And yet did any of those remakes actually lose money? While it's pretty rare for a remake/reboot to be better than the original, they generally make enough money to justify their existence. Studios are pretty risk averse and while there is a chance of a new idea becoming a breakout success and spawning a money-making franchise, there's also a good chance of it losing money. Doing a remake is unlikely to earn megabucks but is also likely to generate a steady profit for the studio and from a studio perspective a high chance of a small profit is much better than a low chance of a big profit with an equal chance of a loss.
Yes, they did. Hollywood accounting being opaque and, well, hard to account for, the general rule of thumb is a movie has to gross at least twice its budget to actually start making a profit. Green Hornet did 227 million on a 120 million budget (needed: 240 mil). The Predator did 160 mil on an 88 mil budget (needed: 176 mil). Total Recall did 198 mil on a 125 mil budget (needed: 250 mil). Dark Shadows did 245 mil on a 150 mil budget (needed: 300 mil). Lone Ranger did 260 mil on a 250 mil budget (needed: 500 mil). Mortal Engines did 83 mil on a 100 mil budget (needed: 200 mil). Robocop and the new Men in Black actually pass this metric, but only by a couple tens of millions. And its worth pointing out that the production budget number never includes marketing costs (which vary, but are by no means cheap) and that pretty much every movie on this list made far more of its money overseas than in the us, which reduces the amount the studio gets per ticket by a lot. There's plenty of reason to suspect that even those two may not have actually turned a profit at all, though we can't really know for sure. But we can be pretty much definitive about the above six, especially Lone Ranger and Mortal Engines which very clearly must have lost *many* millions of dollars.
Thanks for those stats. It appears that reboots aren't as much a sure thing as I'd have thought. Although I must admit of those on your list that I've seen it very much appears as though the studios have assumed that the name alone would sell tickets and have just thrown action and special effects into the mix without bothering too much about the story. I'd suggest that as an example, Lone Ranger should have been perfect for a remake. With the right story (and some of the elements were there) it could have been a huge hit. Unfortunately after signing Johnny Depp they seem to have let him turn it into a Captain Jack Sparrow ego project rather than focusing on the Lone Ranger (i.e. the main character).
That is one common problem. But another is, imo, clearly overestimating the original franchise in the first place. Pre-existing fanbases are great, but not every potentially rebootable franchise is created equal. The Lone Ranger, for instance, could have worked beautifully with the proper care *and a small-medium budget appropriate to it's low-fx style*. A 250 million budget on a western was an idiotic proposition for the time it came out. Westerns just don't hit THAT level of blockbuster anymore. True Grit actually made a bit less money than the Lone Ranger, but it did it on a *38 mil* budget. Django Unchained made 450 worldwide, but it also only had a 100 mil budget. And those are pretty much the only truly major successful westerns in the 21st century. Also, even as someone who actually largely enjoyed the Dark Shadows movie, I don't think that concept was really ever going to light the modern box office on fire in the first place. And the Green Hornet was released in the same general era as Iron Man, The Dark Knight, Cap 1, Thor, The Dark Knight Rises and Avengers. The idea that a generic guy in a little green mask with no particular skills or interesting hook was going to compete in that field was just not brilliant. And - speaking again as a fan of the franchise - trying to to turn Predator into a major box office property was also a suspect idea. The original only grossed 98 mil worldwide (it was a notable success thanks to having a mere 15 mil budget), and none of the sequels have ever been very well received. But for some inexplicable reason they basically doubled the budget of the Shane Black movie relative to the prior sequels. If they hadn't done that, the movie would've been considered a reasonable success, albeit no better received creatively than any of the other sequels.
It could be done right, it likely won't have the same appeal as the original. I hope they don't gender swap characters and keep cgi to a minimum and focus on story over effects.
It would be interesting to expand on the "Buttercup's Baby" sample stuff that was added to later editions of the novel. Kor
Even though comparisons to the original are inevitable, I don't think a reboot or update or whatever is automatically a bad thing. I think this film could be taken on its own merits and seen how it plays out. No, nothing is going to top the original. And, I think, allowing it to not top the original is the best thing for it.
I'll just have to warm up my "Ignore it" goggles again. They've been getting a lot of use lately I might agree on this, with some of them, like Blade Runner, which I think overestimated the fanbase, but I don't even think they always care if it has a fanbase. Are you telling me someone thought Wild Wild West & Rollerball had legit fanbases? Some reboots are trying to capitalize on an existing fan base, sure. Those are the ones that suspiciously show up just in time for a generation of kids who grew up on the original, to be old enough to have kids to bring out now. However, some just don't have any ideas & dig through IPs they think people might have heard of, like Flipper or Flubber, until one seems plausibly producible, & some things like Sherlock Holmes are just legacies now, & someone will always want to do more, the same as they do with Dickens or Shakespeare
There are different categories, yes. Legacies like Holmes and I think you're also right that sometimes they just throw something out there for the sake of having something to make. There's also the category, I think, of ideas that may not have a fanbase but do honestly have at least some potential that could maybe be realized. Personally, that's where I'd put Wild Wild West. Steampunk cowboys sounds awesome and could make for a reasonable success if properly executed - they just bungled the job on it.
I think sometimes the reasoning is not so much "this old property has a huge fanbase" as "this worked before, so maybe it will work again--once we slap a fresh coat of paint on it." Old chestnuts likes "Ten Little Indians" or "A Christmas Carol" or even "Batman" or "Planet of the Apes" keep getting trotted out because they're proven crowd-pleasers. Who knows? A few generations from now, "A Princess Bride" could be another beloved staple like "Peter Pan" or "Treasure Island," remade over and over again every generation or so. There are worse fates for a book than to become a classic that is constantly being revisited.
There are so many good books out there, I wish they would make done into movies. Take Vampire Academy for example. They made only the first one into a movie. And seeing the ending, how could you NOT want to see more?
Imagine the uproar if the did a remake and released it under the original title of "And Then There Were None".
I'm re-watching Mission Impossible at home right now. It's been a long while and I honestly forgot just how good the show was. I don't care about the movies at all. Greg Morris walked out of the theater on premier night and I think that says it all. A lot of people like the movies. That's fine for them. I don't think a remake of Princess Bride will be successful just because the first one is still looks as good as it was meant to and it is hard to imagine the performances improved upon. Try finding another Andre. It glorifies in being a fairy tail, and it does not therefore need to be perfect. Who wants scary realistic rodents of unusual size? I don't even think they exist. but if people want to see it, great. Just leave the original available for those that enjoy it too. I'm more interested in remakes of flawed films, or films that could just use a dose of freshening up. True Grit, to me is an example of a movie that got remade and without bothering too many people. You can like the Henry Hathaway version or the Cohen Brothers, or one or the other, or decide neither came close to the book and keep pining away for a third attempt. I'm a huge fan of Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, the novel. I enjoyed the BBCminiseries, but i felt, and still do after a rewatch, some elements were just rushed, and the antagonist was handled completely wrong. I'd love a remake of it, and though I suspect that will take 20 years or more, my guess is that it will happen. Someone will take another stab at China Mieville's The City and the City. They might fail too. At this point they'll do it because of the challenge. Casablanca doesn't need to be redone but so many people have come close to doing just that, it is only a matter of time.
It's a classic Agatha Christie murder mystery that's been filmed several times under various titles. And, funny you should mention it, but the book's very first title is even more unusable these days! (Google it.)
How many 3 Musketeers and Hamlets and Romeo and Juliets and on and on. I love the Princess Bride as it was a large part of my childhood. But, I am not blind to the idea of remakes and even welcome remakes. Why? Because I want new perspectives on old ideas.