Why Hollywood Is Desperate To Turn Old Blockbusters Into New Franchises

With audiences unwilling to seek out original films and new-to-you adaptations, Hollywood has no choice but to hope that older star vehicles can become fresh IP.

We got word this week that Adam Wingard, director of Godzilla Vs. Kong, You’re Next and The Guest, will be directing a sequel to Paramount’s Face/Off. The film (which earned rave reviews and grossed $246 million on an $80 million budget) will not be a remake of the John Woo-helmed John Travolta/Nicolas Cage action classic but rather a sequel. It’s a little odd that the notion that this new Face/Off will be a sequel is seen as an example of its artistic purity and presumed superiority, but that’s where Hollywood is right now.

Face/Off was a prime example of two “butts in the seats” actors, a marque director and a gonzo-bananas high-concept (the hero and the villain end up switching faces and living each other’s lives) becoming a hit both because of those variables and because it was a spectacular action drama. It’s not a “franchise” unto itself any more than Mr. and Mrs. Smith ($487 million/$110 million), Air Force One ($316 million/$85 million) or True Lies ($379 million/$120 million).  

True Lies is apparently getting a television adaptation, complete with McG directing the pilot and James Cameron acting as a producer. Meanwhile, Donald Glover and Phoebe Waller-Bridge will reportedly be taking over the roles made famous by Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in Doug Liman’s blockbuster Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Again, Mr. and Mrs. Smith was a smash because it had a fun hook and butts-in-seats/tabloid-friendly star power.

The likes of M.A.S.H., Parenthood, Hannibal, Fargo and Lethal Weapon (all good-to-great television adaptations of well-known cinematic hits) automatically give “movie to TV” adaptations the benefit of the doubt. Unlike Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which was a hit television show loosely based on a flop movie ($17 million/$7 million), or True Lies which was a loose remake of a French action comedy (La Totale!), shows based on Mr. and Mrs. Smith and True Lies will be rooted in viewer awareness of the prior incarnation.

Meanwhile, Spyglass wants to “reboot” Robert Rodriguez’s Spy Kids ($535 million over four movies on a combined $140 million budget) although I’m willing to bet it’ll be at least a soft sequel. Netflix’s We Can Be Heroes played into generational nostalgia by being both its own thing and a sequel to the cult flop The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl ($72 million/$50 million). Moreover, it would be absurd to negate cameos or supporting turns from the likes of Antonio Banderas, Danny Trejo, Alexa PenaVega and the 9,172 other well-liked folks who popped up in the previous four films.

Oh, and Paranormal Activity is getting a “reboot” too. William Eubank (The Signal and Underwater) will direct and Christopher Landon (who wrote the first four Paranormal Activity sequels before directing Happy Death Day and Freaky) will pen the redo. Back in 2009, Paramount marketed Oren Peli’s found-footage acquisition into the most profitable movie of all-time ($190 million worldwide on a $230,000 budget). When you earn $861 million on a combined $28.4 million budget, you take another bite at the apple.

We can throw around the whole “Hollywood has run out of ideas!” cliché, but that ignores the original or new-to-you adaptations we used to get in theaters and still get in streaming and TV on a weekly basis that don’t generate anywhere near the attention or audience of these reboots, remakes and sequels. What we may be seeing here is an attempt by Hollywood to turn old, star+concept hits, even original (or new-to-you) hits into the new IP. With audiences no longer showing up for non-branded fare and stars no longer being their own franchises, Hollywood is in a bind.

Again, I blame audiences as much as studios. Folks complained that Warner Bros. wouldn’t have had to put their movies onto HBO Max if they made something other than $200 million tentpoles, while ignoring the whole slate of non-event movies (Doctor Sleep, The Good Liar, Richard Jewell, Blinded by the Light, Motherless Brooklyn, The Kitchen, etc.) that played to empty theaters in 2019. Audiences are very good about complaining on Twitter about what Hollywood does wrong while ignoring when Hollywood gives them what they claim to want and then retroactively blaming the marketing.

A decade ago, the problem was that folks ignored Nicolas Cage’s “one for me” flicks like Adaptation and Bad Lieutenant and labeled him a sell-out because they only noticed Next or Ghost Rider 2. Now consumers notice mediocre relaunches like Men in Black International ($250 million/$110 million) instead of Late Night ($22 million from a $13 million Sundance acquisition) and make presumptions about the industry at large. But if folks are only going to show up, on average, for branded content and iterations of previously-successful movies, then Hollywood has to make such things enticing.

Sony’s Jumanji was a pitch perfect example of doing this right, taking a known property whose first film adaptation ($245 million/$100 million) was mostly about Robin Williams in a kid-friendly fantasy and ahead-of-their time special effects and making an A-level franchise. They got a kid-friendly cast (Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, Jack Black and Karen Gillan) and a story that A) played as an inversion on the original film’s “game comes into the real world” and B) worked as a standalone riff on video game tropes. Cue $962 million for Welcome to the Jungle and $800 million for The Next Level.

Of course, Jumanji may be as much of a “false hope hit” as Mad Max: Fury Road ($375 million/$150 million) or Halloween ($256 million/$10 million). But with the comic book market dominated by Disney’s MCU and Warner Bros.’ DC Films, new IP has to come from somewhere, so now it’s coming from previously cinema-specific blockbusters. In just a decade, we’ve gone from the notion of Hollywood ripping off a popular movie instead of just remaking it as a sign of artistic integrity to Hollywood merely sequalizing a popular hit instead of rebooting it being seen as likewise.

There is value in taking a popular high-concept hit and giving it a make-over with movie stars who maybe aren’t butts-in-seats draws but are added value elements in a “I’d like to see them in that plot” fashion. The abstract notion of another Face/Off movie may be of little value, but can the right movie star combo make it appealing to general audiences? Likewise, folks who couldn’t care less about another Mr. and Mrs. Smith might be interested in seeing Glover and Waller-Bridge as sexy married assassins trying to murder each other.

Not all IP is valuable. Sometimes audiences were less interested in the abstract notion of a Jack Ryan series than they were in watching a weary and moralistic Harrison Ford fighting bad guys and saving his family. Sometimes audiences just wanted to see Julia Roberts try to steal another woman’s fiancée. There’s an entire industry of would-be IP (Conan the Barbarian, Terminator, True Lies, Total Recall, etc.) whose previous success stemmed from “Arnold Schwarzenegger does cool thing.” These revived hits were initially successful in a time when movie stars were themselves the franchise or the brand.

The high concepts were mere result of an industry that demanded a story more complicated than “cool dude kills terrorists” or “regular person becomes a superhero or a chosen one.” In a skewed way, this current reliance on blockbusters from the 1990’s and 2000’s puts a heavier burden on star power, either in terms of returning cast members or zeitgeist-friendly celebrities offering added value. If your IP isn’t in itself a guaranteed home run, you need would-be movie stars who will increase interest. Hollywood is trying to make something old seem both new and old again.

I’d be shocked if most of these revamps are not at least a loose continuation of the previous films, since Jurassic World ($1.651 billion/$150 million), Force Awakens ($2 billion/$275 million), Creed ($173 million/$35 million) and Mad Max: Fury Road were successful partially due to adherence to prior continuity. Since audiences are both weary of revamps (with nostalgic and protective fandoms of the previous incarnation) and unwilling to show up for almost anything “new,” the new variable will be new movie stars play in these previously established sandboxes.

Audiences will ignore the “next Matrix” but flock to The Matrix: Resurrections. They’ll complain about IP but let Venom earn 50x more ($856 million/$90 million) than Upgrade ($17 million/$3 million). Hollywood is now stuck trying to turn their one-and-done star-driven hits into franchises. Making them sequels protects you from “they’re ruining the original.” Filling them with well-liked actors makes them appealing even for folks with little interest in the IP. Will it work? I’m not sure, but Hollywood has little choice as audiences have little use for their new ideas.