Profit motive is driving force behind summer retreads

PITTSBURG, Kan. - If the 2005 summer movie season wore a tag line, it would probably read something like this: We're going to show you something you've probably already seen before, and chances are many of you are going to find something better to do.

A quick peek at the schedule of movies for this weekend reveals that three of the eight films, Fantastic Four, Bad News Bears, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, fall under that 'remakes and adaptations' label. Take a look at the bigger, seasonal picture and it becomes apparent that this is hardly an isolated incident.

Eight of the top 15 grossing films at the box office this summer have been remakes, adaptations or sequels, including the top three films; Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith ($376.5 million), War of the Worlds ($212.8 million), and Batman Begins ($193.4 million).

So, why all the rehashing of old ideas?

Cynthia Allan, a professor at Pittsburg State University who teaches a graduate seminar in critical film theory, believes that the reasoning behind it is financial.

"Summer is a time, historically, when the studios have to be able to make a lot of money off the product they put out," she said. "They're not trying to put the Oscar contenders out there, because they know that will come in the fall season."

So how do remakes and sequels offer a studio more assurance of a better box office draw?

"You'll see a fleet of remakes and sequels, and the studios just put them out there because it's a known name, a known quantity, and you can translate it to the younger crowd, giving it wider appeal," said Benji Tunnell, the general manager for the Pittsburg 8 theaters. "They're capitalizing on a known product."

"They're caught in a bind," Ms. Allan explained. "They're afraid to try new products because they know they have to bring in the big bucks. A film has to make about double what it cost to produce just to break even, so, if I'm a corporate thinker, I'm trying to see movies as a product and not as creativity, not as art. That's what the fall is for."

Historically, the formula has worked. In four of the six summers from 2000 to 2005, the season's top-grossing film has been a remake, adaptation or sequel. And, according to Ms. Allan, the laid-back attitude of summer moviegoers has a great deal to do with perpetuating this trend.

"It's like anything else," she said. "People go to the movies a lot in the summer just to get out of the heat, to find something to do; they're looking for entertainment. Their standards are going to be lower, and the studios count on this.

They count on parents dropping off a van full of kids for an afternoon at the multiplex, and not an audience looking for an Oscar contender."

As is usually the case, however, there's another twist to the plot.

"There's something else at play there with the remakes," she continued. "The people financing these movies are middle-age businessmen who have very nostalgic feelings for Burt Reynolds in The Longest Yard, The Dukes of Hazzard - things of that nature. It's easier to greenlight something that they already feel warm and fuzzy about."

"It amounts to the studios not wanting to put money behind something that they don't know will perform," Mr. Tunnell said. "But there are exceptions. Every once in awhile we get an independent, different film that will break through with audiences. Last year, we had Garden State and Napoleon Dynamite, which were both great."

Even with a product that the studios might feel is a sure thing, there are still risks. This summer's box-office totals are on pace to be the lowest for any summer since 1998. With no more big-name releases on the horizon, other than possibly The Dukes of Hazzard (which opens Friday), this summer's current total of $2.45 billion will undoubtedly catch 1997's $2.46 billion, but probably not 1998's $2.81 billion.

What could explain the falling numbers? This summer would seem to be following the corporate formula to the letter, and last summer's films grossed a record $3.8 billion.

"They've been down for the whole year, not just the summer, and it goes back to product," Mr. Tunnell said. "They didn't have the strongest movies in the springtime, and that's when you're putting your summer posters and trailers up for everyone to see."

Additionally, the critical aspect of this summer's blockbusters hasn't been stellar, even by summer standards, and this is one of the things that Ms. Allan feels contributes to the sagging box office.

"The problem is that when you're trying to make that much money you have to appeal to a huge range of people. When you do that, you wind up losing your voice in the film," she said. "That's why it's very hard to find creative product in the industry this time of year."