» more from Slideshows

Remakes That Made Less Than the Originals

Hollywood has remake fever. While nobody ever accused the American film industry of having too many new ideas, the number of remakes being trotted out by the major studios lately is alarming — as is their choice of movies to remake. For example, on Oct. 14, 2011, remakes of both 1984’s “Footloose” and 1981’s “The Thing” will come to theaters. Although no one can say how much money they’ll make, it’s hard to imagine they’ll make less money than their 30-year-old predecessors. Or will they?

The rationale behind remakes is they have name recognition, which ought to make them easier to sell than movies based on new and unproven formulas. This logic is flawed, however. On BoxOfficeMojo.com’s inflation-adjusted list of the 100 highest-grossing movies of all time, not one movie is a remake. There are plenty of sequels and movies based on books and television shows, but as far as remakes of existing films, nothing. There are no re-imaginings, shot-for-shot replicas, or reboots either.

Time will tell how the remakes of “Footloose” and “The Thing” fare with moviegoers. There are already several high-profile examples of remakes that not only weren’t successful, but didn’t make as much money as the originals that inspired them. CNBC.com collected the domestic box office gross of movies and their remakes, using data from BoxOfficeMojo.com and adjusting the numbers for inflation.

What are notable movie remakes that made less money than the originals? Click ahead to find out.

By Daniel Bukszpan
Posted 11 October 2011

Warner Bros. Pictures