First things first: even though the title has “reboots”
in it, I’m extending the scope of this post to include reboots, remasters, and
reimaginings. Also, I’m tacking on
sequels to the mix, especially if they pick up on a long-dormant canon or
franchise. So…yeah, you just know this’ll be a fun post.
Anyway, Independence
Day: Resurgence has hit theaters -- a little before the actual Independence
Day, but close enough to it. Supposedly,
it’s a continuation of the movie that it shares a name with; the aliens that
ran amok in ’96 are back with a vengeance, and now it’s up to the good guys to
fight them off. Or something. I can’t say I’m in any rush to see it --
which is to say I’d rather give a piggyback ride to a rhinoceros -- and the
reviews out so far suggest that dodging it is probably a good idea. So my
brother asked me if I wanted to go see it, because of course he did. I politely refused, because he was the same
person who thought seeing RoboCop 2014 was
a good idea.
Side note: I was thinking about that movie when I
accidentally scraped my middle finger. I
blame RoboCop ’14 for my minor
injury, and relish the fact that it was my middle
finger.
You know, one of the first posts I ever wrote for
this blog was about reboots. That was
back in 2012, when it seemed like all we had to worry about was Tomb Raider and DmC. But that was in the
game space, and…well, things are a little different in Hollywood. That’s not to say games aren’t willing to mine the past for “new” content; we just got a
new Doom, a new Quake is on the way, Crash Bandicoot is coming back, etc. But in the movie space, things are a little
more noticeable. Like I said, Independence Day just got a “revitalizing”
sequel. Ghostbusters has long since earned attention and ire. Star
Trek is about to get its third entry in its rebooted continuity. Next year we’ll be tormented by graced
with the first big-screen Power Rangers movie
in decades. Well, assuming you don’t
count the Super Sentai
entries.
There have been more examples than that, of
course. RoboCop ’14 is one example; the remake of The Thing from a few years back is another. When it comes to Disney fare, we’ve seen new
spins on Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella,
and Sleeping Beauty (via Maleficent). Total
Recall and Mad Max have seen
revivals. So has Planet of the Apes. So has Jem and the Holograms. Obviously, not all
reboots/remakes/reimaginings are created equal.
There are some good ones, and there are some bad ones; it’s a matter of
judging each one individually on their own merits, and not the name attached to
them. Still, that begs the question: why
does it seem like we’re getting so many products based on a name from the past?
Not to be a cynic, but I can think of one reason.
About a year ago, Jurassic World showed up and offered the first major sequel to the
dino-filled franchise in more than a decade -- itself built on the fond
memories of the first movie. It ended up
being a money-making juggernaut, breaking records all over the place. The only thing that could oust it from its
ruby-encrusted throne was Star Wars: The
Force Awakens. That’s kind of a
given when you’re offering up a sequel to what might as well be the
backbone of modern culture…if not civilization in general. People really friggin’ love Star Wars, is what I’m trying to say
here.
I think I know enough about the industry to expect
many, many more years of “follow the leader”.
Those two movies made enough money to buy a continent and fill it up
with solid gold cities, so it’s a safe bet that a lot of executives will try to
make the same thing happen. Not that
they haven’t been doing that so far, but a precedent has been set. In the same sense that studios and companies
are scrambling to build cinematic universes in the wake of The Avengers -- because there’s a massive audience begging for a
shared universe of movie monsters -- we’re probably going to keep seeing
more new entries in old franchises. Or,
alternatively, the execs will burn down the old and replace it with the new.
Is that a bad thing? Ehhhhhhh…probably, but it’s not a binary yes
or no. Reboots (and the like) might
incite hell upon us all, but they can be really strong pieces of fiction as
well. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is proof of that; the story of men
forced to deal with a horde of ever-evolving simians may be a road long since
traveled, but it’s no less valid today (especially if the movie ends up being a
prophecy committed to film). It takes
the old concept, explores it, and updates it with a fresh coat of modern-day
paint. That’s a level of effort and
skill worth respecting.
And of course, there’s one obvious benefit:
exposure. Somehow, Voltron ended up making a comeback on Netflix, so now audiences old
and new can enjoy the gripping narrative of five combining robot lions. For those that missed it the first time
around -- which is entirely possible, given that I once had a minor freak-out when a friend said she’d never seen it -- it’s
a chance to see a different version and maybe build interest in the
franchise. Alternatively, it’s a chance
to see a better version. I haven’t seen it yet, but I can’t help but
feel like the animation, at least, is an improvement. I feel the same way about the much-lauded Thundercats; sure, that intro is hype,
but damned if I could make it through a single episode without needing a
nap. Giving certain properties a reboot
means giving it a second chance -- the opportunity to become the ideal we all
envision.
That’s a rosy take on the situation, though. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to
take the high road when it comes to a reboot; it’s not only easy for things to
go off the rails, but in some cases it’s practically guaranteed. It’s as if you should expect a reboot to miss the point, or otherwise be a step down from
the original…if not an impromptu tumble down a flight of stairs. Indiana
Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull hasn’t exactly gone down in
history as a masterpiece. Neither has Terminator: Genisys, by the looks of
things. The Lone Ranger cost
Disney some serious coin. The list
goes on, and each point on that list features some legitimate complaints.
Like, apparently there’s some controversy over a
reboot of The Powerpuff Girls. First of all, it strikes me as odd that there’s
been a reboot in the first place -- though since apparently the entertainment
industry likes to pull material from 20 years prior, it’s about that time. Whatever the case, not
a lot of people are happy with the end result; it’s replaced humor with
memes, action with inaction, and generally done the whole “missing of the point”
that you’d expect from the worst of the reboot fare. Also, there are apparently a ton of
animation errors.
So I guess I have a new question: why? Why reboot, remake, reimagine, or whatever if
you’ve essentially decided from the get-go that you’re not going to do a better
job than the original work?
I’m sure none of the creators and crews behind
reboots intended to make a bad story/movie/game/holophonor
projection. But I would think that rule
number one when it comes to revitalizing a franchise is to intimately know
every last detail of what you’re revitalizing.
Understand it. Know what makes it
tick. Figure out why it worked in the
first place, what you can do to improve it, and then find a way to produce your
spin while paying respect to the franchise.
And the legacy, as well. I’m no
authority, but I’d like to think that I at least understood that much when
I made my own treatment for a Power
Rangers movie.
I get it.
When you’re updating a franchise or work for a modern audience, there
need to be changes. Certain elements may
end up being anachronistic if handled poorly.
But you don’t have to kowtow to what’s expected of your audience (or
your shareholders) just to try and succeed.
You can do well. You can do
more. And really, you SHOULD do more;
banking on names, iconography, and references comes off as cheap and disingenuous. Plus, it begs the question of why you’re even
bothering with a reboot if you’re hell-bent on rehashing what’s already been
shown on screen five, ten, twenty, or fifty years prior.
But back to the question at hand. How many reboots is too many? My personal answer is that right now, we
already have too many reboots. I know, I
know, the entertainment industry -- across tons of mediums -- has become
risk-averse and would rather bank on the safe option than play the slots with a
new story. I don’t think I need to tell
you that we’re poorer for it. We have an
infinite canvas available to us, and various companies have an armada’s worth
of resources…and yet the first thing that comes to mind is to bring back
something long since finished? What the
hell kind of world do we live in when Full
House gets trotted out for another run?
Let’s be real here. We’re going to keep getting reboots, no
matter what one afro-haired blogger has to say.
Fine. I get that. Gotta make money somehow, even if it’s with
some dirty tricks. But what gets to me
-- what I’m worried about in the future -- is that we’re depriving future
generations of their own stories just so we can keep getting stuff we recognize
regurgitated. If the entertainment world
keeps things up at this pace, then does that mean we’re going to have Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as part of
the cultural zeitgeist for the next century, reborn every decade (or less) whenever
there’s a lull? Are the creators going
to be forced to scrape the bottom of every last barrel to find a nostalgic
property worth milking? What’s it going
to take for a line to be drawn?
I don’t know.
But I sure hope it stops before we have to reboot our reboots.
Well, I’ve made my peace. What about you? What do you think? How
many reboots is too many? Feel free
to weigh in, and say whatever you feel like saying.
And when you’re done? Join me in prayer, and let us hope that the Power Rangers movie doesn’t suck. Even though it probably will, but
whatever. There’s always the Sentai.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh…
…Shut up, it’s a deep and meaningful franchise.
No comments:
Post a Comment