|
Well, it wasn't meant that way. Sorry! No, actually, this is what I meant--and unfortunately I think it's true:
The modern demographically-viable audience member, who happens to be young, finds the pacing of older films slow and the production and effects work to be primitive compared to those of movies produced today. That audience member generally stops spending money on the older product, and for the investor to get that money out of them, the package has to be "re-envisioned" and resold as something "new." The advertising campaigns for such films generally imply that this new "Dawn of the Dead" or "Assault on Precinct 13" is some hot new property with current star personalities supporting it, and that this new product effectively replaces the old product. All implied, but the statement is still made.
Now, it's a proven fact that whenever I worry about somebody remaking a movie because it's not selling to the demographically-viable crowd, someone IMMEDIATELY begins remaking that product. So you can rest assured that someone is wadding up large numbers of $20 bills and stuffing them into suitcases so they can go and bother Don Coscarelli to license Phantasm, etc.
Now Don Coscarelli, who has made a slew of Phantasm films and (hopefully) done fairly well with them, will listen to the sales pitch and look at the suitcases full of money, and after thinking about it for a good long time, will answer, "No...no...no...no...no, I don't think I want to sell you this particular property. Well, all right, what the heck, sure, it's yours."
|