24 Frames

Movies: Past, present and future

« Previous | 24 Frames Home | Next »

With 'Avatar' struggling, is the bloom off the rerelease rose?

August 30, 2010 |  5:40 pm

  Avatar

For a while now, theater owners — and to a lesser extent filmmakers and studios — have been touting the economic and cultural wisdom of rereleasing Hollywood's biggest hits.  Personalities as varied as Steven Soderbergh and theater mogul Shari Redstone have talked about the rerelease as a way both to keep theaters relevant and provide a service to tentpole-overloaded moviegoers.

Most films still don't get a wide rerelease, but those that do tend to fare well. "The Godfather," the first two "Toy Story" films and "Apocalypse Now" were all rereleased at least a decade after they first came out, all of them to strong effect.

None of the new releases re-created the blockbuster success of their original go-rounds — "Toy Story" made the most of the bunch, grossing $31 million domestically — but all came away with their reputations burnished. In the case of "Apocalypse Now," whose redux edition added a significant amount of footage, the 2001 rerelease not only solidified the movie with old fans but brought in plenty of new ones.

That trend changed this weekend, when a rerelease of "Avatar" passed quietly for filmgoers. The Fox movie grossed only about $4 million despite playing on more than 800 screens, as my colleague Ben Fritz notes.

The easy explanation for this failure is that with nine minutes of extra footage tacked on to a movie that was already as long as the Bible, this new version didn't add as much to its original as the other rereleases did. In a way, "Avatar" was a victim of its own success. With the original already perceived as the be-all-and-end-all in big-budget entertainment — many of us had already seen it in 3-D, and the film was already considered a visual feast the first time around — there's not much to improve on with a new edition.

(It's also worth noting that the movie grossed $750 million the first time around, some of that from repeat viewers, and it's asking a lot for people who saw it multiple times just six or seven months ago to pay to see it again, even if the alternative is "Takers" and "The Last Exorcism.")

But it's also possible that the rerelease just doesn't mean as much as it once did, what with the culture of the Internet and nonstop blog coverage putting movies in the public eye in a way it never has before. When "The Godfather" came out in 1997 after being away from theaters for 25 years, it felt like an event; no matter how well we remembered the movie or how many times we watched it on basic cable, seeing it on the big screen brought memories for those lucky enough to catch it there the first time and created that experience for those who weren't. Even the rerelease of the "Toy Story" movies last year struck a nostalgic nerve for a '90s animation era that seems so far away, before the form changed so radically.

But it may be that today's classics just don't fade into history in the same way. We've lived them, in a sense, too deeply (and exhaustedly) the first time around.

Despite the struggles of "Avatar," we'll probably see a few more rereleases of Hollywood's biggest hits. They're comparatively low-risk for studios, who see them not only as a theatrical play but a way to generate interest in the DVD. And filmmakers envious of new technology will push for them — George Lucas has made noise about a "Star Wars" release, for instance. Without significant additions, though, it's hard to see why a rerelease is worth the screens or the bother.

— Steven Zeitchik

http://twitter.com/ZeitchikLAT.

Photo: "Avatar." Credit: 20th Century Fox.


 
Comments () | Archives (13)

The comments to this entry are closed.

The film made $4 million this weekend. It had one of the largest per-screen averages of the whole weekend. Avatar was seen by pretty much everyone in theaters the last time around, it's been on DVD/Blu Ray since April. Yet still a half-a-million people left their homes and paid premium prices to see the movie yet again. That's not failure, it's just more icing on a very large cake.

You are comparing a re-release of a film six months after it left theaters that just dropped on DVD to re-releases of films 10+ and 20+ years after their initial releases. You also don't mention that Avatar's re-release date happens to be, traditionally, the worst weekend of the summer or that it brought in the third highest per screen average of any film this week, higher than every other film that wasn't in its opening weekend. All that after having already done a full theatrical run within the calendar year, and having been released on DVD and Bluray just a few months ago. Box office journalism is already well known for its laziness, so please make more of an effort.

This article couldn't be more wrong-headed. You really can't call a $4 million weekend for an Avatar release a failure on any level. It is amazing that people are paying close to $20 for a ticket for a movie that has been on DVD for months.

I was born in 1981 so I'd love to see old movies that came and went from theaters before I was born on the big screen for the first time. How will the digital transition change the viability of re-releases? What if re-releases were sent out to every multiplex, but for a small number of showings per week (less than five), so that nobody would have to drive far to see it but at the same time the re-release wouldn't crowd out more popular movies?

I've been in the theater business for 20+ years and believe me $4,872.00 in three days for a fresh re release is good. Wake up!

You missed one successful re-release: The Passion of the Christ.

On September 30th, "The Exorcist" will be rereleased in theaters for one night only. My family is thinking about going.

This is to market the Blu-Ray coming out the following week.

I wish they would do this with more older movies.

Add in the fact that people are getting tired of listening to Cameron talk about how great he and his movie are. THen tack on that most theaters put it in their largest most expensive theaters and people simply don't want to pay MORE to see a move that is already on DVD that you can pick up at Red Box for $1.

very good

Sorry to all you James Cameron acolytes and sycophants, but $4 million is an epic fail, especially when Cameron claimed the rerelease was done because "Avatar"'s original run got muscled out of theater screens by "How to Train Your Dragon" and "Alice in Wonderland," and fans were still clamoring to see the movie on the big screen. He was clearly mistaken.

I wonder how well the 1997 release of the Star Wars Special Edition trilogy did? I remember going to see those at the time (having not been alive in the 70's) and it was such a rare and cherished experience. If they did another release of Star Wars, like on IMAX or something, I would still go, no question about it.

very good!

very good!


Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video







Categories


Archives
 



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: