What’s with all the remakes?
My question has to do with the recent trend in adapting books and old movies.
Is it that screenwriters have run out of good scripts, or that producers are too scared to produce anything that hasn’t already been in the public eye?
What is left for the writers who have original stories to tell?
– Ryan Scott Fitzgerald
via imdb
Books have been adapted into movies pretty much since the beginning of cinema. So it’s a mistake to conflate literary adaptations with remakes, or at least to label it a recent trend.
But you’re right to notice that a diminishing percentage of the movies coming out of Hollywood originated with the screenwriter. I don’t think the trend represents any failure on the part of America’s screenwriters. They’re still writing great original scripts. You’re just not seeing them, because these scripts aren’t getting made into movies.
I have two theories why.
The first is fear. We tend to think of studios as faceless corporations, but in reality, the decision to make a given movie rests with a very small number of people. At some studios, a single studio chief has the power to greenlight a movie. At others, it’s a committee of maybe four or five. Either way, it’s their call.
Let’s pretend you, Ryan, are a studio chief.
If you pick the right movie, and it’s a giant hit, you’re a hero. You get millions of dollars in bonuses. You move up a few notches on the “Power 100″ list.
If you pick the wrong movie, and it’s a bomb, you get fired. Maybe you can get by with a few bombs. But eventually, you will get canned.
Which movies will you choose to make? Probably the ones you know you can market. The ones which, even if they’re not blockbusters, probably won’t be disasters either.
Basically, you make Spider-Man, King Kong or The Dukes of Hazzard.
Because as much as you love movies, you’re afraid of making a bomb. You’re afraid of getting fired. And if one of your sure-fire hits ends up tanking (c.f. Bewitched), you can at least defend why you tried to make it. Had you spent the same amount of money on a riskier project, you’d be in a worse situation career-wise.
My second theory for why fewer movies are coming from original scripts: control. Producers and studios want to drive the process. They don’t want to be beholden to a screenwriter’s vision. They’d rather buy the rights to a book, then hire a screenwriter to adapt it. (Or better, look through the vault for a film they can remake.)
For the producer or studio executive, there’s something comfortingly abstract about the rights to, say, Knight Rider. Properties like Knight Rider are very much like pieces of real estate. The studio owns them, and wants to build something incredible on them. Never mind that it would make a lot more sense — and be a lot less expensive — to build somewhere else. I often compare screenwriting to architecture, and this is another example. People hire Frank Gehry to build them a house on swampland.
An Academy Award-winning writer could pitch the most kick-ass movie imaginable, and the studio would still say, “How about Knight Rider? We just got the rights! We’re thinking Kevin Spacey for K.I.T.T.”
Sigh.
But while Hollywood isn’t making as many original movies as it used to, one really has to consider independent film, which didn’t exist to nearly the same degree a decade or two ago. Taken as a whole, the film industry still has plenty of room for original voices. But you won’t get paid as much, unless you incorporate a talking robotic car.
Articles
January 6th, 2006 at 7:48 am
I did some research on IMDB on this when I did my own blog-entry on the subject and to my suprise I discovered that a lot more movies then I first thought were remakes. I had for instance no idea movies like House Of Wax, Mr. & Mrs. Smith and The Island was remakes. I’m from Norway and in Norwegian film it’s kind of the same trend. They don’t remake, but a lot of movies have the same dark violence-sex-gangs-and-drugs-theme.
January 6th, 2006 at 8:18 am
I had a feeling Knight Rider would be next on the remake slate. Gotta believe Hasselhoff’s been pulling for it.
January 6th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Just to be picky, The Island wasn’t a remake… someone just didn’t care/was too dumb to see that they were using a title that still has some currency. The first one was an adaptation of a post-Jaws Peter Benchley novel. Michael Caine, shipwreck, tribe descended from pirates.
Yeah, it was that good.
January 6th, 2006 at 11:00 am
John, I agree with your theories … as someone who wrote and directed a modestly successful indie movie ten years ago and is primarily only interested in writing original screenplays, I’ve had a very, very hard time getting anyone to finance my original writing again. Just as you say, the “underlying property” (be it a novel, play, magazine article) is something that I think gives the decision-makers a sense of security — and something to possibly market. And you’re also right to point ou that it’s hardly a recent trend. It surprised me, for instance, that there were TWO movie adaptations of “The Great Gatsby” prior to the 1974 Redford/Mia Farrow film (one is a lost, silent version). I get feature scripts submitted to me as directing projects, but the original ones tend to be very high-concept comedies … or remakes (just passed on ‘Revenge of the Nerds’ … not that it was bad, just isn’t my bag). I don’t want to say anything discouraging to those of you out there who want to write original screenplays — I certainly haven’t given up. But I’m also investing in a Panasonic digital video camera and brushing up on my cinematography skills… (in a side note: John, we met a few years back and I have a lot of respect for you. I’ve been enjoying your website very much for some time now. It’s been helpful to me in several ways … so, thanks)
January 6th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Accordign to IMDB The Island (2005) is a remake of The Clonus Horror from 1979 and has no connection to the film you’re referring to. Same sorce has Mr. & Mrs Smith as a remake of Prizzi’s Honor from 1985 and House Of Wax as a remake of House Of Wax (1953) and Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933).
January 6th, 2006 at 11:06 am
I think Mr& Mrs. Smith is an original work also. I vaguely remember reading something about this in Sccr(i)t magazine, an interview with the scribe and he said that it began life as his film school thesis project. Hitchcock DID do another Mr & Mrs Smith but it’s only “relation” to this one is the title (which we all know is non copyrightable.)
Most people are of the opinion that “The Island” is indeed a re-make (a bad one) of “Lognas’ Run, which was based upon the book “Logan’s Run”.
January 6th, 2006 at 11:07 am
Damn typos… “Scr(i)pt” !
January 6th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
The second take is something I’ve gone through a couple of times now. Only once have I biten (ie: actually gotten the job :-). I went in last fall on a pitch I was taking around town and the execs we were meeting with sat there, asked a lot of the right questions and really seemed to love it… then they sat up in their chairs, cracked their knuckles and said… “We got a pitch for you”. So, then we switched roles, and they pitched a very vague idea to us for a remake. We liked the idea enough to develop it, watch the movie we’re rewriting, and go in and REpitch it back to them.
Long story short we got the job to write the remake… but no one bought out pitch.
January 6th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
This begs the question: aren’t there people out there with enough money to still fund good independent pictures that can be made to fill the increasingly big void that is the horrible TV remake trend? Honestly–as big of a fan as I am–I’m not looking forward to having to take my kids to see “Gilmore Girls: The Movie” in another 20 years or so.
January 6th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
“Mr. and Mrs. Smith” is not a remake, just a rip-off.
January 6th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
The Island is not a remake of The Clonus Horror. It does, however, bear a ton of similarities. Whether those similarities would be considered infringement will probably be determined in the courts.
I thought this was a great post, John. Not only are your points accurate, but they are complete.
January 6th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
The Island is not a remake of The Clonus Horror…
Absolutely. A remake is a further exploitation of legally-owned rights, not just a matter of perceived similarities. Where the similarities are so great as to amount to infringement, lawyers get rich.
I once wrote an original screenplay and showed it around, got precisely nowhere with it. Rewrote it in novel form, published it, sold an option… and got hired to adapt it.
No, the movie never got made.
(and no, I didn’t just serve up the first script again)
January 6th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Remaking great movies is too much like Ted Turner colorizing classics in the 80s. If Hollywood wants to remake old films, they should focus on the mediocre pieces that could have been great with a little polish. After all, they’re not trying to re-capture the original audience, they’re trying to make successful entertainment for today’s generations.
Thank goodness Ted finally wised up and launched TCM. What a great channel.
January 7th, 2006 at 2:48 am
Yes, John, dead on right. FEAR rules the day, and that’s why remakes and adaptions rule a signifianct part of a screenwriters work. Because the exec. can just point the finger if it all goes south at some point and say – hey – look at the source material, it was a safe bet! I just received a book from Dreamworks (they’ve optioned) to consider adapting. Never mind that it’s 500 pages – (and that is an entire independent discussion on the adaptation of work) – but that they’re excited about this manuscript, yet to be published, as opposed to an original pitch, or perhaps an original screenplay speaks volumes to what you’ve posted.
Stephen G: Aboslutely loved that story! You wrote the novel of your own script and got paid to adapt it? That’s worthy of being it’s own story. Was the book published?
January 7th, 2006 at 6:09 am
Logan’s Run by the way (the film – haven’t read the book) is a complete rip-off of Evgenyj Zamjatin’s fantastic 1921 book ‘We’, which went on to inspire Huxley and Orwell to write A Brave New World and 1984, respectively. It’s a little-known but absolutely wonderful book, written just a few years after the Russian revolution but still managed to prophesy the absurdity and evils of Communism. Check it out.
(Studied Russian at uni. You’d never guess.)
January 7th, 2006 at 6:50 am
Was the book published?
It certainly was. I won’t name it as it’s being optioned again — different screenwriter this time, though.
January 7th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
“Fear” and “Control” are good points. However, I believe the biggest reason of remakes is this: they’re easier to sell.
Consider a medium-level executive pitching an idea to a top-level exec. The phone rings every ten minutes, he’s eyeing some budgets lying on the desk as you pitch and he’s also making mental notes for the big meeting tomorrow. In these conditions, it’s almost impossible to explain that original idea of the terraformed planet that went wrong.
Instead, consider the ease of just saying “Knigt Rider, The Movie.”
The only obstacle would be the top-level exec replying: “Why not ‘Baywatch’?”
At that point, the mid-level exec just have to say “I love it” to get his bonus.
January 7th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Speaking of scripts from novels, John, I see that CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY has made it into Round Two of BAFTA voting in the adapted screenplay section. Congratulations and good luck.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
I just pitched an open assignment for an R-rated comedy based on a how-to book on knitting. No I am not kidding. The challenge was not coming off as totally glib as I offered up the next Vince Vaughn popcorn comedy set in the world of needle arts. My New Year’s resolution, in addition to marrying Jake Gyllenhaal, is to successfully adapt a matchbook somebody optioned because Gail Berman thought it was pretty. Either that or sell a spec at auction. Come on, it could happen.
January 8th, 2006 at 10:54 am
When are they going to make a Thundercats movie?
January 8th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Its not fear as such. Its about who is in charge. At the moment Hollywood is about film making its about film marketing. What is easiest to market. Everyones heard of Knight Rider so the marketing guys have an easy life. No one in the potential audience knows what ‘Me, You and Everyone we Know’ will be about. The marketing guys may have to do some work so they skip it! This thinking also explains the rise of the one-note-actor. Even if we don’t know the title we know what a ‘Will Ferrell’ film will be like. Mr. Marketing smiles on this approach also. The answer fundamentally has to be to find a way around this approach. I started discussing this way back here.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:34 am
Dark Castle films (House of Wax, House on Haunted Hill) have always been some of my favorites. They seem to remake old black and white horrors, it is what they do I guess. Anyway, these remakes are some of my favorite movies. Sure they aren’t written like Shakespeare, shot like a beer ad or “epicâ€? in scope. But they entertain me, they are as close as we get to a real horror these days without resorting to a teen slasher movie. I also find the back-story interesting, comparing the old to the new and such, seeing where they used their own creativity to update the very dated originals.
I believe that when you set yourself limits, such as working from an original, it can give you a very clear goal. Like you know what you are doing, so you can concentrate on making it the best you can. I don’t believe House on Haunted Hill would ever have existed in quite the same capacity without the original, which would be sad as it is one of my favorite movies. Just because summat is a remake, doesn’t mean any less work or love went into it (although sometimes it does).
Anyway, if this is a trend for remaking things, then soon we will run out of things to remake. So sick of watching Knight Rider sequels we will be, that we’ll be BEGGING original writers to entertain us once more.
January 11th, 2006 at 9:47 am
The root of all evil is economics.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:01 am
I oould truly whip out a better screenplay then all movies made last year in less than a month. But Hollywood is terrible. No other words needed to describe. Only money drives what they put out there and to me it’s all rubbish, reflecting the bad taste our culture now demands. I remember last time I was at the cinema here in SoCal and all movies playing and being advertised were all remakes of some type. I could never fathom such a thing if I hadn’t witnessed it first hand.