Are remakes SUPPOSED to be worse?!!

They're cashing in on name recognition. Best case scenario you get a director actually interested in the work who at least does an inventive interpretation of the original (like Dawn of the Dead, at least that remake was fun.) Then you get something like this, where everybody's just collecting a paycheck and putting in as little work as necessary.

True Creepy Stories https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjtemJqRkUJ1YGB035Dv0Gw

This remake assumed (in the usual coke-fuelled brain-dead Hollywood producer way) that the CONCEPT of Poltergeist was so amazing, a remake could actually provide a Hollywood Blockbuster, and not just a modest horror hit on an even more modest budget.

But the original Poltergeist had a TERRIBLE STUPID premise elevated to PURE GENIUS by the collision of the sensibilities of Spielberg at the height of his powers, and a visceral grungy horror director.

For a retelling of a bizarre story to get BETTER (The Thing, The Fly), you need the original to have been in the hands of comparative hacks, and the new version reinterpreted by visionaries. With these modern remakes, we are getting the very opposite.

The WORST hacks in Hollywood are producing and shooting these remakes. They are making far less money than the micro-budgeted new wave horror movies that followed in the wake of 'Saw'. Sad old men in Hollywood, decades past their prime, are responsible for remaking movies they have fond memories of. But today's kids just don't care about these resurrected IPs, so the brand has no real commercial advantage.

Poltergeist 2015 would probably have made MORE money with a new name and IP identity.

I think the problem is the audience viewing methods as well. Back when the original film came out, seeing it anywhere near release involved spending money, be it on going to the cinema, or renting or buying it on tape, and that's assuming you even had a tape player.

The point is, you would generally be interested in the basic plot before seeing a film on release, because it costed more.

Compare that to today, where all you need is a computer, half decent Internet, and a premium Netflix or Sky et all subscription. For relative pennies per film, assuming you pay at all of course, you can gorge yourself on a choice of hundreds of new releases per month. In fact, the cost per film DECREASES when you watch more, unlike in yesteryear, where the cost increased the more films you watched.

The point is that it's now cheaper than ever, and thus people are willing to watch any old crap because they haven't lost out on much if they end up watching rubbish... except on a bit if time.

This basically gives Hollywood the freedom to release garbage, and yet it still reaps as much reward on release as a good film does.

The real indicator is legacy purchasing. If a film still sells on any medium after 30-40 years, it's a safe bet it's better than one that doesn't sell anything after 3 years.

And I strongly suspect this particular film will be out of print within a few years.

some remakes can be bad but some remakes can be good and few remakes are better than the 1st movie like the expendables the 1st one was good but the 3 sequels to me were even better. so if there is a sequel of this movie might do better.