Remake. If there is one word in the world of cinema that can trigger both excitement and dread, it is this term that has now become a genre with its own branches: reboot, prequel, and seaquake. Sadly, this has become the dominant genre in Hollywood: studios are willing to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars for a reintroduction of an established franchise or character, but are leery about giving a director with an original idea a 15 million dollar budget. During my search into the heart of the phenomenon, I learned several truths about our film-going society as well as the genre itself.
It began with a superhero film. Even though there had been previous entries that had paved the road for remakes to come, there was one film that kick-started the engine and sent it ripping down the cinematic thoroughfare. The film, which launched Christian Bale's career and grossed around 373 million dollars worldwide, was none other than "Batman Begins." Suddenly, the removal of the stain left by the Schumacher precursor opened the eyes of studio executives including Bob and Harvey Weinstein, Alan Horn and Brad Fuller, along with many others. Now was the time to venture out into the cinematic cemeteries, dig up the remains of their deceased franchise and allow the long awaited lightning (audience interest) to perform the necessary resurrection.
Following the success of his blockbuster child, Warner Brothers executive Alan Horn applied the electrodes to another franchise: Superman. "Superman Returns" stormed the box office, taking in around 300 million dollars worldwide, and earning mostly negative reviews. But, this roadblock did not stop the remake machine: it plowed right through it. After all, who cares about critical reception when you're basking in around 5 times the operating budget of a third world nation? Afterwards, countless remakes flooded the direct-to-DVD market, festivals and theatres nationwide. However, the next major reboot was in an opposing genre: horror.
On Aug. 31, 2007, Rob Zombie's retelling of John Carpenter's "Halloween" slashed through cinematic screens, making a killing of 80 million dollars on a 15 million dollar budget. This Weinstein Brothers prodigy inspired producer Brad Fuller of Platinum Dunes to get his assembly moving at full speed; the first products were the seaquakes -- sequels to his remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," -- and then a reboot: "Friday the 13th." The film did well, which created a path for the next Dunes' remake: "A Nightmare on Elm Street," which is to be released on April 30.
So, in this maelstrom of remakes, it is hard to make sense of how original content is discouraged, but a subsequent rehashing is encouraged. One might argue that aside from the studio mentality, (which Alan Moore summarized as ". . .Hollywood [being] run by accountants,") it is becoming increasingly difficult to draw audiences to theaters. In the dawn of the Pirate Bay, online entertainment and television, audiences are faced with many other accessible entertainment options that are becoming increasingly available and successful. Or, in these economic times, it can be a bit of a pinch having to shell out 20 dollars for an uncertain film. Thus, this results in the studios having to use old franchises to provide something that the audience is familiar with; something that an older generation can introduce to a younger one. This is one of the reasons why Freddy, Batman, Jason, the A-Team and many others will never die: they have become ingrained in the public consciousness and will be passed down from studios and their familiar audience to a younger one.
Yet, while those who are opposed to remakes never consider these facts, there is another important section of history that is being ignored: remakes have always been around. Take, for instance, Universal Studios' presentation of "Dracula," which was made only nine years after F.W. Murnau presented his with "Nosferatu"; or take the Hammer Studios' updating the Universal Monster classics; or, Disney presenting "Hamlet" through "The Lion King." The list goes on and on.
One has to realize that remakes are an inevitable occurrence in Hollywood; but, eventually, this nitrous-powered machine will run out of fuel and coast along to the side of the road and await future activation. So, critics and fans can complain all they want, but remakes are going to be with us for a little while longer.
But, the fact that these properties are being remade does not take away from the fact that the original films still exist and will not be replaced. In fact, the critics are not being forced to accept the new interpretation as the penultimate presentation; in fact, they should attend a matinee screening and give the film a chance.
Why? The truth is that not all of the executives are artistic sharks; in fact, some of them are fans like us who love something and have a job to maintain. Producer Brad Fuller responded to the allegation that he was "remaking A Nightmare on Elm Street for money" by posting on his blog,
"... I have always wanted to produce movies; it's been a lifelong dream of mine. The measure of my success, however, is determined by the amount of money our films make for the studios . . . and, the box office numbers continue to show that viewers want to see what we are putting out."
No comments:
Post a Comment