If It Ain't Broke...

Reboot:
verb — to produce a distinctly new version of (an established media franchise, as a film, TV show, video game, or comic book)
noun — a distinctly new version of an established media franchise

The current film and television studio and publishing bigwigs seem to be subscribing to the following philosophy*:

I don’t think I need to tell you how hard they’re trying.

In recent years there has been an exponential uptick in the woeful cries of, “Why must you destroy everything I love?!” in reference to the plethora of ‘new and improved’ iterations of popular film, TV, and comics franchises. We’re on our third re-telling of the Spiderman saga, DC Comics is firmly ensconced in its New 52 universe, and you can’t turn on the idiot box without finding something you’ve seen before, except with different actors and an updated setting. Words like ‘gritty’ and ‘edgy’ are commonplace in the press blips for these do-overs, presumably with the intent of branding the shows or films as ‘old favorites for a new time’.

I have one question, and I think it’s a valid one: Why?

We could cite all that Platonic business about the first chair being the only true chair and all others being representations and therefore not actually chairs, and thereby fall back on the argument that every story there ever was has already been told, and therefore anything that comes off the presses or out of the final edits is just a rehash to begin with. While there may be a certain degree of truth to this, it’s no reason to use it as an excuse for a disinclination to at least try to rustle up something with a modicum of original thought.

We could cite the popularity and success of the most commonly rebooted storylines and say ‘Well, they’re just giving the people more of what they want.’ The drawback to this line of reasoning is the old adage about too much of a good thing — if you inundate your audience, after the initial euphoria they’re going to wander off to other things because when something gets predictable it gets boring, no matter how much you may love it.

We could cite the human animal’s natural aversion to change. We gravitate towards the comfortable and familiar, so if something is recognizable enough while still having the allure of ‘Oooh, shiny!’ the likelihood of it drawing an audience is higher than something that looks new and scary.

These are all sound enough reasons for business and marketing purposes, but they’re complete cop-outs on the creative end.

“Fine, then. You try to turn out something creative and original on a regular basis and keep people interested and make money at the same time!”

I fully realize the difficulties facing entertainment media on the creative front, I promise. I have enough trouble banging one of these posts out each week. The thought of having to create a world from scratch and then make it interesting enough to run for a season of twenty episodes is a daunting one. Here’s the thing, though — there are people (Whole groups of them! Working together!) who have the job of making these things happen. One assumes they got those jobs because they were at the least marginally creative and clever. However, it’s hard to believe that when all they seem to manage is taking some pre-existing thing, running it through the metaphorical meat grinder, and slapping some dystopian paint on it. And maybe adding a few zombies… well, maybe not so much any more. It looks like zombies are on their way out. (Possibly because there’s no decent brains around to eat anymore, but that’s a story for another time.)

So where’s the disconnect? When did media (paper-based, televisual, or otherwise) cease to be a fantastical breeding ground for new and exciting ideas? I’m not sure. Were they ever really one to begin with? Or were they, at the time of inception, simply new and exciting means through which to tell all the stories we already knew and loved? It’s possible. Or — unpopular opinion — did we just get lazy? ‘This format works, let’s apply it to as many things as possible until people start to notice.’ Sadly, I think this might be at the very least a portion of the case.

Indulge me for a moment while I draw an example. Battle Royale (2000) took a group of children and pitted them against each other in a fight to the last man. Okay, creepy, but reasonably inventive at the time. Fast forward eight years to a new book series, The Hunger Games. Similar in concept, though with more obvious and explored political overtones. Two more books completed the series, and a total of four films (2012, 2013, 2014, & 2015, separating the final book into a two-part saga) were released. A rehash, but different enough to be enjoyable, apparently. (Look, I made it through the original Battle Royale and from that experience learned that my generalized anxiety disorder would not tolerate further entertainment of that ilk.) Here’s the real kicker, though. As early as 2006, New Line Cinema proposed an American adaptation of Battle Royale. In 2012, that remake had to be abandoned because of the Hunger Games franchise.

Now, the first thing I think, here, is “Thank goodness they had the sense to know when to surrender!” The second thing I think, though, is “The original was released in 2000. They were gearing up for a remake six years later? Six years?! The body of the original was still warm, for fuck’s sake!”

I know not everything is remade with this sort of astonishing rapidity — take for example True Grit, the original film released in 1969 and the new version in 2010. I suppose 41 years is long enough to wait if a film has to be remade, but I still don’t see what was so wrong with the original that anyone would stand up in a production meeting and say “I know! We should re-do a John Wayne movie! It’ll be fun!”

I know I can moan about this until I’m blue in the face and it won’t do any good, but it’s just one of those things that makes me stand back and say, “Really, guys? Really? The first one ain’t broke.”




*Meme and life advice brought to you by The Red Green Show (1991-2006). God bless the Canadians! ***This post brought to you by the fact that I recently learned that a remake of The Thin Man was launched by Warner Bros. but has been stalled in development since 2012, and I am very pleased, because Johnny Depp is absolutely not a substitute for William Powell and I can’t stand the thought of one of my favorite films being manhandled by today’s Hollywood!!!***