Just curious if anyone has ever looked at the box office success of remakes of existing older movies as opposed to original stories.
Upon review I can see I worded that OP poorly, and the edit window has closed. Just to be clear I mean are movie re-makes more successful (as a class) compared to non-remake movies being released at the same with the remake and competing with it for box office?
There are so many remakes being made these days I wonder if the studio’s assumption that familiarity with the original move will give it leg up in popularity is being borne out at the box office?
Just pulling a guess out of my butt, but I’d say that US-made remakes of foreign films (The Ring, 3 Men and a Baby, etc.) will probably do significantly better (at least in the US) than the originals, even if the quality is lacking.
Hollywood has always done remakes, in fact I suspect we get less today than they did in past decades. The Maltese Falcon was a remake, as were Ben Hur, A Fistful of Dollars, The Magnificent Seven, His Girl Friday, The Thing, Scarface.
And I think you’re right. The tried, tested and profitable will often be preferred to that which is new and untried.
There is a security in doing a remake. If, for example, Gone With the Wind were remade, a lot of people would see it simply out of morbid curiosity, or “I gotta see how badly they wrecked this one.” Even those who have never seen the original would see a remake as an opportunity to get in touch with the classics and see the latest big names in something “classy.”
That’s why they get made, in my opinion. Not necessarily because they are huge blockbusters, but because they are safe.