The document discusses several reasons why Hollywood studios choose to remake films. Key reasons include having access to better technology and equipment than when the original was made, appealing to new generations of audiences who may be unfamiliar with the original, capitalizing on the popularity of certain actors or genres, and using new marketing and distribution methods like social media to promote the film. Several case studies of remade films are examined, like Robocop, Batman, and War of the Worlds, looking at their original budgets, box office performances, and notable differences between the original and remake.

1. A remake isbasicallyanewerversionof anoldfilm this can be like a
film reusing material from a film or TV programme which was
producedearlier.Hollywoodwouldconsiderremakingafilmis if the
studioor productioncompanyhasmore moneyor betterequipment
than they did when the original was released. An example of this
wouldbe Robocop(Paul Verhoeven, 1987) which had the budget of
$13 million, which compared to films that are released nowadays
thisbudgetisn’ta lotfor a science-fictionfilm. The film was remade
27 years later with a different production company. The budget for
the remake of Robocop was $100 million which is more than triple
the amount that the original got. With the increase in film budget
the newproductioncompanywouldhave bought better equipment
and better special effects. The benefits of having more money
behindafilmandstudioshows in the box office takings. The 1974 original brought in $53 million in
box office takings whereas the 2014 remake brought $242 million.
AnotherreasonwhyHollywoodwouldchoose todoa remake of a film
isbecause of distributionandexhibition.Distributionand exhibition is
the way the remake is marketed and watched. An example of this
would be Zoolander (Ben Stiller, 2001) which only had a few ways to
promote itself;postersandtrailers.RecentlyBenStillerdecidedto add
a sequel called Zoolander 2 (Ben Stiller, 2016). The sequel got
promoted in a lot more creative ways than the original did. The film
alone had its own Instagram, Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook page for
fans to get behind the scenes videos on and get updates on the film.
Otherthan the filmpromotingitself throughposters,trailersandsocial
media the two main stars, Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson, walked the
runwayon Parisfashionweekwhich got filmed and went viral. I think
the use of social media has benefited the film industry very much
because production companies and celebrities all have their own accounts. So by them accounts
publishingpostersand trailers and videos it widens an audience because people can share and tag
their friends in them.
Genres, cycles and trends also can come into consideration when
Hollywood is remaking a film. An example would be the recent
popularityof Superherofilmswiththisgenrebeinginheavy demand it
helps film makers make a better decision on what film to remake. An
example of a superhero film that has been remade heavily is the
Supermanfilms.Ithinkthe Supermanfilmscarryon beingsopopularis
because he isn’t always fighting the same villain so it keeps the story
alive andit also keeps the suspense of waiting for the next film alive.
The most recentremake of the Supermanfilmsis Batman v Superman:
Dawn of Justice (ZackSnyder,2016). The filmbroughtin$800 millionin
box office takings,Ithinkthis was heavily down to the fact Hollywood
has seenthe demandfor superhero films so the made a collaboration
film with two of the most known superheroes ever.

2. Hollywood can also remake a film based on the popularity of certain
actors/actresses. An example of this is Scarface (Howard Hawks, 1932),
the original starred Paul Muni and Ann Dvorak. Both these stars might
have been popular in 1932 but nobody knows about them nowadays and
nobody really knows about the original film. The remake however is
extremelypopular.The remake was released in 1984 and was directed by
Brian De Palma, but more importantly the stand out star of the remake
was Al Pacino. Al Pacino is incredibly successful and well known to all
generations,bycastingAl Pacinothe filmbroughtinloadsinthe box office
takings. According to IMDB the 1932 original only brought in $600,000 in
box office takings whereas the 1984 remake brought in $44 million. This
shows us how much money a star can bring in for a film.
Synergyiswhendifferent types of media and products come together
and release merchandisewithafilm.Anexample of this would be Star
Wars: The Force Awakens (J.J. Abrams, 2015) in the build-up for the
filmthere wasclotheswiththe StarWars logo on them.Thenwhen the
filmgotreleaseda game got brought out, there was a soundtrack with
the film, andalsothere are vinyl popfiguresof charactersfromthe film
and alsoremote control gadgets of BB-8 which is one of the characters
of the film. Compared to Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith
(George Lucas, 2005) the 2015 release had a lot more forms of synergy
than theydidback in2005. Thisgetsshowninthe box office takingsthe
2005 filmbrought in $848 million whereas the 2015 film got $2 billion.
The firstcase studyI am goingto lookat is the Batmanfilms.The veryfirstinstalmentforthese films
was called Batman: The Movie (Leslie H Martinson, 1966) even though not many people know this
was the original itstill didreallywellbybringing $3 million in box office takings. Even though these
takings seem low in comparession to what superhero films take in nowadays 20th
Century Fox still
tooka profitin.AccordingtoIMDB 20th
CenturyFox gave the filma budgetof $1 million.Whichonce
againis verylowfora superherofilmtobe given.Eventhoughtechnology wouldn’t have been very
goodand the special effectswouldn’thave beenexcellentit still secured a fan base for the film and
it shows how much of a growth the fan base has taken when we look at other remakes to the
Batman films.Idothinkthat the box office takingswere so low for this film is because there wasn’t
very much ways of promoting your film, back in 1966 the only way you would be able to promote
the film is with a trailer at the beginning of another film which isn’t really getting it out to a wide
audience. The stars of the original was Adam West, Burt Ward, and Neil Hamilton. Personally the
only actor I know from that list is Adam West and I only know him from Chicken Little, Meet the
Robinsons and Family Guy. I think this heavily influences the fact that not many people of my
generation have seen the 1966 film because nobody really knows the actors in it.
The next instalment in the Batman franchise was simply called Batman (Tim Burton, 1989). Unlike
the original batmanthisinstalmentdidn’thave 20th
CenturyFox as itsproducerand distributorithad
Warner Bros.withthe changeovercame a biggerbudgetwhichwas$35 million.Justfromthe drastic

3. raise in budget I know the remake brought in more money because it could afford better special
effectsandbetter technology. I know as a fan of superhero films that if the producer doesn’t put a
big budget in special effects it’s going to be a flop and isn’t going to be as successful as superhero
filmsshould be. The film ended up bringing $411 million in box office takings. So let’s imagine the
budget alone brought in a bigger audience then that means all you’ve got to spend is $34 million
more and you’ll getmore thantriple backinbox office takings.Sadly the film industry doesn’t work
like that the stars of the film are what a lot of people go to see. I think this remake is more well-
known because it starred Jack Nicholson, Michael Keaton, and Kim Bassinger. Out of these three
stars I know two which is still an improvement on the 1966 original. In terms of distribution and
exhibition the film got to do a lot more promoting than the original but only in the sense that the
1989 remake would have put posters up and have adverts on TV.
Batman and Robin (Joel Schumacher, 1997) is the next instalment I am going to be speaking about.
After following the success of the 1989 instalment the film stayed with Warner Bros. in hopes to
beat it and they gave it everything they could with upping the budget. The new budget used was
$125 million whichwasthe mostspentona batman film in the 20th
century. With the increased the
budgetbettertechnologywasboughtandusedalsothe moneywenton the best of the best special
effectsthatcouldbe accessed at the time. Unexpectedly the film actually took a drop in box office
takingsgoingfrom $411 millionto $238 million. I don’t understand why this film took a drop in box
office takings because on paper it looks like it should have made the most with a dream cast
including George Clooney, Chris O’Donnell, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The nextinstalmentIamgoingto be speakingaboutisThe Dark NightTrilogy.The trilogy consists of
Batman Begins (ChristopherNolan,2005), The Dark Night(Christopher Nolan, 2008), and finally The
Dark NightRises (ChristopherNolan,2012).The firstinstalmentof the trilogy got $150 million spent
on it and luckily for the franchise got more money than the 1997 film in the box office takings.
Batman Begins brought in $374 million. Which is still a drop from the Tim Burton version back in
1989 but it still looked like it was on the rise. I think the film did successfully because it starred
ChristianBale,Michael Caine andMorganFreeman.All three of these stars have earned a name for
themselvesinthe industrypriortothisfilmandhave a supportive fanbase Ithinkthisiswhere most
of the audience came from. The Dark Night was later released following the success of Batman
BeginsWarnerBros. casted Christian Bale to return to his role as Batman. The film was also given a
$180 millionbudgetanditearned itstraightback inbox office takingsbringingin a whopping $1.005
billion which was the highest earning Batman film. I personally think The Dark Night got a lot of
people comingtosee itbecause of the sad andveryunfortunate death of Heath Ledger who played
The Jokerand sadlytookhisown life. OtherthanHeathLedgerthe filmstarredMorganFreemanand
Gary Oldman. With The Dark Night bringing in new fans The Dark Night Rises was destined to be a
big earner and Warner Bros. seen this and gave it a $250 million budget. The film quickly earned
everylastdollarbackbringingin$1.085 millionwhichshowedeverybodyinthe filmindustrythe rise
and unstoppable effectthat superhero films were having. The last instalment in the trilogy starred
an amazing line up with the return of Christian Bale and Michael Caine it also brought in stars like
Tom Hardy and Anne Hathaway.Synergywasalsoincludedwiththe trilogybecausewiththe release
of the last two films came games, clothes with the batman logo on, and even a rollercoaster in
Warner Bros. in Florida.

4. I thinkthere wasa constant remake of the batmanfilms because it had a ready-made audience and
as if that wasn’t enough they brought in successful actors and actresses to be in the films so it
brought in a wider audience.
The nextcase studyI am goingto be lookingat is War of the Worlds (Byron Haskin, 1953) which was
producedbyParamountPictures.Withthe filmbeinganoriginal and nobody predicting the success
of it the film was only given a $2 million budget. As a result of this the film could only afford basic
special effectswhichisn’tverygoodfora science-fictionfilm.Thisdidn’tstopthe bockoffice takings
from going through the roof bringing in an amazing $4 million which was good for back then. The
filmstarredAnnRobinson,Gene Barry,andLesTremayne.Outof themthree Ionlyknow Gene Barry
and I haven’treallyseenherinanythingI’ve just heard her name from my grandma. I think the film
was such a big success because it had such a powerful political subtext. Subtext is the unspoken
thoughtsandmotivesof the characters.The political subtextof the filmwas about the Cold war and
Americasfearthatthe Russianswere goingtocome andtake over.This is portrayed in the film with
the characters fear of the aliens coming.
When the remake of War of the Worlds got released in 2005 after having the influence of Steven
Spielberg directing it, the film came back unstoppable and as successful as ever. First of all the
budget for the film was $132 million which is 130 million more than the original. This bought the
best CGI money has to offer and the film could have stunt men to perform the most dangerous
stuntsand give the filma way to make the audience on the edge of their seat. The remake also got
releasedfeaturinganamazingcastincludingTomCruise,DakotaFanning,andfinallyJustinChatwan.
Each one of these have their own fan bases that support them through thick and thin. With all of
these positives working in the films favours it was inevitable it was going to do well in box office
takings and it did the remake brought in $234 million. Another reason the remake did so well is
because of its political subtext. Instead of being about the cold war Steven Spielberg changed it to
focus on terrorism and the tragic event of 9/11 that happened 4 years earlier. Spielberg has
publically said that if 9/11 hadn’t have happened then the remake wouldn’t have been made.
Otherthan political issuesbeinginfluencing for the remake to happen the fact that technology and
CGI has improved so much has to have helped Spielberg get permission to do it.
The third case studyI am goingto look at is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Tobe Hooper, 1974) was
produced by Vortex and distributed by Bryanston Pictures. With no one being able to predict the
successof the film it was given a $140 thousand budget. But with it having to make cuts to the film
for being too gory, being rewarded an X certificate and getting given an 18 in the UK, and the film
not being permitted to play anywhere in the UK except for London nobody could predict the box
office takings. The film ending up bringing $30 million in which is incredible.
The film ended up getting remade in 2003 and being directed by Marcus Nispel. The film was then
produced by Platinum Dunes and New Line Cinema. The remake was also distributed by Focus
Feature and20th
CenturyFox.Unlike the original the remake didn’tgetcutsmade to itand it alsogot
released everywhere. The budget for this film $9 million and it ended up bringing in $80,571,655. I
thinkThe TexasChainsawMassacre got remade wasbecause in 2003 there was a demand for horror
film remakes and also I think we are more violent as a society.

5. The final case studyI am goingto lookat Ringu(HideoNakata,1998). Ringuisa Japanese horror film
that wasproducedby Basara PicturesandwasdistributedbyAce Pictures.The budgetfor Ringu was
$1.2 million and it brought in $1 billion. The film was later remade in English and was called The
Ring. The Ring was released in 2002 and was directed by Gore Verbinski. The 2002 remake was
producedanddistributedbyDreamWorksLtd. Due to the successof the Japanese horrorthe remake
was given a $48 million budget and in box office takings it brought in $249 million. Due to the
successof the remake itstarteda trendin Hollywoodof Japanesehorrorsbeingremade into English
for example,The Grudge (2004), Dark Water (2005), Pulse (2006), and finallyOne MissedCall (2008).
I think the film got remade into English because it attracts a wider audience.