Movie Re-Releases: Nostalgia or Cash Grab?
Pile of movie posters of movies both old and recent. Photo courtesy of reganography via Unsplash.
If you have been to a movie theater at any point in the past few years, there is no doubt you have seen a poster for a classic movie being screened again for the first time in years. Classic films being front and center is a good thing for both older viewers who are nostalgic for the original release and younger viewers, like myself, who may not have experienced the movies before.
Movie re-releases offer a fun experience and provide access to important pieces of pop culture, but they also reveal a harrowing view of Hollywood and raise concerns for the American movie industry.
Re-releases saw their big resurgence after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted. Hollywood and theaters suffered greatly during the pandemic, as people were no longer able to go out to theaters, giving little reason to keep producing expensive films under dangerous conditions.
Film studios turned to streaming platforms as a solution, and these platforms exploded in popularity, becoming a premier source for new shows and films. This shift did not help theater owners, however, as the ease of streaming made theatergoing less appealing. The industry needed a solution to prevent the total collapse of in-person movie viewing—and that’s where re-releases came in.
The post-pandemic era didn’t invent the idea of re-releasing classic films, but it proved the model to be profitable. Legendary franchises like “Star Wars” and “Back to the Future” were obvious choices for re-release, but even cult classics like “Black Swan” made triumphant returns to theaters.
While new blockbusters continue to debut, it seems there is always a major re-release sharing space on theater posters. But what makes these old movies so attractive—especially when most are already available to stream in high quality? And more broadly, why would anyone go to the theater when most big projects can be watched from home?
It’s hard to describe the magic of watching a film in a theater—it’s something that just needs to be experienced. There’s a sort of unspoken agreement that watching a movie at home on a TV or laptop with microwave popcorn just is not the same as seeing it on the big screen, in cushioned seats, surrounded by fellow movie-goers. Whether it’s the social aspect or the secret ingredient in the popcorn, theater-going is a beloved experience that’s hard to kill. But why do old movies get special attention?
From my perspective, two main groups benefit from re-releases: older people who saw the movie in theaters when it first aired and want to relive the nostalgia, and younger people, like myself and my friends, who know these movies by reputation and want to see what the hype is about.
A few years ago, I saw “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace” in theaters with a friend. I had already seen the movie and knew it wasn’t very good, but I still loved the theater experience and would gladly do it again. That same friend has since gone to re-releases of “Jaws” and “Shin Godzilla,” and he went to see “Back to the Future” recently when it also returned. When asked about his opinion on the re-release trend in theaters, he said, “It gives the feeling of watching it for the first time, and it’s better because you actually get to see it on the big screen.”
Classics are classic for a reason. I once told an English teacher about a book, and the same holds for movies. There are many issues with theatergoing today—especially rising ticket prices—but re-releases aren’t to blame.
If they did not bring value, there’d be no point in going to the theater at all. Theater-going is a luxury, but the real concern with the prominence of re-releases lies with the studios themselves and whether Hollywood is truly healthy.
Re-releases are fun, but would they be so common if new movies brought in the revenue studios wanted? The rule for nearly everything in entertainment is: if it can make money, make more of it. This mindset drives sequels, prequels, remakes, re-releases and everything in between. Hollywood often relies on old projects, churning them out repeatedly until they lose all value.
Take superheroes, for example. That genre dominated cinema for years, with Marvel Studios producing six contenders for the highest-grossing film of all time during the peak before “Avengers: Endgame.” But even superheroes fell into a slump, as any genre does when oversaturated.
Old movies follow the same pattern. Once the industry notices demand for classics, it piles on the nostalgia until it gets stale, as it always does. While the re-release bubble is fun now, it will eventually burst.
When it does, studios will once again have to find the next big thing, something they’ve struggled with lately. One has to wonder if the increasing number of “all-time best-selling movies” is due to quality or just inflation, while flops are easier to explain.
Hollywood flops usually fall into a few categories: poorly advertised, unwanted or just plain bad. Studios seem increasingly unconfident in new projects, often sabotaging them through weak marketing or misdirected campaigns. A recent example is “K-Pop Demon Hunters.” The film itself was a global success, but Sony Pictures sold it to Netflix for what now seems like a fraction of its potential earnings—another case of a studio not trusting its own product.
As studios struggle to connect with younger audiences and overseas films gain traction in the U.S. market, re-releases serve as a temporary remedy for a deeper issue in Hollywood. It remains to be seen how the industry will bounce back, as it always seems to do. In the meantime, cinephiles can find comfort in the classics.
As for me, I plan to take full advantage of this wave of re-releases—cash grab or not—because I’m tired of old people telling me I don’t watch enough movies.