Imagine a horror movie remake so universally panned that it’s labeled one of the worst of all time, yet it still manages to rake in enough cash to be considered a box office success. How does that happen? Welcome to the baffling tale of The Fog (2005), a film that defied all odds—and logic—to become a modest hit. But here’s where it gets controversial: was this a stroke of marketing genius, or just a symptom of a bygone era in Hollywood?
In the early 2000s, horror remakes were all the rage. Fresh off the success of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) and The Amityville Horror (2005), studios were eager to cash in on nostalgia. Sony Pictures saw an opportunity in John Carpenter’s 1980 cult classic The Fog—a tight, eerie ghost story inspired by a trip to Stonehenge. Carpenter, whose career had hit a slump after flops like Ghosts of Mars (2001), was more than willing to lend his name as a producer. As he bluntly put it in a 2019 interview, ‘That’s my favorite kind of remake—extend my hand and receive a check for doing nothing.’
The 2005 remake, starring Smallville heartthrob Tom Welling, Selma Blair, and Maggie Grace, aimed to expand the original’s 90-minute runtime to 100 minutes. Directed by Rupert Wainwright, it boasted a bigger budget ($18 million, compared to Carpenter’s shoestring $1.1 million) and a trendy cast. But bigger didn’t mean better. Critics savaged it, with The Village Voice slamming its ‘concessions to the youth-horror market.’ Yet, despite a dismal 4% Rotten Tomatoes score, it opened at #1 in North America, pulling in $11.7 million its first weekend.
And this is the part most people miss: the film’s success wasn’t just luck. It was perfectly timed for Halloween, faced weak competition, and benefited from a home media market that was still booming. DVDs alone brought in $15 million domestically—a safety net that doesn’t exist in today’s streaming-dominated landscape. By the end of its run, it grossed $46.2 million worldwide, nearly triple its budget. Not a blockbuster, but enough to avoid disaster.
So, what’s the lesson here? Was this a clever exploitation of trends, or a cautionary tale about prioritizing profit over creativity? Carpenter’s original The Fog may not have been a massive hit in 1980, but it’s endured as a beloved classic. The remake, on the other hand, is a footnote—a reminder that even a terrible film can succeed if the stars align. But in today’s industry, where streaming royalties are slim and DVD sales are a relic, such miracles are far less likely.
Here’s a thought-provoking question for you: In an era where remakes are still rampant, what makes a film worth revisiting? Is it enough to chase a paycheck, or should there be a deeper creative purpose? Let’s debate in the comments—I’m curious to hear your take!
