I’m almost so sick of writing about movies that are getting remade that I didn’t even want to report this.
It looks like Rosemary’s Baby will be next in a long line of movies to which Hollywood has decided to give the “re-imagining” treatment. Michael Bay’s Platinum Dunes production company will be doing this one too according to ShockTillYouDrop.com who first reported this.
I just find it utterly ridiculous that out of all of the creative minds in the movie industry the only way they can figure out how to make money is to remake movies that have already made money. It wouldn’t be so bad if it were only a few movies and there were good reasons for remaking them, but Rosemary’s Baby, made by Roman Polanski in 1968, is seen by many (not I) as a horror classic. Why would you want to remake a movie that is considered a classic? There’s just no class in that. It’s simple greed and bad taste.
I think this is stupid. Do you guys think this is a good idea?
I agree with you that it’s getting ridiculous with all those remakes. I wrote a post on my movie blog last year that Hollywood was lacking imagination. Guest what? Nothing has change.
Direct to DVD or Blu-Ray, that I would not mind much. It’s the lack of original movies I can see at the theater.
Of course, we are part of the problem when do see them.
I’m lucky in a sense because English movies are rare in Quebec City since last year.
Steve McGrath’s last blog post..Does Sex Sell? My Adult Blog Experiment
I agree with you…it’s ridiculous…there are a ton of good stories out there, someone just needs to pick up a book and make them into a movie.
I’ve never even seen the original Rosemary’s Baby, but I’ve heard the same things about it that you posted and it’s insane that they’d remake it.
I always said: “I don’t read books. But if a book is that good, I will see the movie
”
Lord of the ring is a great example. Yes, it had sequels but they were worth it. The same goes with Narnia even if it’s more for children than Lord.
Video games don’t worked well. Someday, they may find a good formula. Btw, I never played Hitman but did like the movie(action) and I left my brain at the door
Was it Micheal Bay that said the theater release was to sell the DVD? He should try a direct to DVD(unrated) to see how much money he would sell/rent. I would rent it but I won’t pay $8-12 to see it at the theater.
Steve McGrath’s last blog post..Does Sex Sell? My Adult Blog Experiment
I’m with you Mike, there are so many amazing books that could be great movies as well. I guess Hollywood feels like the safer and cheaper route is to just ‘re-imagine’ a movie that did well years ago instead of really creating anything new. Sad really.
And then they wonder why more and more people stay home and wait for the DVD. why would anyone want to go pay $10 or more for a family to see a knockoff of a classic? Esp if they wait a couple months they can check it out for $4 at home. Hollywood just doesn’t get it.
Scotty Dub’s last blog post..Warren Buffett says we’re in recession; what does that mean to you?
And you know, part of the problem is us…well, some of us. Hollywood knows they can put $35M into a Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake and a certain group of people will run out and see it. Pure economics. Movie costs X number of dollars and will gross X number of dollars in theater, dvd, etc. They know they’ll make a small but certain profit.
If that group of teenagers or whoever didn’t run out to see that remake, they’d stop doing it. It’s not like they’re taking a good movie and saying “Gee, the original was pretty good. What could they do if we gave them $100M to make this movie?”
Um, horror remakes are normal now. I’d think you guys would be used to it. Texas Chainsaw, Amityville Horror, Hills Have Eyes, all those old 70s horror movies are getting updates. And yet, they all make money. That’s the only reason for this–it’s not because there aren’t any original ideas, it’s because a remake of Rosemary’s Baby will make more money than an original idea. The audience is ALWAYS to blame here, not the production company.
One could argue that the Rosemary’s Baby remake will make more money than an original idea because the original ideas that Hollywood does actually make are stupid and uninspired. There’s a reason audiences would rather sit through a remake of a movie they already know the ending to than pay $8 or $10 to take a chance on a new idea – it’s because the new ideas the audience decides to take a chance on lets them down more times than not.
I don’t buy that it’s ALL the audience’s fault. I understand the economics of it, but I think an audience will turn out in droves for a well made, original idea. Look what happened when The Sixth Sense came out.
Always is a strong word Michael, but I do agree that people go to crappy movies and keeps them going. I mean, National Treasure got pretty crappy reviews, but people like to sit in those kinds of movies.
Although I agree with Jason, there are some good original ideas that can make a ton of cash.
Jason, name me 5 original movies that audiences came out in droves to see in the past year. And then name me 5 remakes/sequels that the same thing happened with.
The problem is that the second list is so much longer than the first. In fact, I doubt that first list has more than 2. You mention The Sixth Sense, which is a good example, but that was made in 1999, almost 10 years ago.
What do you constitute as “droves”? Or that isn’t a remake?
Transformers (never been a movie)
300
Ratatouille
The Simpsons (never a movie)
Knocked Up
Wild Hogs
Superbad
All of those made over $120 million, a few over $200…
I think my point is that the execs are happy to make crappy remakes because it doesn’t take any real out of the box thinking or undue risk. They know they can spend X number of dollars and make X number of dollars. It won’t be much, but it’ll be a profit. From a business point of view I understand that.
I’m just saying that if they would actually spend a few more of those dollars on original ideas (that is, ideas that haven’t already been made into movies) that would probably make better movies and make more money in the long run.
But then, I’m not supporting my family working as movie studio executive, so I guess I don’t have to make those decisions.
One thing is for sure, though, none of these horror remakes were on last year’s Top 20 list. A lot of sequels, yes, but not remakes.
Mike, Transformers and Simpsons should not be on that list–they are not exactly remakes but reimaginings of an existing property. There is a mythology to both ideas, and the movies expanded/exploited them.
300 was based on an old epic poem, so it isn’t exactly original, either. I mean, this is about originality, right? I would then discount Wild Hogs as well–there wasn’t anything original in that one. Superbad, Ratatouille and Knocked Up, I’ll give you those–even though I wasn’t overjoyed with Superbad.
We were talking remakes and sequels…and also that these studios need to go after books instead of remaking old movies.
An old epic poem is exactly what they should be doing. 300 was unique…
Transformers…it’s not a sequel or a remake, but yeah, it’s from a TV show…still, those are borderline…