Remake Hell Vol 6: On Reflection

Written by J.D. Gillam Monday, 14 November 2011

Remake Hell - by Jon Gillam

So, here we are.

As we come towards the end of 2011 – and what a momentous year it has been for Starburst Magazine – I find myself in a very reflective mood regarding this column and remakes in general. I feel the need to stop for a moment and just take stock of what the phenomenon of remakes is all about and break down what it represents.

I’m not going to bore you with a description of the word, ripped straight out of the Oxford dictionary, but I would like to pause for thought in what will be a shorter column this month.

What exactly is a remake?

In simple terms, it is an easy way for studios to look into their back catalogue and choose a title that has appeal, either to specific genre fans, or to the shareholders – and not normally in that order. It involves little creative effort from the executives, if in fact they get involved at all until an idea is pitched to them.

Some titles may not belong to the studio that is being directly pitched to, but if they can buy the intellectual property rights cheaply enough, then you can guarantee that they will do their best to purchase them. As a result, some studios will do anything to keep hold of those rights, knowing that they could have a potential cash cow on their hands that they just need to look into and find the best way to milk it.

For example, with the remake of Clive Barker’s Hellraiser continuously stuck in development hell (no pun intended), Harvey Weinstein and the Dimension group green-lit the frankly abysmal Hellraiser: Revelations. This ensures that they can keep hold of the rights for another few years and eke out a respectable script for the remake.

A similar situation befell the 1994 Roger Corman produced version of Marvel’s The Fantastic Four. Created to ensure that Constantin Films didn’t lose the copyright to the property, the film was never intended to be released. To anyone that’s actually ever seen it, it might be said that that’s not a bad thing, but the fact remains that the director and actors weren’t told this when they signed on. I know that’s not a remake, but it’s another good example of what Hollywood can do just to try and keep ahead of the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_X5C6e3ZeY

George A Romero found out what happens the hard way when he failed to correctly secure the copyright over Night of the Living Dead. As a result, the title is in the public domain and, as you’ve probably seen, any clown can now make a film with that title, whether it’s horror related or not. Of course, that is a slightly different story as Romero’s grandfather of zombie movies was an independent production, rather than a studio endorsed one.

However, when the studio do own the rights and they are pitched an idea that sends the old dollar signs looping around their eyeballs like an old Tex Avery cartoon, then the bar is set. Sometimes, it will be a fan. Someone who grew up with the original and wants to put their own slant on it, or perhaps someone who knows the source material so well that they think that they can create a version that is respectable to the origin.

On occasion, this works well, but not always.

Now, regular readers of the column will be aware, as will most movie fans I hope, that Hollywood tries to put a spin on the whole remake business. They know that fans want something new and fresh, not constant retreads of old films. So they started to coin new phrases to try and pull the wool over the eyes of the cinephiles and part them from their hard earned money.

Words such as reboots and reimagining were added to remake but used to bamboozle the fans. With their experience of fan backlashes under their belt, these words have been thrown about with gay abandon in news and press conferences to hide the obvious facts. Having seen this in play, I tried to work out what type of film constitutes which description. Let’s see if you agree…..

Remake: This is where there have been only one or two films previously using a set title. However, if all previous titles have been standalone properties – ie without direct sequels - then there can have been more. For example, Invasion of the Body Snatchers would fall under this parameter.

Reboot: This term can only be used when there has previously been a franchise in place for the proposed title. For example, recent reboots have been Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, The Amazing Spiderman, Man of Steel.

The general rule of thumb for a franchise seems to be that there has to have been at least three previous movies in a series to create a franchise. It also means, especially in superhero movies, that we, the paying audience, will have to sit through yet another origin tale of the main characters. I’m pretty sure that we’re all well aware of how the character of Spiderman / Superman / Batman / Freddy Krueger (delete or add to as appropriate) was created as we’ve already sat through at least one origin story before.

Reimagining: This can include any title from the above options, but it means that the makers of the film either want to distance themselves from the original entirely. This could be because the original was deemed to be an absolutely steaming pile of dung. It also may mean that they want to completely change everything about the original, and in the process will probably create their own steaming pile. In cases like this, the creators will be heard to say that it is a “remake in name alone”. This means that they want the possible prestige that comes attached to said title, but that their production will have very little in common with the initial release.

With that in mind, titles such as Zach Snyder’s 2004 version of Dawn of the Dead was an example of a reimagining done well. The 2008 version of Day of the Dead however, was not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaIeBjwUoRw

This years TheThing, with Mary Elizabeth Winstead seems to have confused quite a few people who think it’s a remake / reimagining. Just to quickly clear this up – it’s a prequel that uses exactly the same title. End of.

So, with the Hollywood machine seemingly determined to keep moving forward with remakes of previous properties, are there any films that are safe from the remake machine. Thankfully, I’d say yes.

The Indiana Jones franchise is surely safe. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that anything from the Spielberg stable is safe from the remake treatment. Could you imagine him allowing anyone near his hits? Can you possibly envisage anyone being given the reins to reinvent E.T., Jurassic Park or Jaws? Ironically, with his version of War of the Worlds released a few years ago, it’s more likely that he would conceive his own versions of other films.

I think that pretty much anything James Cameron has touched – bar Piranha 2: The Spawning perhaps – is also protected. Again, I can’t see anyone being allowed near The Abyss, Aliens, Titanic or Avatar. Maybe True Lies might be given a fresh sheen by someone he trusts, but that’s about as far as I think it would go. Interestingly enough, the rights to the Terminator franchise revert back to Cameron in 2018. Who’s to say that he doesn’t already have plans to reboot the franchise that started it all for him back in 1984?

Another major Hollywood player is, of course, Spielberg’s stable mate, George Lucas. His roles as a director have been few and very far between and, perhaps after the infamous prequels, many feel that they should have been even fewer. Considering that, there is no way that Lucasfilm will EVER allow anyone else to touch the Star Wars universe, especially for remake purposes. Also, isn’t Lucas a continuous remaker of his own films?

With every re-release of each ‘special edition’ of the Star Wars films, isn’t Lucas guilty of remaking them. They may only have little tweaks individually, but those changes are pretty major in the franchise: Han shooting first instead of Greedo; Jabba the Hut appearing (awfully in CGI) in A New Hope; Darth Vader’s diabolical emo moment when he grabs the Emperor at the end of the blu-ray version of Return of the Jedi. There are, of course, many other moments I could go into throughout the films but I’d run out of column space. Who knows what treats we’ll experience when the 3D versions start their theatrical runs in 2012 with The Phantom Menace?

Actually, maybe with the 3D re-releases of the prequels, he could change them all into good films? Nah, didn’t think so – instead, we’ll just be treated to headaches as well as yawns during the Imperial Senate scenes and Jar Jar’s ears floating out of the screen at us.

Until next month...

JD