Remakes: Franchise fever [Commentary]
In the first post of this series, we discussed the many different kinds of remakes, and how (for better or worse) they have become a staple of Hollywood studios. Today, we’re going to focus on the times when it’s good to make a remake.
A fresh perspective or new vision is not always bad.
For instance, every new actor who is chosen to take up the mantle of 007 is expected to bring new life to the James Bond franchise. When Daniel Craig stepped into the role in Casino Royale (2006), he took the franchise away from the suave, super spy we had been given for 40 years and introduced a tough bruiser who (thankfully) still looked good in a tux.
When Christopher Nolan took over the Batman franchise with Batman Begins, he brought a gritty realism to the comic book narrative. In doing so, he elevated the comic book subgenre. With The Dark Knight, the second movie in his trilogy, he gave us a film that raised the bar so high that most superhero films are scrambling to beat it.
A good reboot can also be a shot in the arm for a franchise and the studio. Look at Paramount. With an ever-decreasing interest in the Star Trek franchise, the studio handed over the reigns to director J.J. Abrams. Not only did he reinvigorate the beloved franchise, he managed to do two important things: 1) he didn’t upset most of the existing fans, and 2) he created a new, younger fan base for the series.
Of course, not everyone was pleased with the 2009 reboot of Star Trek. Some fans complained about Abram’s signature directing style and the way his reboot rewrites the history of the series. Even so, the film holds a 94% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Not too shabby.
But then there’s Marc Webb’s upcoming Spider-Man reboot. Less than four years after the last film in Sam Raimi’s ground-breaking series, the studio has decided to restart the franchise with a new director, new star and new costume.
Why? Have computer effects come so far in the past four years that we can do Spider-Man better than before? Is the movie-going public clamoring for new Spider-Man film, when the theaters are now glutted with superhero movies? And with a pantheon of Marvel heroes to choose from, why has Columbia Pictures chosen to mess with (and possibly kill) its greatest franchise?
How do you feel about film franchises? Do they need a reboot now and then, or should a film story get a set number of pictures before it’s put in the studio vault for a few decades?
Tomorrow we’ll discuss the one reboot that hasn’t — and needs to — happen in my lifetime.
I, for one, am pretty excited about the new Spider-Man movie. Although I was initially disappointed that Toby McGuire wouldn’t be reprising his role as Peter Parker, I remembered that I’ve long wanted a Spider-Man movie that was more akin to the Bendis/Bagley Ultimate Spider-Man series, where Parker is a high school student and must find a way to juggle his hero responsibilities with schoolwork and social obligations/drama. Perhaps this is because it came out when I was still in high school (lord, I’m getting old), but this really made sense to me and (in my opinion) has the potential to lure in some younger fans. As much as I’d love to see Raimi’s take on the Vulture, I think there’s a lot of promise with this new franchise.
And if the mechanical web shooters are any hint of how they’re going with this reboot, I have a pretty good feeling about it.
I’ll admit, I was pretty irked to hear they were rebooting Spider-Man after only four years. But it was only eight years between Batman & Robin (1997) and Batman Begins (2005). I can’t blame Columbia Pictures for not wanting it’s cash cow to remain silent too long.
Too true. You can’t let Spider-Man sit idly by while terrible reboots get made. I’ll take a slightly early Spider-Man reboot over The Green Hornet any day.
Personally, I like a good story, and whether it contains all-new characters (“The Matrix”) or old characters revisited (“Dark Knight”, “Lord of the Rings”), a good story is essential.
Most movies that get made, like most art, are junk. That’s just the nature of the beast. (Sturgeon’s Law: 99 percent of everything is crap.)
If writers and directors would concentrate more on story, and (much) less on special-effects and franchises (to wit, Ridley Scott’s “Alien” prequel that morphed into a completely new project) and work to tell good stories instead, the percentage of good movies would surely increase.
Keith, you’re right a good story is essential. My biggest beef with remakes has been that they try to use the good stories of the past and pass them off as something new. Yet, in changing a story, they ruin what made it good in the first place (like The Day the Earth Stood Still). I don’t mind a franchise that has interesting characters, as long as they keep telling new, better stories. But I don’t want to see Spider-Man’s origin again so soon.