When Star Wars: The Force Awakens opened up in December, the response to the film was mostly positive. While some people really didn’t like the film, a lot of people agreed that Episode VII felt like some kind of remake or reboot of the original film. I can see that argument from a certain perspective, I’ll grant you. But the question seems to be: What is the fundamental difference between a remake and a reboot? They don’t necessarily go hand in hand, I can tell you that. My answer is this: A remake is a film that takes many familiar elements from the original film and reintroduces it in a different way for different audiences. It generally follows the same story, but it changes around certain elements like characters and locations to try and make it feel different enough while remaining faithful to the source material. A reboot generally takes the elements of a particular franchise and throws everything out with the bathwater save for certain themes and characters. I’m going to go over why remakes and reboots can be a good thing or a bad thing, while providing multiple examples of each one, and whether or not each one is any good.
When I said that people felt that The Force Awakens felt like a remake, I believe they are correct in many aspects. If you compare Episode VII with the original film, it follows a lot of the same beats, up to and including the Death Star. BUT: It is also a sequel. The Force Awakens is one of the rare movies that manages to be a sequel as well as a remake of sorts. The 2009 film Star Trek is a reboot in every sense of the word. Why? Because the story involves a divergence in the universe when Kirk is born. A Romulan mining vessel appears out of a black hole and basically changes history, essentially rendering the previous films moot. However, it does acknowledge the original universe because they included the original Spock, played by the late Leonard Nimoy. Terminator: Genisys would also be considered a reboot, but a lot of critics call it a clusterfuck. I don’t necessarily agree, but it does present a certain set of problems for the franchise.
So….are remakes/reboots good or bad? Let’s take a look at some examples: Most recently, I reviewed two films with the same name: Martyrs. The original film was a French horror film involving a girl who escaped being tortured to death by cultists who felt that enduring horrific pain was the key to seeing into the next world. It was a very unique film that touched on a lot of interesting ideas. It was not an easy film to sit through, as a girl gets beaten, tortured and humiliated for hours on end. It was an incredibly visceral and brutal experience, but one that stays with you long after the credits roll. The American re-make essentially takes the same story, but changes it up enough to have a fairly hopeful ending. The American version of the film lacks the brutal punch of the original Martyrs. You don’t actually see a lot of the torture happening, because both Lucie and Anna were captured, but it was Lucie that’s the target of this cult in this film. We don’t see her suffering, but we do hear it. A lot can be said for less is more, and if you haven’t seen the original Martyrs, I can see how you could come to that conclusion. There’s a bit of a problem: The new film essentially wanted the fans of the original film to see it. Lots of people didn’t like it, because the violence and brutality were watered down, robbing the film of it’s visceral power. So was the remake in this case good or bad? The overall reception was negative, but I was…indifferent. It’s kind of in-between.
Let’s take a look at a reboot: Casino Royale. After the…uh…disaster that was Die Another Day, the producers of the James Bond franchise decided to take a step back and re-assess how they were going to approach the next Bond film. What they decided was to go back to the original novel of Casino Royale and make a movie of that with a new James Bond: Daniel Craig. While there was some initial controversy in casting a blonde James Bond, Daniel Craig proved himself admirably in the role. In fact, the reception of Casino Royale has led many people to conclude that the film is one of the best Bond movies ever. I agree. It was phenomenal. It took a familiar character, and showed how he started as an agent. He made mistakes, he almost dies, and he falls in love. He’s a human being. Not a superhero. I think that’s why most people connected with the film. It was gritty and brutal, but it was still a lot of fun. So, that was a good reboot. The Transporter Refueled is a perfect example of a reboot that DOESN’T work. Why? Let’s start with the recasting of Frank Martin. In the previous Transporter films, Jason Statham took the lead and was absolutely fantastic. For the new film, Ed Skrein takes the lead. I’m not going to blame Skrein for the problems of the film, because it comes down to really bad writing. The script was an absolute farce, the action was extremely derivative of better films, and the villain is your typical Russian gangster. I think the real problem here is that they went with Jason Statham’s character instead of somebody new. Ed Skrein had some big shoes to fill, so it doesn’t necessarily seem fair to criticize him for the failure of the movie. Ray Stevenson was entertaining enough, but the overall film was just….bland. An action movie is supposed to be exciting and intense. The Transporter Refueled was neither of those. It was a pretty bad movie. So, yeah, it was a bad reboot.
Going back to remakes, I’m going to take a look at The Thing from 2011. A lot of people would consider this film to be a prequel/remake. In all honesty, it’s both. The story follows a Norwegian group of scientists who unearth a shape-changing alien that basically devastates the entire compound. John Carpenter’s film dealt with the same thing, except the Americans had to deal with this monster. The interesting thing here, is that the 1982 film sees the aftermath of the creature’s attack on the Norwegians. So, the newer film is more of a companion piece to Carpenter’s film than it is a total remake. Both films are inspired heavily by the short story, Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell. Is the 2011 film a bad remake? Not at all, I enjoyed it a great deal. However, it does pale in comparison to the 1982 film, in a lot of ways. The special effects in the 1982 The Thing are all practical effects and miniatures, all done by Rob Bottin. Gruesome and fantastic. The newer film opts for CGI effects. While they are pretty cool, it doesn’t feel as authentic or as threatening as the previous film.
The Blob and The Fly are also other movies that managed to receive some really good updates. The Blob had a remake in 1988. All the deaths that were implied or off-screen in Steve McQueen’s film are shown in all their gory wonder, with some really gruesome visual effects. It’s the same deal with The Fly. David Cronenberg’s retelling has Jeff Goldblum who ends up becoming both the victim AND the antagonist in the film. But you also get to see him deteriorate physically throughout the film. It’s pretty unsettling actually, especially when he reaches his final form.
There are a lot of remakes out there, but are remakes actually a bad thing? If done properly, no. Sometimes they can actually end up being better than the original film. It’s rare, but it does happen. The problem with movie studios going for remakes is that it shows a lack of risk of going for a new and unique property. So, the fall back on remakes which they hope will make them more money. Audiences aren’t stupid, they KNOW when a movie studio is getting desperate. I understand some film makers who want to take a different approach to a certain franchise or film, but if they aren’t careful, they end up with something like The Transporter Refueled, which is hilariously bad.
In conclusion, the remake phenomenon as I like to call it, has been around for decades. About half of them are good and half of them are pretty bad. Same thing with reboots, even though that’s a relatively NEW thing in movies these days. For film-makers who want to do remakes, here is some advice: 1. Be careful of the movie studio that you do business with. They’re in it for the money, and if they think that your vision is going to cost them more than they’re willing to spend, they’ll interfere and screw up your project. 2. Some franchises don’t NEED a reboot or a remake. Indiana Jones and Star Wars are some examples of franchises that endure despite some weak entries. 3. If you do go for a remake, make sure you hire the best writers possible. There’s nothing worse than a remake that’s been poorly written. Bad writing, more often than not, will sink ships faster than an iceberg. 4. Respect the source material. I can’t begin to tell you how many times a remake falls flat on its face, because the film-makers didn’t pay attention to the original material.
That image is basically me reacting to the whole trailer. I’m not alone in this. Basically, the whole damn Internet is basically saying that this trailer is garbage. A good film trailer is supposed to get you excited for the movie that it’s previewing, and we’ve had MANY examples of that. We’ve also had many examples of really bad trailers. The first trailer for Ghostbusters 2016 falls squarely into the bad trailer category. This is NOT how you get people excited for your reboot of a classic film. That being said, if the film actually ends up being really good, I’ll eat my words, because we’re not really given a lot of information on what’s actually happening in the movie. There is a possibility that the new film could be really good. You shouldn’t really judge a movie by the trailer, but it does give you some kind of insight as to how the final product will be. I’m crossing my fingers, and hoping that this trailer is just a bad fluke, and that the new movie is going to be at least passable. This is just a really poor first impression, and I think it will damage the final film in some way.
Director(2008): Pascal Laugier