A glimmer of hope in the age of clones and do-overs…

Reading the film-related news every morning has been a struggle for me lately. Not that I don’t enjoy staying on top of things and even the sheer volume of articles to flick through is not the problem – the content of said news, on the other hand, usually is the problem. At this point in time I think my stance on the state of mainstream cinema is pretty clear and I just might tip my hat to Steven Spielberg and George Lucas’ prognosis that the industry is now speeding towards a brick wall. I might disagree with their premise of ‘if people like Spielberg and Lucas find it hard get money to make films, then the industry is in a pretty bad shape’, because what I think will bring about the inevitable is the obsessive sequelitis that has been going on in Hollywood for years now, and while the point they’re making still illustrates the problem, it lacks dimension. Additionally, the blind faith in throwing more money at established box office blockbusters and turning everything into trilogies is only going to speed up the process of decay. The recent news of green-lighting “Taken 3” and rebooting “The Terminator” franchise already into a stand-alone trilogy can only testify to the trend I find most repulsive. With these two titles being added to the 2015 release slate, that already includes a massive amount of high-profile sequels, like “Star Wars Episode VII”, “The Avengers 2”, “Independence Day 2”, or “Jurassic Park 4”, I think this might be the summer of apocalypse Spielberg was referring to, when we would all call the film-makers on their bulls**t and this house of cards would crumble to the epic tune of Hans Zimmer’s score.


While I’d like to rant a bit more about that (and I actually might, but we shall see), the reason I’m here now typity-type-type-typing away is because for once somebody out there in the sunny California might have been listening to us, the movie-goers. This morning the news broke out that Pixar – the pioneering studio in the field of CG animation – has decided to scale back on the sequel production and focus more on creative new IP [standing ovation on my part]. Now, that’s just music for my ears, because it would seem that somebody in Pixar noticed that their audience needs more than just another “Toy Story”.

Believe it or not, but this is a business of making money and a film’s goal is to make a profit (that excludes the indie projects, so stay where you are). However, while the mainstream opinion in Hollywood might be along the lines of ‘diminish the risk, increase the reward’, it not always pans out, as illustrated by Pixar’s case. I don’t think these guys need much of an introduction past the fact they had single-handedly kicked off a major revolution in the world of animation back in the day. They have not been the most prolific of studios out there with only 14 titles released to date (starting in 2006, averaging one theatrical release per year), because they claimed to have been focused on the quality instead of the volume of releases… and good for them.

Nevertheless, right around 2009 they have fallen victim to peer pressure and have jumped on the sequel bandwagon hoping they would get filthy rich in no time. And so, out of all 14 releases in Pixar’s portfolio, 4 are direct sequels, or prequels (“Monsters University”, currently in theatres), and while their first sequel on record – “Toy Story 2” – was released in 1999 as both an attempt to make up for a disappointing “A Bug’s Life”, and a genuine answer to the demands of the fan-base, the remaining 3 sequels have been released nearly back-to-back starting in 2010.

Pixar 1

What I think stands behind Pixar’s decision to concentrate their efforts on new ideas, can be explained using pure calculations. If you have a look at how Pixar’s films did in the box office against their respective budgets, you should immediately notice the trend. Note that the worldwide box office is missing from the graph, as it only adds to the noise; however, it has to be noted that, in total, all Pixar films have made a profit. Upon examining Pixar’s financial results, I could make a couple useful observations that feed into their plan for future releases. First of all, it seems that the more money Pixar has dished out on a given project, the worse the revenue was (with a notable exception of “Toy Story 3” that breaks the trend). Additionally, in their case, attempting to recreate the financial result of a given release (again with the exception of “Toy Story” franchise that has made continually bigger profit, but on increasing budgets) with a sequel has not been all that fruitful; “Cars 2” required the non-US revenue in order to break even. Even a new IP – “Brave” – that was released the following year seems to have suffered from the bad rep Pixar has garnered in the wake of “Cars 2”. Therefore, with constantly growing budgets and dwindling revenues, Pixar has noticed they needed to go back to their roots and rake in the money with fresh ideas in order to stop the decline.

Much has been said about the apparent sad state of affairs in Pixar and their financial results I have shown here only corroborate other people’s observations. Quite recently Christopher Orr over at The Atlantic has published a piece that illustrates how bad things are going with Pixar films by plotting their respective Rotten Tomatoes scores. While the declining trend can be noticed if you disregard the concept of an outlying value, the whole idea lacks substance, in my opinion. I believe that an average score awarded by film are not always the most reliable measure of a film’s quality, because it’s the tickets that ensure its success in the long run (at least in the mainstream cinema). Such approach certainly is informative, but I wouldn’t draw any conclusions from it.

Pixar 2

What will better illustrate the problem than simple numbers again? If you divide film’s box office revenue by its budget, you should theoretically obtain a numerical value that shows this film’s financial potential, with best results being produced by the films with the smallest budgets. Applied to all Pixar films, the trend clearly shows that only “Toy Story” (made 6 times the budget domestically and 12 times worldwide) and maybe “Finding Nemo” (4 times the budget domestically and 10 times worldwide) have been at all successful, but the general trend is headed towards disaster.

I find it most welcoming that the guys over at Pixar have noticed they need to listen to us – people who buy the tickets – if they want to be successful. Positive reviews are crucial as well, but for the most part (unless your name is M. Night Shyamalan) good reviews are usually reflected in the box office. So, how long before the rest of you, people, wake up and smell the coffee? I, for one, don’t want to live in the world where every single release has a number on it and I count on Pixar to lead the crowd towards improvement.

Rant over.

A Closer Look At The Problem Of Remakes in Hollywood…

Note: Sorry it took that long, but this article turned out a bigger beast to tame than I originally expected… and it is quite a long read.


That Hollywood has been having a violent case of noncreativitis – we’ve known for a while now and many movies (including last week’s “Oblivion”) can testify to that without a doubt. However, within the last decade or so, a trend of remaking, rebooting, sequelizing, prequelizing, re-releasing and rehashing old films has grown to sizable proportions and – in my opinion (and many others’ as well) – can now be considered a major problem. I have already written a little bit on the subject trying to understand and emphasize the magnitude of the problem, though the topic is far from properly investigated.

Only last week I have been alerted to the fact that Hollywood big shots are not done getting richer and are as keen as ever before to remake classic movies like “Point Break”, “Escape From New York”, “National Lampoon’s Vacation” and “Weird Science” in order to do so. If you add to that the “Evil Dead” ravaging the theaters now, a remake of “Carrie” planned for later this year, a new “Godzilla” remake being shot as we speak, or “Oldboy”, “Robocop”, “The Crow” and “Wargames” being seriously discussed – I think you can notice the problem too.

With the slew of remakes literally flooding the cinemas and consequently the pop-culture in general, it became of interest to me, whether one might find any degree of predictability in the way the movies are brought back from the brink of oblivion (I can’t really call it history, because the younger generations tend not to care about anything that happened more than 10 minutes ago, nor they intend to look back in time and acquaint themselves with something older than them). Some say that pop-culture life cycle lasts 20 years, which would apparently be the perfect age for a movie to be rehashed. My keen scientific nature could not let me go on with my life unless I had a closer look at this phenomenon.

Without much more hesitation I proceeded to do so and – through the use of the omniscient and all powerful internet (mostly Wikipedia), I managed to find and compile some data on 468 movies (both American and foreign) that had been remade at least once. Adding the movies remade multiple times I arrived at a whopping 548 entries to work with (379 American and 168 non-American). Now, before I get into the nitty gritty, I’d like to say that it is more than likely I omitted a lot. Nevertheless, for my analysis to be completely wrong I would have to have been extremely unlucky, so what I found should still stand and help to depict the patterns (if any) of repeatability in cinema. Fortunately enough, I managed to isolate certain trends and I can hopefully arrive at some coherent conclusions at the end of this rant, so I hope I was not too far off with my way of thinking. In case of raging errors on my part – please give me a shout!

The range of films that served as templates for remakes at a later date span the entire 20th century (creeping into the 21st obviously, but I shall address that further on). It appears that the earliest film to be remade – that I could find – was “Hoodman Blind” from 1913, remade in 1923. The earliest remake on the other hand was “The Squaw Man” (remade in 1918 and 1931, based on a 1914 original). However, “The Squaw Man” was a film that I considered ‘a selfie’ – a film remade by the same director. I would like to assume that ‘selfies’ most often entailed foreign movies remade by original directors in English and low-budget pieces redone with better money, also by the same director. In total, ‘selfies’ amounted to 43 (nearly 10% of all the films included in my study). The first ‘non-selfie’ remake on record was “Marked Men”, remade in 1919, based “The Three Godfathers” from 1916.

Some additional fun facts would include “The cabinet of dr Caligari” as the film that waited the longest to be remade – 85 years (released in 1920, remade in 2005)! On the other end of the spectrum one can find “Autograph” – an Indian production released in 2004 and remade immediately the same year (and once more in 2006). It seems to be somewhat natural for Indian blockbusters to be remade very quickly and multiple times, though I would explain this phenomenon partially by the fact that India sports many languages and most often the subsequent rapid remakes are basically translations of the original work, but I’m no expert on Bollywood cinema, so don’t quote me on that. Or maybe the Indian audience has the shortest attention span of all, I don’t know. In fact, the Indian 1978 movie “Don” holds the record for the most remakes in the history of everything ever with 6 remakes to date. On the subject of records, Alfred Hitchcock’s and Akira Kurosawa’s filmographies seemed to have become the most popular remake destination; however, I don’t have the numbers on it. I simply felt like I kept stumbling across their names the most when assembling the data for this article.

Graph 1

When you put the release dates together both for the originals and remakes and sort them by year, there’s not much you can notice straight off the bat. First of all, it would seem that film makers have their favorite decades they like to borrow from with 1930’s, 1950’s and 1970’s clearly standing out , so the overall trend as a result looks sinusoidal. It would only be natural for me to look for a similar trend in the remakes (but translated by a vector), which would prove inadvertently the existence of ‘the perfect age of a movie’ for remaking. Sadly, a trend of that sort was nowhere to be found. True, the graph illustrating the amount of released remakes by year corresponded really well in trend with the one for the originals. That would point towards something completely unrelated as responsible. I could probably guess that the economic well-being of the movie industry had more to do with the way the trends were forming, with most films being produced in times of economic prosperity. However, the vaguely sinusoidal trend in remake production (red) breaks down completely as we approach the 1990’s and 2000’s where it assumes exponential characteristics. Interestingly, 2012 and 2011 incurred a sudden drop in the remake department, easily explained by a sudden surge in sequel production (simple, what was remade once, gets continued). Other than that, those numbers don’t tell much more.

Graph 2

Next, I decided to examine how the length of time between the original release and a remake is distributed; this is where the fun really begins, as you can quickly notice two sharp spikes in the data – one in the region of 0-5 years from initial release and the other one 28-30 years after. That in my book swiftly puts the 20-year theory to bed. However, bear in mind that the noise level for these results is very high (oscillating around 8-9 years). Additionally, averaging these results arithmetically points to 24.25 years as the sweet spot of the whole series. However, I would not take this number too seriously, simply because the data have two maxima (0-5 and 28-30) and consequently should not be treated in a linear fashion.

Graph 3

In order to gain some more information on this trend I decided to break the data down into American and Foreign categories, and analyse them separately. Looking quickly at the number of releases by year, the trends visible previously have vanished and (both remakes and originals) assume exponential character. Simply put, foreign films are becoming more and more popular remake subjects nowadays. However, when I looked at the distribution of the time from release, I was pleasantly surprised by the way it looked. It would seem that the vast majority of foreign films get remade in the first 5 years from its original release and past that mark, the number of remakes drops significantly.

Graph 4

On the other hand, when I put the American productions through the same paces, patterns emerged. First of all, the sinusoidal trend in original productions was clearly visible (with the same maxima in 1930’s, 50s’ and 70’s) together with the sinusoidal-to-exponential trend in remakes – exactly as it was seen in the general picture – but less noisy. In case of the years-from-release distribution, only one maximum was seen in 28-30 bracket with noise kept at the level of 4-5. In fact, maybe even the whole bracket of 28-41 can be considered here, but nevertheless, 28-30 sticks out rather noticeably and an arithmetical average amounts to 28.5 years as the sweet spot for the age of film to be remade.

So, there you have it. If you look back again at the first graphs, you can now identify the two maxima as ‘foreign sweet spot’ (0-5 years from release) and ‘Hollywood sweet spot’ (28-30 years from release, leeching into 30-35). These results correlate rather well with what we already know about the trends in Hollywood. It’s no surprise to see a foreign hit (like “The Ring”) swiftly remade for the American market, very often with the original director on board. Could I explain it by the inability of western viewership to read the bloody subtitles? I don’t know. Could it be the Hollywoodian arrogance of ‘we can do everything better and more shiny’? Probably a mixture of both.

Right, I think I’ve done enough. But – is it any useful? Can we use these results to possibly predict what Hollywood has in store for us? I hope that to some degree we can do that, but we shouldn’t treat any statistics as gospel, really. What the numbers really say is that a Hollywood film stands better chance of remaking 28-30 years after its release than 15. There’s multitude of factors that influence what films get remade or not, like social and historical significance, current climate in film making and many others.

But let’s take a look at the remakes I mentioned at the beginning of my now overly long rant:

“Point Break” (released in 1991, 22 years ago)

“Escape from New York” (released in 1981, 32 years ago)

“Oldboy” (released in 2003, 10 years ago)

“National Lampoon’s Vacation” (released in 1983, 30 years ago)

“Robocop” (released in 1987, 26 years ago)

“Carrie” (released in 1976, 37 years ago)

“Wargames” (released in 1983, 30 years ago)

“The Crow” (released in 1994, 19 years ago)

“Weird science” (released in 1985, 28 years ago)

“Evil Dead” (Released in 1982, 31 years ago)


As you can see on my semi-professional target board approach, the bullet holes left by the remakes in question are fairly accurate (or they would be had they been released this year). Of course, a terrible outlier that “Oldboy” turned out to be can be discarded, due to its foreign origin and those, as I have already shown average much earlier (ca. 14 years after release) and in that regard “Oldboy” looks rather well.

Before I wrap things up I’d like to say that if these numbers hold up, me might expect films like “The Breakfast Club”, “Back to the Future”, “Spies like us”, “American Ninja” (Jason Statham much?), “Commando”, “Police Academy”, or “Red Sonja” to be resurrected. And that makes me a sad panda, because I really liked the originals…

On the proclivity of Hollywood to put numbers on things…

While browsing through movie-related news couple of mornings ago I couldn’t help but notice that a huge part of what is going on in the world of film is related to various sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots, re-imaginings, resurrections and such. I’m sure someone more proficient in English language than me could find some more words that start with ‘re’ that reflect on the sad state of things in the movie industry. Just as I’m writing this, “Star Trek 2” (A sequel to a reboot to a reboot) is slowly making its way towards the big screens, together with the third “Iron Man” only to make way for another “Thor” and “Captain America” this year. We all know that the “Star Wars” franchise is being dusted off by J.J. Abrams and another “Transformers” movie is in the works. Oh, and another remake of “Godzilla” is being shot right now as well. I thought for a second that something’s not right in here, because it would seem that almost every other major project made in Hollywood could easily have a number after its title, so I decided to have a look for myself.


I took the time to plow through all the major movie releases (thanks to Wikipedia) in the last decade (2002-2012) and fished out all the films that were either sequels, prequels, remakes or reboots to any other movie. Plus, I also included the re-releases as well, because I think they are the most blatant examples of one’s lack of creativity. That’s right, if you want to make more money without lifting a finger, release “Titanic” theatrically once again. It will cost you nothing, but surely you’ll find people, for whom the DVD was just not enough.

chart 1 Anyways, in my search I managed to find 374 such movies. Now, bear in mind that I might have missed some here and there, as the Internet isn’t perfect and neither am I. Especially the further back in time you go, the less reliable these numbers might get, simply because 10 years ago the number of people taking their time and effort to put something up here was much smaller than nowadays and I can’t simply assume perfect linearity in data collection in the Internet, now can I? Nevertheless, I think the trends would stay unaffected even with growing statistical uncertainty here, so I think I’m fine and I can continue rambling. One more thing, these 374 films I found among wide releases in the US. If I had to flick through all the Bollywood pictures I’d probably kill myself instead.

OK, so where was I? Out of 6558 movies noted in box offices (according to The-Numbers.com) in the last ten years, 374 were based on an already existing movie and that constituted 5.7% of the pool. Note here, that the percentage might be slightly higher, because of my inability to find all of those pesky sequels out there. Out of those 374 movies 62% were direct sequels, 29% were remakes, 4% were reboots, 3% were re-releases and 2% were prequels. If one decides to group them together, we end up with 64% (continuations and the like) against 36% (re-imaginings and such). That already says that Hollywood likes to put numbers on things more than it likes to dig out old corpses to revive.

chart 2

It’s fine and all, but those numbers didn’t reflect the trends I was looking for, so I broke them down by year and that’s when the patterns emerged. While you can clearly see the upward trend in the number of ‘sub-creative movies’ across the decade (with the profits following a similar, yet more moderate trend), one can already see that the most decisive rise in production of those films commenced right around 2008. When the movies are further broken down into sub-categories, the pattern becomes almost impossible to miss. While it would seem that number of remakes fluctuates across the decade peaking in 2004 and 2010, the number of direct sequels remained steady throughout 2002-2009 and then suddenly jumped in 2010 by nearly 20% and stayed there until the present day. Now that’s something to think about.

chart 3 I can actually understand the behavior in the number of remakes, because these used to be often subject to fads and related band-wagon mentality. For instance, I believe that the surge in remake productions of 2004-2005 can be attributed to the wave of Asian terror cinema that swept the world around the turn of the century and Hollywood labels wanted to capitalize on that phenomenon. These were the years where “The Ring”, “The Grudge”, “Dark Water” and the like got released. Shortly after, the American horror cinema of the 70’s and 80’s got revived to contrast all the long-haired girls walking out of TV sets, which sparked a new wave of horror in Hollywood and contributed somehow to the increase in sequels that followed. However, none of the “Wrong turn” or “Final Destination” franchises can explain what happened between 2009 and 2010. A flat bump by 20% has to happen for a reason.

If you have a look at how the total number of movies registered in Box Offices during that time looked (thank you again The-Numbers.com), you would notice immediately a sudden drop in produced movies that took place around 2008/2009; Hollywood’s output got reduced by well over 30% within two years. At the same time – which really takes the biscuit here – the percentage of ‘sub-creative’ cinema doubled (from 4% to 9%). These further emphasize the importance of a short period of 2008-2009. What could have possibly happened to effectively derail widely-understood creativity in Hollywood?

chart 4 I think everybody knows that this was the time when shit hit the fan and – thanks to banks, mind you – we all got slapped on the wrists; some more than others. People lost their jobs and houses, the global economy shrank substantially, countries went bust… Just turn on the news. It would seem that while all this was unfolding, all the producers in LA went ‘oh crap, we’re going to get poor now’. Surely, when people have to save their money, the luxuries like going out (including cinema) get axed first. In order to prevent that from happening, some things needed to be done. Gone were the artsy risky passion projects… Out with cerebral story lines  What we needed were movies that guaranteed box office success. And what can be more reliable than a well-executed sequel? chart 5

If you look at the Top 20 highest grossing movies of all times, 14 of them can be classified as sequels. And yes, I counted “Skyfall” and “The Avengers” as sequels that they are – deal with it. If you look at the last 11 years (2002-2012, the bracket for my investigations), 9 out of 11 highest grossing films each year were sequels. I’m now not at all surprised that in late 2007 and early 2008 all the studios decided to devote much greater funds towards producing ‘numbered’ movies. After all, they bring revenue. As a result, with the total number of movies produced yearly cut by 30% post-2008, the revenue managed to retain its growing trend. So, yay… Thumbs up – producers, you are getting richer. At the expense of us, lowly ticket-buyers who want something more than another “Iron-Man” (who am I kidding; I’ll probably go and watch it anyway). At least now I know that I can point my finger towards the bean-counting producers, for shame! Why is the movie industry in such a sad state? Apart from what others already pointed out, it’s simply because the studios desperately wanted to get rich while everybody was getting poorer.

Desperate times – desperate measures… and suitably disenchanting results. Now, let’s see what’s happening with the new Star Wars…