Why create American remakes?

Cafe Society
1

There have been recent cases where foreign made and set TV shows and movies are remade in the US basically identically just set in the US and with US actors, why?

I’m thinking of Let The Right One In and Life On Mars and I am sure more, LOM was even filmed in Britain so its english language.

Are there really audiences that refuse to watch a movie with even foreign accents set in another country? I find that hard to believe.

District 9 was a big success, the movie is a mix of non-american accepted english and subtitles for other languages(fictional ones included :slight_smile: and I cannot recall one person or critic bitching about the language and non US setting.

Is this creator provincialism? Hollywood execs refusing to believe audiences are more intelligent than goldfish?

2

Some very successful American shows were based on foreign ones: All in the Family, Sanford & Son, Ugly Betty and The Office, to name four. And there are foreign versions of ours, too: Law & Order UK, the French version of L&O: Criminal Intent, and at least two versions of Saturday Night Live (Korea and Japan).

Creating something new and different gets you awards; producing something derivative-but-popular keeps you employed.

3

Loosely based on is a bit different than almost a scene for scene remake, its the latter I don’t get.

4

In all fairness, the UK Life On Mars was intensely parochial - unless you’re British or have a strong taste for British social history, I’d imagine that much of the charm would sail right over the heads of the average non-Brit. The thing is that 70s New York has so much going for it (in particular a whole load of films from the era that give people an idea of what to expect) that a remake for the US not only made sense for the US market, it probably would have made more sense worldwide too. It is a shame that it wasn’t good enough/popular enough to go the distance.

In answer to the OP, I would say it is likely to be a combination of things right? There is probably more chance of success by adapting to local markets. There is also probably more money to be made by writers/TV Execs who create the initial show by doing this. They get to have the show remade in numerous countries and might even be able to flog the original to countries where the remake is successful for the “authentic” crowd - rather than just selling the original show. It wouldn’t surprise me if writers were quite keen to see their ideas licensed all over the place. There are probably other factors I have not thought of too.

5

I’ve never heard of Life On Mars but the American remake of Let The Right One In was excellent. I love LTROI and was horrified when I heard there was going to be a remake. I loudly and stupidly acted like an utter git about it. Then, the more I heard about it the more I thought, it might not be so bad. It wasn’t. In fact, I believe Let Me In was one of the best films of last year. For me, the two films stand together, separate but equal. Well, almost equal. I still like Let The Right One In slightly more.

It’s just happened again too. I LOVE the Millennium trilogy books. I LOVE the Millennium trilogy Swedish movies. I LOVE the David Fincher version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and I’m quite sure I’ll LOVE the other two movies when they get made. All because he gets the tone correct, and he found the absolutely perfect person to play Lisbeth Salander. For me it’s all about the character of Lisbeth. Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth? Brilliant! Rooney Mara as Lisbeth? Brilliant!

Besides, Fincher wasn’t “remaking” the Swedish movie, he was adapting the book.

I’ve learned my lesson about being a huge whining naysayer about remakes. Some remakes will be awful, some will be great. I’ll take each on a case by case, movie by movie basis.

6

It’s really not so much that the source material is foreign that makes producers want to remake something, but that they believe that American audiences are either unfamiliar with a property due to it being released in another market or that it has gotten old and slipped from memory. For every foreign remake, there are at least two remakes of American movies. True Grit from last year comes to mind. Other remakes currently in development include *My Fair Lady. The Warriors, Escape From New York, Poltergeist, Meatballs, Red Dawn, *and Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. The most ridiculous I’ve ever seen was the 1998 exact shot-for-shot remake of Psycho with Vince Vaughn. I never figured out the point of making that film.

7

I don’t know if it’s that audiences refuse to watch a movie in a foreign language, it’s just that the foreign movies often appeal to them less than movies in English with recognizable actors.

Let the Right One In seemed to be someone successful, but according to Box Office Mojoit only made $2,122,065 in the US, compared with $12,134,935 for Let Me In (although that’s still a flop considering how it cost more and it was expected to make more than that).

The original The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo made $10,095,170, but the American version has made $32,476,000 so far, and it’s only been out around a week.

You can see the full list of Foreign Language Movies box office here, and considering the relatively modest amount of money each one makes compared to many American films, it seems obvious why many are remade.

8

$$$$$$$$$$

9

I’ve never seen Van Sant’s version but I always chuckle in admiration when I think of it. Here’s my theory of the point of making that film.

Ok, say you’re a director, and say Hitchcock (or Kubrick or Kurosawa or Ford or Wilder etc) is your favorite director…

and say Psycho (or A Clockwork Orange or Ran or The Searchers or Sunset Blvd. etc) is your favorite movie by your favorite director.

Say you’re obsessed with the movie, have watched and studied it numerous times and would love to re-create it, not for ego or that you can do better or that it will make money or anything like that, but

as a pure cinematic exercise, to learn how the director did what he did, to do it in real time, shot for shot, the way the director did (as opposed to limiting yourself to one or two homage shots in another movie).

And suppose you had a surprise critical, commercial and awards attention hit with another movie (Good Will Hunting in Van Sant’s case), and a studio was all over you, sucking up, asking “What would you like to do next? We’ll give you barrels of money to do it, just say the word!”

And suppose you’re a sly, subversive, doesn’t-really-give-a-fuck-about-Hollywood kind of guy and you think to yourself* “Damn, now’s my once-in-a-lifetime chance. The suits will go for a remake of Psycho because they’re a bunch of greedy fucks who would, and I can re-create it exactly the way Hitchcock did for my own amusement, pleasure and knowledge. If it’s a hit, fine. If it isn’t, so what? I’ll still be able to make movies. The suits will make their money back in foreign sales and video. The actors and craftspeople will have gained experience and a nice paycheck. AND I’LL HAVE HAD THE PLEASURE OF SEEING HOW HITCHCOCK MADE HIS MOVIE, Fan-fucking-tastic!”

Would you really, REALLY? turn down a chance like that? Really?? If so, you’re not as subversive and interesting as Gus Van Sant. I’ve never seen his version because I don’t care about it. I do however think the remake has one of the funniest, most interesting, most subversive backstories in film history.

*Disclaimer, obviously I’m not privy to Van Sant’s inner thoughts, but it’s my “re-creation” of what he might have thought.

10

I have a lot of respect for Gus Van Sant. In order to preserve that, I have to believe that his “shot-for-shot” remake of Psycho was some sort of twisted practical joke.

“I’m going to re-do every shot exactly the same. Except in a different aspect ratio.” Yes, this is how Hitchcock would have framed each shot if he were blind or just didn’t care about what was in front of the camera.

[/hj]

The correct answer to the OP is that while there are lots of people who are willing to watch foreign films, there isn’t really any way for American studios to capitalize on them satisfactorily.

Le Diner des Cons is a great movie - but even if Paramount were to secure exclusive distribution rights to show it in theatres in North America, they stand to make a lot more money by casting Steve Carrell and Paul Rudd in a lowest-common-denominator adaptation, because it’ll have a wider audience.

This is true even when filmmakers approach a property with a little more respect (as in Let Me In.)

Personally, I am way beyond being bothered by this sort of thing. I’m even glad of that loathsome adaptation of Lars von Trier’s The Kingdom. (The one where Steve-o decided “Needs more talking anteater! and another subplot about a writer that got hit by a vehicle in Maine” and everyone else involved in the project was too enthralled to point out that he probably should stop huffing so much spray-paint or at run his notes past someone with a lick of sense before reading them out loud at meetings.) If it encouraged a few more people to watch the original, then yay!

11

I certainly won’t refuse to watch such a movie, and in fact I watch plenty of them, but, all things being equal, I’m way more likely to watch a movie filmed in American English than I am another movie. Obviously, I want to experience film and other arts from other cultures, so I don’t exclusively watch American movies and television. But I clearly am biased toward them. Most Americans are. And that, in aggregate, makes a big business case for remakes.

Subtitles are distracting. Film is a visual medium, and I don’t like having to look down to read what the characters are saying. This is particularly bad for something like Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, which has a lot of dialog, nuanced facial acting, and a mystery that I try to solve by figuring out which characters might be lying. It was an awesome movie and I’m glad I saw it, but I’m also happy they’re making an English version.

Dubbing is distracting. My brain can’t let me forget that the words don’t quite match the action on the screen.

They speak English in Britain, but it’s not the same English. I love the American version of The Office, but I’ve never been crazy about the British one. Part of it is that I just don’t understand what they’re saying all the time. I get the broad strokes, but I’m only iffy on a lot of the slang, I tend to not get the political or British-specific cultural jokes.

Remember that remakes do not in any way detract from the original. If you love the original, it’s still there. You can still watch and enjoy it. And the rest of us knuckle draggers can get the gist dumbed down for us :slight_smile:

12

A lot of the charm may have gone over our heads, but LoM was an outstanding show. It took a bit to get used to some of the terminology (I even started a thread asking about British police designations), and I’m sure the music and scenes were more nostalgia-inducing to a Brit, but nonetheless it was gripping, exciting, and fantastic. When we heard there was going to be a US version with Harvey Keitel we were stoked. Sadly, it didn’t hold a candle.

Haven’t seen the next installment (doesn’t it star Zoey from MI-5)? Anything like the original?

13

I answer this same question every time it comes up here. :slight_smile:

I used to work in overseas licensing, and (for TV, at least - I have no idea about movies or non-UK stuff) it invariably came down to exactly the same thing. NOTHING to do with accents or regional jokes, whatever anyone tells you. Any half-sentient human being can handle those things and, if the scheduling works, does.

It’s purely and solely to do with season lengths, episode lengths, and schedules. Nothing else. If the UK produced 10-year long 24-episodes of 45 minutes each seasons of Downton Abbey or whatever, it would be shown in the US exactly as-is. As Ricky Gervais says, if he’d made ten years of 24 episodes of the original *The Office *with each episode timed to US episode times, they wouldn’t have had to make a US version (but he wanted to do other stuff anyway). Who the hell would choose to remake something when it already exists, and you can show it for a fraction of the cost of remaking it?

The problem is that the UK produces maybe three 6-episode seasons, or a couple of 10 episode seasons, or whatever. That fits perfectly into UK schedules; it doesn’t fit at all into US schedules, who need multi-year 13 or 24 episode seasons. So they* have* to make their own. You’ll note that Doctor Who follows the multi-year 13-episode 45 minute format and doesn’t need to be remade.

Why doesn’t the UK make longer series, you might ask? Because it has a culture of single-writer vision, and produce-before-showing planning. There don’t tend to be rooms of writers penning future episodes of a season currently showing - there will tend to be a single writer who finishes is, then its filmed, then when it’s completed it’s shows. No single writer can do that for years one end; and there’s no financial incentive to change that format - it works brilliantly for UK networks! The exceptions - again I cite* Doctor Who*, which farms out freelance writers, but still finishes filming before the first episode of a year is shown - is also an exception which doesn’t get remade (the other reason being that it’s one of the most valuable franchises in the world right now).

Don’t let anyone tell you Americans are too dumb to get the accents; it’s a stupid meme, and it’s utterly untrue. It’s *completely *due to scheduling and formatting differences.

14

I can guess your reaction to the rumoured Attack the Block remake.

15

The thought doesn’t make me stabby for two important reasons.

  1. Joe Cornish would be VERY involved. His movie was not an adaptation of a book that anyone can adapt. Moses, Pest, Biggz, Dennis, Jerome, Probs, Mayhem, these are his original characters in his original story. He’s not going to hand them over to some hack. If he writes the script and directs it (or handpicks the scriptwriter/director and oversees every aspect of the script, casting & production as producer) you can bet it’ll be fun and interesting. Cornish wouldn’t sell his story/characters to the highest bidder. He’s a star comedian in the UK, with plenty of money, so he doesn’t have to.

  2. It wouldn’t be a straight “remake” but rather set in the same world. That is, at the same time the “chavs” in South London are fighting their good fight, kids in Harlem or Brooklyn or wherever are fighting the alien invasion of New York, or wherever.

People will naysay the thought of a “remake” but all I’d have to do is make sure the name “Joe Cornish” is involved and I’d look forward to it. If Cornish is not involved it would mean that someone stole his idea, and he could sue. And we could boycott. Really, it’d get more bad publicity than good, and would bomb big time.

16

That only explains television. Movies are made in the same format and length.

If this were the only factor, then why would movies be remade?

I also find it hard to believe that if there were people clamoring to see foreign-produced television, season or episode lengths would get in the way. Pushing a 50-minute show to an hour and a half and running some extra advertisements, putting two 6-episode seasons into a 13-episode block, or two 10-episode seasons into a 24-episode block… none of this is exactly rocket science. And it would be way cheaper than remaking an entire television series.

I’m not saying Americans are too dumb for foreign films and television. But clearly something’s keeping them away. The audience obviously just isn’t there in force.

17

As I said, I could only speak, specifically, to UK TV -> US licensing discussions. Anything that’s not that, I have no specific knowledge of, and I’ve no context with which to compare it to movies. But that, invariably, was the stumbling block.

It’s not my attempt at reasoning; it’s a recounting of what actually happened every time. The demand from US networks was there; the supply was not. It was much easier when dealing with European networks which actually had different languages - we licensed craploads of stuff to Europe and Australia (when I say “we” I wasn’t actually doing any negotiating - I was just a mid-level admin helping put together the show).

(I worked for BBC Worldwide S&D from 1998 - 2002, helping arrange the Showcase festival in Brighton every year, where most purchases were made; I assume things are still the same, though it does appear they are more successful these days).

18

A lot of it is production values. Let’s face it, American TV shows and movies just look better. A TV show like, say, Terra Nova, may be a big bag of stupid, but it’s shinier and prettier than, say, Primevel. I know they are not remakes of each other, but you could watch the shows on mute while the characters are just running from dinosaurs in the woods and you could still tell which one is made in the US and which one is made by the BBC.

And it’s not just special effects. Even American sitcoms just look prettier. I would be willing to bet that the American version of The Office uses a more expensive camera than the British one.

19

Not generally a consideration; there are plenty of crappy looking low-budget US shows, too. And even the massive budget ones (Terra Nova - is that not the most expensive TV show ever made?) often get disappointing ratings.

Honestly, it was all about the scheduling issues. That’s all anyone* ever* talked about. Licensing a show is very desirable, because it’s much, much cheaper than making one.

20

That’s kinda my point. The US film and television industry has far more money to throw around. Let’s forget about TV for a second though, so we don’t have to talk about scheduling issues. Let’s talk about movies. Every Hollywood adaptation of a foreign film I can think of had a far larger budget. By Swedish standards Let the Right One In was a pretty big budget film coming in at a budget of four million $US. The American remake, Let Me In was low budget by US standards at twenty million. They spent five times as much as the original and considered it fairly low budget. It was a bit of a disappointment, as it only made 24 million at the box office worldwide, but that is still more than double the original’s take at 11 million worldwide.

The idea is it takes spending more money to make more money.