For some years now, cinema has been adopting a (failed) reboot strategy, that is, bringing classic and cult movies from the 80s/90s back to the big screen, in a current context, often adding modern computerized special effects, hoping to replicate a new success after decades. The cinema industry increasingly allows itself to be enchanted by probable easy profits, hoping that the users of an era ago, who now know those films word for word, will return to the cinema to watch the remake of their favorite films.
Source
This marketing strategy has seen more flops than successes. The least profitable film remakes:
1 – Around the World in 80 Days (2004) – losses $35,000,000
2 – Oldboy (2013) – losses $24,800,000
3 – Alfie (2004) – losses $24,800,000
4 – Psycho (1998) – losses -$22,900,000
5 – Oliver Twist (2005) – losses $17,420,000
Some examples of unintelligent reboots, not to mention some forced ones like the female version of the Ghostbusters. I believe that the innovative spirit of screenwriters does not necessarily have to try to modify a cult film from the past to attract spectators to the cinema. There are many books to draw inspiration from, if there really are no new ideas on the type of movie to make. But distorting a cult for the sole sake of making money... Well it's the most disgusting part of modern cinema.
Among other things, I read about a reboot of the cult The Neverendig Story, a classic from the 80s that I loved and which fascinated millions of teenagers and beyond from that decade. Well, how will the screenwriters convince the audience of those years to return to the cinema to watch the digitized version of an 80s masterpiece? For me, it's already a NO!
I also recently watched the trailer for the reboot The Crown, the modern version of Brandon Lee, a convict with tattoos who looks like a gangster... Ridiculous! I'll stop here because there would still be many examples of rubbish. And do you agree with the cult reboots of the 80s and 90s?