Film makers why do they try to cash in on old films?

This is pure speculation on my part but here’s a theory from me….

Maybe some film makers want to redo an older movie so they can give it a more modern interpretation/adaptation (maybe their own or for someone else) over what it contained originally. They might also want to update the film with newer special effects, stunts, actors, and whatever else they deem necessary to give it a complete makeover.

I have mixed feelings on this too because I’ve seen some remakes of original movies that have turned out well, in my opinion, but I’ve seen others that I was disappointed with also. A perfect example of this would be Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Tim Burton. Why would you try to remake a brilliant original that couldn’t ever compare to the first and best outing?

Ghostbusters is a proven franchise. It’s easier for them to crap out the next sequel than it is to think up the next proven franchise.

Hollywood is recycling a lot of ideas nowadays. Look at all the comic book movies.

It’s simply cheaper to reuse material than it is to innovate (such as what was done with Benjamin Button, but even that was reusing a story already in existence).

Hollywood started with adaptations of stage plays and books. There was just a higher percentage of new work to offset that. There were more piles of dreck back then that most people now are unaware of, as well. It wasn’t as though Casablanca-type movies were coming out every week back in the day.

People forget Hollywood is first and foremost a business. Shareholders are more concerned with ROI (return on investment) than with creating art. It’s easier, as dynamicduo says, to go with a proven money maker than to take a risk with something new that the public may not buy. There have been remakes and “franchises” from the 1930s on, but its level of application today is certainly bigger than it was than in the past. Even in the 80s, there weren’t as many of these types of films.

Film is now a mature business. Producers and studio heads today are not the risk-takers, storytellers and showmen of the past. They are bean counters. And they grew up with film and television where the old timers didn’t, so they have a language and a system easy to perpetuate, one that the old-timers created.

$$$

People funding movies feel a remake of a sure brand is less risky than a completely new concept.

I think Hollywood ran out of ideas.

I agree with @aprilsimnel, but also when you look at the age range of people in the movie queue they mostly were not around when the original Ghostbusters movie was released. They are unlikely to watch the original and even if they did it would be on TV or DVD which would not make much money for the producers. So you make a new film with current stars that the demographic identify with and CGI that does not get laughed at and hopefully it pulls off the trick a second time.

I think studios do it for the money. I think writers/directors more often do it for love of the material.

I agree with AstroChuck. As someone who works in a part of the business – studios are going to go with the proven dollar every time. The big studios are NOT going to take any risks, especially right now.

There is never a shortage of new ideas, only a shortage of people who believe in them.