (or bad) as they've always been. I doubt the masses were flocking to the theaters to see Citizen Kane in 1941 but I bet some lackluster movie made alot of money that year. It's only after the fact that the cream rises to the top, the junk is forgotten and the past appears to be better than the present.

Michael brought up a good point about the remakes just being another cycle that will eventually burn itself. While this one is longer lived than the nature run amok fad of the 1970's or the early 1980's slasher craze or the Asian ghost kid who meows like a cat garbage of the early 2000's but I do think it's coming to an end soon. If only because they're out of things to remake. Chronologically, they're getting to the point where they'll have to remake The Blair Witch Project or remake the remake of The Haunting if they keep going.

>>In a perfect world, the studios would be most concerned about art but they're a business s>>o they have to care about money. If they only put out art house movies, people wouldn't go and see art pictures, they'd just stop going to the movies until a studio decided that they want to make money again and brought back the big dumb blockbuster.<<

 

No, I don't agree that people would just stay home and retire the old pastime of going to the movies. It might be slow at first, but ultimately the tide would turn the other way. What did people see in theaters BEFORE there were only big duumb blockbusters offered to them?

 

>>There's three art house theaters within reasonable driving distance of me and they're crumbling dumps that are generally pretty empty (at least whenever I go there). Meanwhile, nearly all the multiplexes have carpeting, non-torn apart seats, stadium seating and, most importantly, they are packed with people seeing whatever the new 'big' movie of the week is.<<

 

And so, what is the point here? What I've said --- that it's the big dumb blockbusters which get all the attention, and so do the humongous multiplex theaters that get all the restoration and attention. Let's switch the artsy movies to the multiplexes, and place HARRY POTTER into the few old rotting tiny theaters and see what happens. 

>>I guess it's a pessimistic view but I don't think people have gotten any more dumb. I think they're about as dumb as they've always been and movies are about as good (or bad) as they've always been.<<

 

I don't think it's you being "pessimistic" as at is playing Devil's Advocate, and perhaps being naive and hopeful for today's world. I'm not going to get into this "movies were better then" routine; it's obvious that they were. All the "Top Greatest Lists" bear this out.

 

>>I doubt the masses were flocking to the theaters to see Citizen Kane in 1941 but I bet some lackluster movie made alot of money that year. It's only after the fact that the cream rises to the top, the junk is forgotten and the past appears to be better than the present.<<

 

That's always the excuse people use to proclaim that "today is just the same as yesterday". (And this goes beyond just discussing MOVIES; it's everything else, too). People who prefer the past are told that "they're wearing rose colored glasses", or that "they're under an illusion"... nobody ever considers for a moment that, Yeah, maybe generally speaking the past WAS just a bit better than now.

>>Michael brought up a good point about the remakes just being another cycle that will eventually burn itself. While this one is longer lived than the nature run amok fad of the 1970's or the early 1980's slasher craze or the Asian ghost kid who meows like a cat garbage of the early 2000's but I do think it's coming to an end soon. If only because they're out of things to remake. Chronologically, they're getting to the point where they'll have to remake The Blair Witch Project or remake the remake of The Haunting if they keep going<<.

 

Like they haven't already done that re-re-re-make stuff ad nauseum ALREADY? Remaking THE HULK only a few years apart? Now I've heard they're even doing THE WOLF MAN a second time.

 

If this is just a "phase", it's one of the longest that has ever been! And let me ask you -- if you think that audiences will only go to these movies because they want famiiarity, what is your prediction when "the remake-itis phase runs dry"? No more people going to the movies? 

People saw their equivalent of those movies. Generally, people want to sit back and be entertained. Most people don't want to see a movie that requires thinking. They just want to have fun. You or me might want more (even I don't mind seeing an entertaining action movie) but I don't think people's desire to see something that they can just have fun with has changed much over the decades.
My point is that art theaters (or at least the ones that I go to) are on life support. If they weren't, the bathrooms wouldn't look the same as it did literally 50 years ago and they would replace broken seats, etc. Meanwhile multiplexes, which carry popular movies, are still moving along.
It's all theoretical but I think almost everyone would predict that the multiplexes would be empty and the art theaters would be packed. You can't market a Woody Allen movie where people talk for 2 hours into a $500 million worldwide hit. You can market something like Transformers, with 2 hours of car crashes and explosions, into a $500 million hit though.
Man, where were you when I was getting shouted down in the After Hours Forum for daring to suggest that cell phones have actually created a weird disconnect between people? I don't think it's rose colored glasses but I do think that people who talk about the "old days" (whether they're talking about 1940 or 1995) as if everything was great and everything today is terrible. The reality is that some things were lousy then and some things were great then and the same can be said for today.

>> Generally, people want to sit back and be entertained. Most people don't want to see a movie that requires thinking. They just want to have fun. You or me might want more (even I don't mind seeing an entertaining action movie) but I don't think people's desire to see something that they can just have fun with has changed much over the decades.<<

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on all that. Who says that "most people don't want to see a movie that requires thinking"? In the Dumbing Down Of America Today, I guess you could be right because that's what's happened to people... but still, you'd have to ask every human moviegoer personally in order of being sure what most of them want or not. But it's blatantly obvious that far less "big dumb blockbusters with only explosions and no story or acting or characters" were made from the 1920s through the 1960s! 

>>My point is that art theaters (or at least the ones that I go to) are on life support. If they weren't, the bathrooms wouldn't look the same as it did literally 50 years ago and they would replace broken seats, etc. Meanwhile multiplexes, which carry popular movies, are still moving along.<<

 

That may be your experience with those theaters, but it doesn't mean all of them in the U.S. are the same. 
Yeah, I got that general part of your last post -- but what does it have to do with what type of movies are being made now and why? Because the theaters are messed up, that's why people don't see smaller movies?

>>It's all theoretical but I think almost everyone would predict that the multiplexes would be empty and the art theaters would be packed.<<

 

Well, if it happened this weekend or next - definitely. But I'm talking over the long haul, if this unfortunate present pattern was reversed gradually. Over Years.

 

>>You can't market a Woody Allen movie where people talk for 2 hours into a $500 million worldwide hit. You can market something like Transformers, with 2 hours of car crashes and explosions, into a $500 million hit though.<<

 

But you're only judging by where we're at right at this moment. OF COURSE, right now it wouldn't change - it would take time and dedication to make it happen, but it could happen. Don't you know there was a time in cinema history where smaller movies, films with people talking, or even movies with no sound and no blowout effects and explosions every three seconds USED to be #1 and filled theater seats and made a lot of money? It's what people were given -- so it is what they paid to see -- it is what they liked and made do with.   
 

>>Man, where were you when I was getting shouted down in the After Hours Forum for daring to suggest that cell phones have actually created a weird disconnect between people?<<

 

We can definitely shake hands on that!

 

>> I do think that people who talk about the "old days" (whether they're talking about 1940 or 1995) as if everything was great and everything today is terrible. The reality is that some things were lousy then and some things were great then and the same can be said for today. <<

 

I just got into this misconception with a guy on another board recently. Just because I (or others) say we feel that yesterday was GENERALLY better than today, that is not to say we mean that EVERYTHING was literally "better", or that EVERYTHING is literally "worse" about Today. That is just never possible -- nothing is 100% when it comes to that.

 

But when it comes to ENTERTAINMENT (the main thing we're discussing here) ... I'd easily make a general statement that most things were better than today. BY FAR. (Not to suggest there's 'nothing good' today).

Yeah, it could happen.  I'd say it'll happen the same time people grow tired of sound and color and start to demand B&W silent films again.

 

Again, support your art films and skip the blockbusters. 

 

As for movies being dumbed down, I'm pretty sure you could track this back to 1916. 

 

But to keep it more on topic, wouldn't you say Universal dumbed things down with their monsters in the 1940s?  Fox took the "high road" with THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL but didn't every other studio dumb things down with stuff like THE COSMIC MAN?  Were people being dumbed down when they skipped the lateast Bergman or Kurosawa film and instead went to the drive-in to check out CREATURE FROM THE HAUNTED SEA?  People have always enjoyed dumb, loud and obnoxious movies. 

 

With that said, I plan on revisiting the original FN sometime before this remake comes out and I also plan on watching the sequel for the first time.  I'm glad the filmmakers kept their original feel by not trying to cash in on the popularity of the original film becoming a hit.

I'm certain you'll argue until the day silent movies make a comeback but let me ask you something.

 

1. What were the ages of those folks seeing MIDNIGHT IN PARIS?  Would you say the majority were older folks?  I know you don't watch too many "art" films but I'd say the majority are older people.  Not the rule but just the majority.

 

2. 12-25 year olds are probably the main group that these movies are trying to pull in.  Probably boys are the biggest selling group.  What type of movies were you watching when you were in this age group?  Were you visiting your local art house or were you watching the dumbed down fluff out at the time?   So, let's flashback to when you were a 15-year-old Mr. Karlosi.  Would you go see FRIDAY THE 13TH or A TREE OF LIFE? 

Edited by Joe Karlosi - 6/18/11 at 4:52am

But you, Joe, as the person arguing for a return to the so-called quality of yesteryear are not the representative film-goer. In the "cultural vegetables" argument that's been floating around the film sites over the past couple of weeks (touched off when one writer said he tried to watch slow, contemplative films like MEEK'S CUTOFF or SOLARIS after friends told him he had to, but just found them boring and was sick of having to act like he wasn't 'getting' them---hmmm, come to think of it, I've heard that refrain before...somewhere), the refrain you hear over and over again is that the overwhelming majority of people say they go to the movies for pure escapist entertainment. They have different goals when going to a movie than you or Michael does. THAT'S what you're 'fighting' here. An ingrained, habitual custom. They are not interested in Werner Herzog or Terrence Malick on nature. Is that wrong?

 

The old-timers like to recall the glorious pre-JAWS late 60's-early 70's, where young American directors made personal films of relevance. But what did the public go to see? AIRPORT. THE TOWERING INFERNO. THE EXORCIST. LOVE STORY. THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE. Art films?