Alright, what the hell is the deal with remaking a movie thats 8 years old?

[J. Tithonus Pednaud]

I dislike remakes, I think they are often just lazy. But they can be instant bank for a studio.

A ready made fan base, previous public awareness and a proven story/script are all reasons for a remake.

Sometimes, studios screw up when they forget about one of those elements.

The Fright Night remake failed because it was a cult film - not enough public awareness of the title - and the fans that exist are rabid fans of the original. The studio didn't understand this and didn't expect the fans to completely ignore the remake.

Had it been a reboot, with a nod to the original, it might have been a different story.

The Planet of the Apes remake was a financial success because it had name recognition, the fans of the original were open to an update and the story was a proven formula. It was a critical failure, but a financial success.

In fact, the POTA property and brand was strong enough to make the prequel a GIANT success despite the fact that it was technically a prequel to a shit remake.

I can see why studios do it. It's a low risk move. But it is a low blow move that I don't respect. I'd rather see some original stuff rather than recent rehashes. I'd say a film should to be at least 30 years old before it's remade unless it is a retelling and re-imagining of source material outside of a previous film.

But I guess by that logic I have to give the Spider-Man reboot a pass.

[MailCall]

You know it's gone too far when they remake a remake: