Why are there so many remakes of successful movies?
I stumbled into the kitchen and a remake of “Arthur” was on. I’d never seen it, and wouldn’t have bothered with it, except that in this scene, there was the delicious Helen Mirren, and I thought I’d seen everything featuring her. Then up pops Nick Nolte. It took me a full 5 minutes to recognize the plot, but it set me to thinking: Why not try to remake some of the “dogs” instead of the winners?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
15 Answers
1. The idea that the original movie was successful is more likely to draw people’s attention.
2. Making remakes of successful movies guarantees more success, one way or another.
3. It’s sometimes easier to find successful movies than “dogs”.
Catching the wave of someone else’s success…
Because it was successful. Duh!
also, because there is no originality in Hollywood anymore.
Because people are bored. And stupid.
Movies are an industry, if it sells, they’ll do it.
It costs a lot less to write a movie which has already been written.
Because the remake will already have name/brand recognition, and is thusly more likely to be financially successful than an original idea.
That way they can also afford to hire hack writers, directors and actors to save money during production, and that is why the remake almost always is crap. Movies made by committees and accountants invariably suck.
Same reason for remakes of questions here, this has been asked so many times before.
Some people didn’t see them yet…perhaps.
When you make a movie the main objectives are movie budget, the main cast their remuneration etc. So the directors and producers who do remakes concentrate more on these objectives and not on script. So they choose the script according to these objectives and not moralities of movies. Truly, speaking some remakes are horrible, and far more horrible than the original movie. Directors should think something new and change this trend.
@Smitha Directors should think something new and change this trend.
That’s what I wish for too. Too bad directors fear that their original movies can’t sell and they don’t have time and energy to brainstorm new ideas…
Ok I agree with most of the posts here, but it still seems to me that it would make more sense to take a flawed movie that showed some potential for improvement, than decide to remake “Casablanca” to the near certain hoots of derision such impertinence would deserve.
We remake movies because someone thinks there is a chance to make more money. And I imagine it is far cheaper to pay a hack writer to “refresh” a script than it is to pay a good writer, to create script from scratch.
That said, the remakes are frequently (not always) MUCH worse than the original. Doesn’t matter if it is family movies (The Parent Trap), or comedies (Arthur – Dudley Moore was more convincing) or even suspense movies (Taking of the Pelham 1–2-3). And there are dozens more examples if I wanted to make the effort.
It’s a free country and I don’t begrudge anyone trying to make more money doing less work. But the fact is that in most cases, the original is/was better than the remake.
And sequels—don’t get me started. The only thing worse than a remake is a sequel that no one wants.
@elbanditoroso Your assessment of sequels is right on the money. There are only 3 that I can think of that could stand up to their predecessors: Godfather II, The Empire Strikes Back, and For a Few Dollars More.
@stanleybmanly – I’ll agree with For A Few Dollars More. I didn’t like any of the subsequent Godfathers after the first. And the Die Hard series should have been left dead.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
