# data[].attributes.body
If someone is being remade purely as a money grab, there is no need to add anything to the storyline and producers are using previous success to generate more profit.

# data[].attributes.body
If the film is being remade for a new time or audience, usually with better effects, e.g. the Lion King (1994) was cartoon animation, but it's 2019 remake was hyper realistic CGI.

# data[].attributes.body
Not necessarily, while audiences love continuity, if the film is not new or different enough from the first one, it becomes pointless to the narrative. However, many remakes are successful and produce success at the box office. It's success may depend on whether there is a need for a new film.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the message of this image, it's implying how there are so many remakes of the same films that it eventually becomes overdone, confusing and boring to viewers.

# data[].attributes.body
Sometimes it’s takes alot of effort to top the expectations of the fans. Remakes are expected to be better than the original. But sometimes the motive for the remake is the financial benefits and it affects how the moves comes out .

# data[].attributes.body
For sure if a movie was a big banger, the fans would want more. The fans would want to see an even better version of the movie. And also it would financially benefit them.

# data[].attributes.body
Most times it does not work out because it’s mostly the same old story line and just a bit of new things being added. Most times it’s best just to let it be. Examples like lion king. Which I hated soo much the exact same story line but a lot more realistic. Buh then coming to American is one that was an exception. So sometimes its a hit or miss.

# data[].attributes.body
The name of the movie was meant to be a joke.. at least I hope it was. Again to me and everyone it pretty much looks like another way of getting money out of their fans and most movies like this go very wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
I would say profit and spectacle.
Obviously Hollywood is known for taking some perfectly well, and trying to re-invent it purely based on the idea that "this did well, so let's do it again on a larger scale in order to make an even bigger profit." A very popular example being Disney. When making their own movies resulted in severe money loss they returned to their safety cushion which was the classis Disney 90's animations, and simply re-made them as live-actions (which are still rather hit and miss).
I've started to notice sadly, that instead of entertaining the audience with fully fleshed out storylines and characters they throw in tonnes of CGI just to showcase that this is now what we're capable of doing. That such effects have come so far so now let's just dazzle you with how realistic this dragon looks in this movie despite said dragon having no relevance in the movie whatsoever.

# data[].attributes.body
Personally I like remakes where filmmakers decided to take older movies that were previously popular in order to appeal to both younger audiences and older audiences (who have already established a connection with the older version of the movie and characters). They act as somewhat of a nostalgic throwback while also drawing in a new generation.

# data[].attributes.body
Not entirely. When filmmakers are under the impression that this single movie is going to be a standalone they'll fill the film to the brim with obstacles and solutions, that when being informed there's going to be a second one. One can't help but think what exactly there is left to do. So, in trying to make the next one interesting they grasp for straws and commonly end up with a movie that was unnecessary.
However, if you've made it clear that there is still something to be resolved and that the storyline is to be spread into a sequel, then I find these movies work better. As there is still room for a storyline.

# data[].attributes.body
My initial reaction was confusion. The font chosen for the poster doesn't seem to be the clearest, this paired with the placement of the words doesn't appeal to the eye very much. This I find to be concerning because the whole point of promotions and advertisements is to draw audiences in which this image does not do as you're left trying to understand what it's saying. I'm assuming this image is trying to play on the whole idea of Hollywood making the unnecessary decision to develop prequels, sequels and reboots of successful movies. The image is pointing out that filmmakers are more concerned with bringing in money rather than producing decent movies with storylines and developed characters - its purely spectacle.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that there are only ever 2 instances in which a remake is acceptable, when a very old film is being remade to appeal to a younger audience who otherwise would not watch the movie ie. Jungle book
Or if it is to revolutionise the film and take it in a new, more modern direction

# data[].attributes.body
Not necessarily, I believe that while there are some instances where remakes are good and would be successful for the most part I see them as shameless money grabs used to lazily reel in cash without going to any effort to produce something original or inventive

# data[].attributes.body
Unfortunately, I feel the worst reason for a remake is also the most common reason, and is exclusively the reason for remakes, adaptations and the like when it comes to Hollywood blockbusters: money.

While I am under no illusion that money is not a motivating factor in any aspect of the film industry (or any industry, for that matter), I still feel that the lack of initial artistic intent within the current spat of IP regurgitation is an unfortunate (albeit inevitable) byproduct of capitalism.

This is the primary reason I engage very little with major Hollywood releases, for the most part.

# data[].attributes.body
On a personal level, I would generally say that remakes are only a good idea when they recontextualise the original, particularly in terms of societal and cultural developments.

For instance, the 2018 remake of Suspiria took the general premise of the original 1977 film and shifted its focus. Where the abstract nature of the original served primarily as a platform for Dario Argento to explore the cult-like nature of fascism, with many visual ties to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, Luca Guadagnino's far more visually-grounded remake focussed on themes relating to feminism. The merits of this are entirely up for debate, but I do feel it is a good example of a purposeful remake.

# data[].attributes.body
Not necessarily. Just because a property was successful does not mean its audience has endured over the years.

There's a reason why properties initially aimed at children often prove more viable for remakes or adaptations than something aimed at adults.

Take Ben-Hur, for instance. The original 1959 film was a huge financial and critical success but the 2016 remake was a flop, and it was obvious why. Anyone who remembered the movie when it initially released would be firmly in the over 60's demographic, who only make up around 15-17% of all cinema attendees.

Whereas properties aimed at children, particularly ones that were popular in the 80s and 90s are far more profitable. This is because the properties are not only nostalgic with the majority of adults in their 30's and 40's but, because much of that age demographic are parents, they are then introducing their children to these properties through the new movies, setting the stage for future nostalgic viewing in 20 years time. It is also worth noting that many of these properties (comic book adaptations, in particular) actually go all the way back to the 1940s, but were consistently rediscovered by each subsequent generation of children who came into contact with them.

# data[].attributes.body
The image is making a point about the over-reliance on sequels/remakes/adaptations of existing intellectual properties in comparison to original ideas.

While I agree, I also think it is somewhat myopic to boil down the issues with the current state of Hollywood to "there are no original ideas." The issue isn't that there are no original ideas, it's that selling an original idea is always going to be a bigger financial gamble than selling one that has already proven viable.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the only nad reason to remake a movie is money, if you're only remaking a loved movie just for more money it's going to ruin it. You also loose sight of what the movie was originally meant for and about if you're only focusing on the monetary aspects instead of doing it out of love for the franchise.

# data[].attributes.body
I think a valid reason to remake a film is to have a more modernised take on the film, say an older film was quite problematic in the way they portrayed certain characters and the remake portrays them in a new light and a better understanding of the character. Not really sure if its classes as a remake but take the Maleficent movies for example, I'd say it was a good thing as it wasn't a repeat of the old Sleeping Beauty story, instead it was a fresh take on the story from the villains perspective.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree to a certain extent as it might not be successful as a 'good film' however, it might be a commercial success due to fan hype and desire to go watch the movie, even if its bad. So I guess it depends on what you class as a film being a success and everyone has different standards on how good a film is

# data[].attributes.body
My first reaction to the image was to cringe just because of how bad the quality of it was. I think the image is attempting to mock the new wave of Hollywood reboots/remakes due to its repetition of 'of the'.

# data[].attributes.body
As I previously stated money is usually the main drive to remake movies, it may be a good thing for Hollywood as they are getting richer, however it is a bad thing for audiences as they are having to watch perfectly good movies being rehashed for no good reason, usually films that should have just been left alone. Audiences will get bored of these films as they won't want to see the same film repeatedly. Remakes usually show how lazy and uncreative Hollywood is getting as they keep remaking their once successful films for financial gain.

# data[].attributes.body
A good reason for a remake is to bring a good story from the past to contemporary audiences. A good example of this is 'A Star is Born" this film has been remade 4 times, each time appealing to the audience of era in which is was created. This was a way to draw in fans of the original films and a way to create a whole new fan base of the film. They bought modern music into the film in the 2018 remake, that was very popular, even made it into the charts. The story was bought up to date as well to be more relatable to modern day audiences. Simply this film is a story of romance and mortality, this is something that will keep appealing to audiences throughout time.

For Hollywood it is good to remake films as they believe they will make plenty of money from recreating some of their most successful films. However I could delve into why this is also a bad thing too. (Which I will do in the next question).

# data[].attributes.body
No this is not true at all, for some films this may be the case, but for far too many, it is the complete opposite. Movies that are successful are due to the audience liking something new or that they haven't really seen before, so if you keep going back to it over and over again just because it was once successful doesn't mean it will be successful again as the audience is bound to get bored eventually. It is also due to who was watching at the time for example the first ever movie was successful, as it was something mind blowing and brand new, but if they went back and recreated that today, it would not be as successful as it was back in 1899, as audiences and what they want has changed so has the whole movie industry.

# data[].attributes.body
This is an unnecessarily long title, I think it is there to make a point that the Planet of the Apes films have been made and made again, so many times over. It just proves the point that Hollywood is out of fresh ideas so they keep going back to what they know and making them over and over and over again, even if the films are terrible there is already some sort of fan base to target the film at.

# data[].attributes.body
Money money money. Disney are famous for it, remake this film , turn it into a musical, turn it into a game. milk it till the cows dry. Some things are better left alone, why take a perfect film and remake it, there's no point apart from their money. Ben Hur is a prime example of remaking and ruining a canonised, classic film. The actors in it where dull, with wooden dialogue and you have to ignore the long slog running time.

# data[].attributes.body
Being historically accurate but also updating a film to todays modern times may be a ideal factor to remake a film. Years ago, films included white men mainly, and may have included a sexy white woman who needs saving or who just dies, so todays remakes could show a more feministic side to films, or represent racial equality a little bit better, take black panther for instance, if that was made 50 years ago , it would be a completely different film

# data[].attributes.body
Just cus a film is successful, has no relevance if it will be successful again if rereleased or remade. Now yes it has the audience factor behind it to begin within, but some may not go to see it simply because they already have seen it before soooooo

# data[].attributes.body
that's some long title, im never going to read that if im honest. I look at monkie and monkie is cool. What its Trying to do is literally tell you what the film is I suppose, its a sequel of a prequel of a reboot and im just lost.

# data[].attributes.body
Films with large fan bases may feel so strongly about the original film they turn against the idea of a remake, or even sequel. The phrase 'less is more' comes to mind a lot with this.
I also think unless a film has been made specifically to have a follow on film, it's hard to determine whether a reboot/sequel would be welcomed by the audience or not.

# data[].attributes.body
Perhaps as the characters grow up and move on in life a new story/film can be produced with the original idea in mind. This would draw the original audience as well as newer ones. Or even the story of how they became their character, an example of this is Cruella.
Times have changed, meaning the original films we once watched can be changed into something more modern and inclusive. For example, the idea of Snow White being played by a person of colour highlights this.

# data[].attributes.body
Absolutely not. There has been so many film sequels which prove this, especially if a film is so good the first time it can be hard to recreate again without ruining the film. However, I do agree that some film sequels/reboots are successful, some of which are more than the original.

# data[].attributes.body
My first reaction was how long the title is and how this is clearly aimed at the fact Planet of the Apes has been remade way too many times.
I think someone is trying to make a point to show how much this film has been overused and turned into different things, so much so the film is worn out.

# data[].attributes.body
I already mentioned profits in my last response so I'll say that one of my least favourite concepts for a remake/reboot it that total recall reboot.

GIVE ME A BREAK, the original total recall is literally a fantastic movie that it makes me sick anyone could ever want to remake it.

Long story short, bad reasons are money and just about any reason that isn't involved with insensitivity and outdated offensive stereotypes.

# data[].attributes.body
Profit as this could mean that the film does not have the same development for the characters or plot as the original did. Rushing to get the film finished and into the public sphere would cause some creative opportunities to pass by. Additionally, remaking a film for the fans, although this could be a good thing as it provides a space for the audience to have a say, could be both difficult and problematic. The end result could end up wrong for both the creators and the fans, as compromise might make the film confusing. Even remaking a film for the fans, and just casting someone completely different to who they expected could cause a bad response.

# data[].attributes.body
To bring the characters or storylines into a more contemporary, modern world. Some topics discussed in films from even a decade ago are insensitive to the mindset of the world now. By remaking a film, it could be possible to create more of an inclusive and open minded story, and develop the characters to reflect the changed and changing views of the world.

# data[].attributes.body
No. If it was successful once, that was due to the audience at the time, and their reactions. There is no guarantee that even the same film being released for the first time a year later would have done as well as it did. The success of a remake does not fully rely on the original doing well, it relies on the opinions of the audience. The previous success may have some sway in the audience’s minds but that does not mean that just because it was successful once, it will continue along that path.

# data[].attributes.body
My first reaction is to view it as a satirical criticism on rebooting films over and over, to almost no end. It looks as though it is trying to be serious from the image and colours, but the excessive wording as well as the actual words used show that it does not take itself seriously. The use of repetition suggests that at a certain point, remaking films becomes unoriginal, boring, and unnecessary.

# data[].attributes.body
Don't like remakes, never have. Why??? Because they are almost, always inferior to the original. I cannot think of one remake I prefer to the original film, honestly I can't. A lot of my older film knowledge is that of Horror films which, as a genre is no stranger to remakes.

I love the slasher films of the 1980s, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elmstreet, Halloween, Child's Play, My Bloody Valentine, Texas Chainsaw Massacre...etc. (I know some of them are 70s, sue me) every single one I just listed has a sort of remake or reboot and every single one is no where near as effective as the original film it is remaking.

When it comes to reasons behind remaking films, for Hollywood, it's almost always monetary reasons. "This is a bankable, nostalgic franchise, lets make some quick cash!" I think the only reason you'd want to remake a film is if the original had some seriously offensive and outdated depictions to the point where it makes the film ultra distracting and uncomfortable, I can think of any other good reasons.

There are also examples of unintentional remakes, more accurately retreads where the film company makes a "sequel" but it is so similar to an older movie that it doesn't add anything new. I like to think that the force awakens counts here. It is similar to new hope, with so many borrowed setpeices that I wish it had gone for some more exciting ideas.

# data[].attributes.body
The only reason that comes to mind is MONEY!!!!
Money is the completely wrong reason to make a movie. They are simply trying to mimic the success of the original without trying to create something unique, through provoking and simply enjoyable. That's not say they aren't enjoyable but remaking a movie with glowing money in your eyes is the so wrong and is not the reason to retell a story that has already been told (example: all the 9 times 'A Christmas Carol' has been remade. But I do love the Jim Carrey 2009 one) :)

# data[].attributes.body
No, no, no. Rehashing ideas may seem safe when it comes to profits but it very much depends on your definition of 'successful'. Nowadays, it seems as though film companies will gladly regard their releases as successful even if there is a wave of angry fans and movie-goers calling the film terrible. For them, if it made money then it must be a success, for me and pretty much all consumers, this isn't how we classify these things.

Sometimes a film's success if dependent on its time of release, the statements it makes about the world at the time. I think a good example of this is American Psycho. The whole film is critical of yuppie culture and 1980s corporate big wigs and hyper masculinity, sure it was released in the year 2000, but I think it was just the right amount of time for audiences to look back and think: "Yeah, wow, that's what it was like wasn't it?", you release a film like that now and you'll have people asking: "what's a yuppie?"

Another, easier example is Ghostbusters. Talk about rehashing gone too far. I can talk for a long time about how much I dislike what they have chosen to do with this series. You have the 1984 original, a classic movie with a timeless cast and smart well thought out jokes courtesy of Dan Aykroyd. Then you have Ghostbusters 2, in many, many ways it is inferior to the original but it's dripping in early 90s cheese and I can't help but love it. THEN, you've got Ghostbusters 2016 which is just the opposite of the original in everyway, the jokes are dated, the cast is not timeless and are just terrible and the story is laaame. THEN AGAIN, the new Ghostbusters: Afterlife is not a great example of a rehashed formula, its an example of trying something new and not doing a good job, the cast is just stranger things wannabe and the Harold Ramis Ghost! WTH! I was shook that they were bold enough to do that...just terrible.

What was I saying again? Oh yeah, rehashing ideas does not work and shouldn't be something that studios fall back on as often as they do.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion remakes are very divisive subject. They can either really good or, most commonly, really bad.
A good remake should follow the principal of not trying to overshadow or undermine the narrative plot point of the original (especially if that is what made it standout in its genre). An example of a good remake (that I like) is Dredd from 2012, as it dives deeper into the characters brutal ways of inflicting the law. However, an example of a bad remake (that I don't like) is Psycho from 1998, as it is the exact same movie practically and lacks the core thriller aspect that made the original 1960 masterpiece truly standout in its genre.

# data[].attributes.body
The image is funny but also quite thought provoking as to the state of the film industry. It's making a statement that Hollywood and the entire blockbuster film climate has become overly reliant on reboots and sequels rather than original ideas.

It's a rather interesting way to display the amount of influence money has on the industry as a whole.

# data[].attributes.body
I mostly think yes.
Films that have a cult following or have amassed huge popularity with critics or audiences tend to establish franchises that evolve based on audience perception events and characters. One example is the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, as audiences were originally intrigued by the prospect of a Disney pirates movie. Yet, when they did commercially and critically well (mainly because of Johnny Depp) the inevitable sequel(s) happened. Overall, this statement work with this example as people only want to see a pirates movie with Johnny Depp at the helm. Therefore, I will not agree somewhat as future instalments will not be successful without the inclusion of the one aspect that made all others successful, that being Johnny Depp.
Finally, all 'Successful' films that might be successful again are due to the actors and being synonymous with having a good track record. An example is James Bond (Over 60 years of solid films).

# data[].attributes.body
I find it quite funny, as it emphasises the number of times that franchise has been remade or had countless sequels. The repetition of "of the" evokes the lack of orignal material. Therefore studios are relying on established brands and content, milking them to death until the so called 'Money well runs dry' (a metaphor for eventual audience fatigue, for the countless iterations in a franchise or remakes that tell the same god damn story!)
Overall, pretty funny and realistically shows the Hollywood system to continuously churn out the same thing with a new name, or slight reimagining than previous itterations.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes and No.
Some films (fast and furious/pirates of the caribbean) do really well. Other films (Kingsmen in my dads opinion) did really bad.
I think curiosity draws audiences in, if they loved the first film then they’ll be drawn to a new one, and consequently whether they liked the outcome or not, profit is made.

# data[].attributes.body
My initial reaction was to laugh, as at first glance it sounds like it’s making fun of how many planet of the apes films there are.
However it shows just how the industry plays off of successful films to make money.
The repetition of “of the” becomes boring and reflects how these reboots get tiresome over time.

# data[].attributes.body
Money will be the most obvious answer, but remaking movies can besmirch the reputation the franchise had, so when studios try to bring in newer and younger audiences to their franchises, it can alienate the original fans which supported them initially.

# data[].attributes.body
When a director or writer has story idea/direction to bring their characters into, it can be an excellent idea to remake a film. For example Daniel Craig's rendition of James Bond in Casino Royale was tougher, smarter and resulted in numerous newer fans as well as older fans of James Bond to engage with the series and the bolder stories being told. If they had written him to be similar to the older ones or more boring, it would have been a bad idea to remake the franchise.

# data[].attributes.body
No. Just because you are toying with a previous franchise that has done well at the box office doesn't mean it will perform well again. However, depending on your definition of 'success' in regards to film and cinema; this can be somewhat true. If you define 'success' as the movie making money (more than it cost to make), then using a previous film can allude to making the new one successful as it can instantly pull in audiences who enjoyed the original. But I would say that for the film to be successful it has to make money as well as be received well critically, and whilst in some cases like with the new Ghostbusters: Afterlife, the argument can be agreed with, but I for one disagree, as the 2016 reboot of Ghostbusters was received poorly and flopped financially, proving how just by using a previous film's ideas and story doesn't instantly make it successful.

# data[].attributes.body
Hyperbolic and cringe; there is evidently a lot more reboots, sequels, prequels etc. appearing in Hollywood than ever before in the past decade, and this image plays with that fact, critiquing filmmakers and their ideas to pull in audiences by developing films that have been previously successful.