Reboots and Remakes--Are They Becoming Ridiculously Redundant?

By our guest blogger, Rob Stammitti

Hollywood always has taken cues from previously made literature, film and other such artistic endeavors in order to come up with ideas for new films, but it would seem that lately the trend of the "remake" or "reboot" is more common and unstoppable than ever. Let's just take a look at some of the most anticipated films coming out in the next few months:



"Clash of the Titans"
"Death at a Funeral"
"A Nightmare on Elm Street"
"Robin Hood"
"Marmaduke"
"The A-Team"
"The Karate Kid"
"Predators"

And that's all before Summer even ends. "Death at a Funeral," Frank Oz's original British film, isn't even four years old, and it's already being remade!

Now, I'm generally an advocate of the idea that one shouldn't judge a remake or reboot before you actually get an opportunity to see it. After all, "The Departed," "Star Trek," "Batman Begins," and others are genuinely great films, and they are remakes or reboots. It all depends on the talent involved and what new elements can be brought to the table.

That said, it's gotten to a point where it wouldn't hurt for Hollywood to come up with some new ideas--it does, after all, become somewhat ridiculous when a reboot is released in the same decade the franchise began in the first place. "Hulk" failed, so we got "The Incredible Hulk" (which was far from incredible, to be sure). "The Punisher" didn't work out, so we got "The Punisher: War Zone." Pretty soon we'll be getting a "Spider-Man" reboot as well as yet another attempt to jumpstart a new Superman series. Sure, go-to comic adapter Chris Nolan is partially involved, but the fact is that we just don't need a brand spanking new "Superman" reboot four or five years after the release of "Superman Returns." Give the audience a break!

It's not a particularly new trend. It comes and goes with generations--directors under the studio system of the '30s, '40s and '50s would "remake" films under new titles with new actors all the time. Novels would get multiple adaptations. Hollywood always is prepared to suck as much content as they can out of a franchise until it's dry, then start over again.

It's true that remakes and reboots aren't always failures, but that doesn't change the fact that there are so many unique ideas out there yet to be explored. We've seen it even this year with such films as "District 9," "Zombieland" and "Avatar"--whether you enjoy the films or not, there is an element of originality and creativity to them you don't see in the common remake. They're fresh, and while their ideas may not be completely new (I can't count how many times I've heard the criticism that "Avatar" ripped of "Ferngully" and "Dances With Wolves"), they are portrayed in entirely new ways. And even if Hollywood can't find a fresh new idea, there's a wealth of stories out there in literature yet to be uncovered. But no--most literary adaptations (with exceptions, of course) end up being independent releases.

Who is to blame for the creative bankruptcy? Is Hollywood even creatively bankrupt? Perhaps new ideas go in and out of producers' offices every day and they're turned down simply because audiences buy into remakes and reboots so easily. So, are audiences to blame? Hardly. People will go to the movies forever, whether a film is a remake or not. It seems to me that the remake/reboot trend is just an endless cycle of Hollywood adhering to audience expectations, and audiences going to see what Hollywood puts out.

Is there a reasonable and realistic solution? It's easy to say "make more original movies," but when Hollywood now is so deeply ingrained in the reboot method, it's going to be a difficult fix.

So, what it comes down to is this: Do you like remakes and reboots? Or would you rather Hollywood take a chance and come up with something new? Because ultimately, it's the audience that decides.