There is a world of difference between « in early development » and « a real movie with a release date. »
Alicia Silverstone, Stacey Dash, and Brittany Murphy in ‘Clueless’ Paramount
We got word yesterday that Paramount/Viacom Inc. is remaking Clueless. Yes, we may be getting an updated version of Amy Heckerling’s classic mid-90’s teen comedy, which itself was a modern update of Jane Austin’s Emma. As I discussed back in 2015 for the film’s 25-year anniversary, movies like Clueless remain proverbial classics, especially to the adults who got to see them in theaters (or in post-theatrical) as kids, because Hollywood doesn’t really make movies of its ilk anymore. And, ironically, Clueless was a prime example of the value of ripping off a prior source material and giving it your own spin as opposed to outright remaking it.
Clueless made Alicia Silverstone into a star and was a key example of “rip off, don’t remake.” Its success kickstarted a mini-wave of teen-targeted comedic melodramas ( Ten Things I Hate About You, She’s All That, etc.), some of which were also updated versions of classic novels. The swift fall of its iconic star (after Batman & Robin and Excess Baggage) is a defining example of how few “second chances” Hollywood actresses get compared to their male peers. 23 years later, Silverstone is a working actor while Paul Rudd gets to be Ant-Man. Slight digression, Rudd has aged so well that he could still probably play Cher’s 26-year-old step brother.
Here’s the thing: There is a huge difference between “studio in early development” and “movie actually gets made.” A studio is usually developing any number of projects big and small at any given moment. Plenty of movies get stuck in development hell or don’t get made for one reason or another. Maybe they lose financing, or a key actor or filmmaker drops out, or a regime change puts that project off the priorities list. The online news cycle is filled with “Oh no, Hollywood is remaking this classic movie!” posts, and yet quite a few of those movies don’t move past the announcement stage.
I don’t mean a studio proclaiming that they have a firm release date and all the talent locked in. I mean a trade an online news site proclaiming that someone at the studio is considering or developing a given project. Just because a movie gets announced as totally happening online doesn’t mean it’s totally happening. That especially applies to alleged remakes of classic or beloved movies, just the kind that get online folks up in arms out Hollywood’s lack of originality. “Hollywood has no new ideas,” we shout as we then buy a ticket to Halloween while ignoring Bad Times at the El Royale .
Just in the last few years, we all fretted about (offhand) a Tetris trilogy, a Memento remake (which was announced online three years ago in order to create publicity for a small distributor via a wave of hate-posting), a remake of The Crow (still going strong and un-made for over seven years), a Gremlins reboot/remake, a Leonardo DiCaprio-produced Captain Planet movie, a live-action Akira, a remake of Cliffhanger, a new Stargate, a reboot of The Fugitive, a new Flight of the Navigator and a Highlander reboot. Mea cupla, but none of these films are any closer to getting made then they were when they were first announced to online heckling.
One of these projects occasionally becomes a real-live movie. It took ten years, but Sony remade Robocop to meh results ($242 million worldwide on a $100m budget). Their Jumanji sequel didn’t bank on IP interest and earned nearly $1 billion worldwide, a lesson they seem to be applying to their Men in Black revamp for next summer. These announcements are treated as news precisely because of their presold interest or disinterest. But just because someone took a meeting about a new Clueless doesn’t mean we’re 100%-for-sure getting a new Clueless. Right now it’s as likely as that Michael B. Jordon Thomas Crown Affair that was announced 2.5 years ago .
Maybe Paramount will make good on its threat to remake Clueless, and maybe they’ll even take the smart route and change the name (like MGM’s gender-swapped Anne Hathaway/Rebel Wilson Dirty Rotten Scoundrels remake, titled The Hustle) to avoid direct comparisons. It still speaks to a new (and frankly usually unsuccessful) idea of remaking movies not because they have been forgotten or could use improvement but specifically because they were beloved and considered to be perfect by their rabid fanbase. Sadly, a movie like Clueless is rarer in 2018 than it was in 1995, which arguably makes any revamp that much more of a demographic event movie.
There are a few ways this could go. We could get an adaptation of the upcoming Broadway musical version, which itself would qualify as “different” enough to justify itself (the filmed version of the Hairspray musical is an absolute delight). With Girls Trip writer Tracy Oliver producing and Glow writer Marquita Robinson penning the script, at least the onboard talent is solid. But let’s wait until we have a release date before we throw up our hands in horror and decry Hollywood’s lack of originality. In the meantime, Bad Times at the El Royale is still playing at a theater near you. Vote with your wallet.
I’ve studied the film industry, both academically and informally, and with an emphasis in box office analysis, for 28 years. I have extensively written about all of said subjects for the last ten years. My outlets for film criticism, box office commentary, and film-skewing s…
If you like what you’re reading, follow @ScottMendelson on Twitter, and « like » The Ticket Booth on Facebook. Also, check out my archives for older work HERE.
