Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Does Everything Need a Reboot?
So, it’s official (it was announced on Twitter, therefore it is both legally binding and morally binding in the eyes of the Lord): Paul Feig — who brought us Bridesmaids and The Heat is doing a Ghostbusters reboot:
What I want to ask is this: Why does everything need a reboot?
The Wikipedia defines a reboot as
In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning.
This makes sense for some franchises. They made three perfectly good Spiderman movies (I liked them anyway) but then they rebooted it because they wanted to start over.
From a storytelling point of view, I understand the reason. If you reboot things, you’re not tied to the existing — and possibly overlong and overblown — mythos of a work. So, JJ Abrams does a Star Trek reboot, and he’s not tied to the existing continuity that dates back to before the moon landings.
The problem in that case is that all of Star Trek up to that point — five television series (two of which were good) and 10 movies (three of which were good) — all existed in the same universe. It lasted 45 years without a reboot and was much loved as such.
I understand not wanting to be tied to existing mythos. Dr. Who is a good example of a series that needed a reboot after 40 years worth of episodes under many different hands (with some of them irrevocably lost). Nobody would want to be tied to that continuity.
But with Ghostbusters, is there a need to start over? There was always supposed to be a third Ghostbusters movie, it just never came together. But it’s a story that could be easily continued. Any reboot is going to be compared to the original and found wanting (even with hilarious women).
Now, it could be that they’ll do it right, and it’ll be a new classic. Maybe it’s just that Ghostbusters is special to me and I don’t want to see it touched.
But am I alone here? Am I the only person annoyed by unnecessary reboots?
Published in General
The alternate title for this was going to be “This Makes Me Want To Boot,” but since I posted this at 6:43am, I thought it was too early for a vomit joke.
Vomit jokes are like Bloody Marys. They’re great, but you just can’t have one too early in the day.
Writing something original is expensive.
In a world where most Americans are functionally illiterate, finding good writers is hard.
Then there are the risks/costs of infringements. Somebody will come out and say any original piece is a ripoff of theirs. Or they come out and say that one of the character names is causing them emotional distress…
There are huge risks that something will totally bomb.
With a reboot, these are all less significant.
You have a head start on the writing.
You also have preclearance against many legal issues such as trademark and copyright infringement charges.
You also have a proven track record and a built-in audience. A total bomb is unlikely.
Smartphones, social media, etc. have made many even relatively modern films such as seem out of date and thus ripe for a reboot. Watch any film more than 20 years old, and the lack of wireless phones will be a significant thing.
Because the originals are dated, a reboot has advantages over a sequel.
New fans may be unfamiliar with the original. It is hard to bring them up to speed while still entertaining fans of the original.
Age or cost may require use of new actors. That would be confusing.
The plot line may have run its course. Past events in the original may be too constraining.
A bad sequel is much more likely to alienate fans of the original than is a bad reboot.
I can understand why some pictures might be re-done. Lets say a movie was made that had some really clever ideas in it and a great story. But the director was a hack, the lead actor was having a bad year and it showed on the screen, and there wasn’t enough money in the budget to properly promote the movie. So a couple decades later you re-do it and make a superior product. I can’t remember any examples of this being done, but I assume it has.
I don’t see the point in remaking a movie that was a big hit and is even iconic, like Ghostbusters or Flashdance.
When the Nicholas Cage version of Gone in 60 Seconds came out I saw it. It was OK. I knew it was a remake of a very low budget movie made in the 1970’s that I had never seen. About a year ago I saw the original. It was made by a guy who made his fortune in the wrecking yard (now called automotive recycling) business. He thought it would be cool to make a car chase movie with his friends and he did it. I’ve got to say, that low-budget original with amateur actors was more fun than the big budget picture with Nicholas Cage, Angelina Jolie, and several other big-name actors. The newer one probably made more money, though.
There are perhaps 3 billion people in the world too young to have seen those movies first run. For them, the original movies are not iconic.
I was kind of excited by first Abrams Star Trek film, because the reboot should have given them freedom to go anywhere and explore new themes and ideas. And instead with Into Darkness they remade Wrath of Khan, badly.
I don’t see why Ghostbusters couldn’t have been a continuation of the original stories. A woman could inherit the business from Bill Murray (now a ghost.) The thing that keeps me from despair with this idea is Paul Feig can be a very funny guy (Freaks and Geeks earns him a lifetime pass in my book.)
And though overdone now, Hollywood has always had reboots and remakes. When Huston and Bogart made The Maltese Falcon it was the third time around, and they finally got it right.
Did you watch Rob’s talk on the movie industry? He implies that for movie studios, the majority of movies they make per year just have to do a little better than ok – the execs pick & choose a few blockbusters (usually explosion-filled action movies that will also do well overseas) and put money in them because they are assured a great return, but the rest of their films will break even or make a modest profit. My guess is the execs have categories & formulas for the filler movies – we’ll do 1 Notebookish romance, 2 Seth Rogeny buddy comedies, aaaand a reboot – hey will Boomers still come out for Ghostbusters if Bill Murray makes a cameo?
btw, are they implying that women will be the Ghostbusters in this version? I will not go to see that. I will never forgive Neil Simon for starting that nonsense with the female Odd Couple.
I don’t watch reboots on principle. If I want to see some unimaginative hack rip off a real creator’s work, I’ll go write fanfiction.
My main problem with the Star Trek reboot is how transparently commercial it is. It has none of the characteristics that made Trek interesting or unusual, but it’s happy to exploit every geek-baity trope it can to sell tickets. It’s simply a generic, B-Action movie doing Trek cosplay.
Also: long distance transportation. Seriously.
They would have been better off openly calling it a reboot and cutting ties with what came before. By tying it in through a convoluted plot contrivance so it’s an alternate timeline, it opened them up to all the criticisms about all the things that changed that would never have been impacted by the initial time travel event. My guess is the studio forced that on them, although Abrams and Lindelof are stupid enough to think shoehorning that in would work.
Frankly I am waiting for the Classic reboots. I want to see a colored 3-D version of Casablanca.
To answer the question why a Reboot? Well I think it is because Hollywood is run by uncreative cowards. But really I think it has to do with all the money they spend on advertising and selling their movies. Reboots come with theoretical fan bases. Hey, you liked Ghostbusters or Total Recall, or RoboCop, come watch this.
The funny things is in mediums like theater you are constantly abused with reboots and remakes. How many times has Hamlet been done? The biggest problem these Reboots have is not that they are unoriginal but that they fall so far short of the fun of the original material. And after all it is not like we can’t go see the originals to compare. In fact I think if they were smart they would just re-release remastered classic movies to once again be seen on the big screen. I would go see Lawrence of Arabia on full screen, or some of those Disney classics like Jungle Book, Aladin, or Merry Popins.
I don’t object to the existence of reboots. And as a rule, I don’t even care whether something is a reboot, a sequel, or wholly original. All I care about is that it’s good.
An example is “Battlestar Galactica” (arguably the most successful reboot ever). When I first heard about it, I made the mistake of dismissing it by asking whether that cheesy old show needed, or deserved, a reboot. What we got was a mature and smartly written show that honestly had little to do with the original, other than some basic elements of the premise. Ron Moore could probably have developed essentially the same show under another name, but attaching it to the “Galactica” franchise surely helped get it made and boosted the ratings. I’m all for that.
I’d argue that “Doctor Who” is not a reboot, merely a continuation; it actually incorporates the preceding continuity, such as it is. But setting that aside, the fact remains that the new show has attracted a whole new generation of viewers who couldn’t care less about classic “Who.” They like it because it’s good.
I’d rather see a good reboot than a bad original.
My main problem with the Star Trek reboot is that Kirk is neither a commanding figure nor one who inspires those under him in the hierarchy. He’s kind of a cocky jerk. He’s definitely not a leader, and nobody listens to him.
Watch the original Star Trek episodes and compare the characterization.
This, of course, applies to any modern film where there’s a command structure. Gone are the days when leadership meant something.
When the original is still a powerful moneymaker, you can’t do anything to tarnish it.
A pure reboot tends to kill off the original commercially.
The alternate timeline gimmick allows both universes to commercially coexist. Plus it gives a mechanism to have Nimoy featured. A few minutes of his screentime can probably add $30 million to the bottom line.
This is heresy.
The problem with that is that they aren’t making anything in the original universe any more so the original is effectively dead. All discussions of future projects have revolved around the reboot franchise.
The originals (inclusive of TNG, etc.) are still generating rerun revenues. TOS predates residuals, so it is likely particularly profitable. There still may be further TNG movies or TV sequels.
I haven’t read through the comments, so I may be covering old ground here.
The answer is simple if one does a little hypothetical role-playing.
Imagine you’re a junior executive at a major movie studio.
You get sent mountains of scripts, treatments, and pitches.
You only have the resources to pitch a limited number of these projects to your bosses. Other junior executives are also pitching projects to the same bosses.
Subsequently, maybe three (or so) will be selected to be shepherded to completion.
The success or failure of a) you being able to persuade the bosses that your project should be the one selected, and b) the success or failure of that film once selected, will determine whether your employment continues into the future.
So, how to cut through the clutter? How to stand out from the other junior executives?
“Boss, we already have the rights to Ghostbusters, I have a director and a cast lined up, and we can get a new script written for cheap.”
or…
“Ok, try to imagine this, it’s a story about this, and that, and the other thing, and then this happens and then that happens, and then other stuff happens, and it’s all a comment on this part of society and/or the human condition … etc, etc, etc…”
It’s really a no-brainer.
No. No it can’t be.
They are going to mess it up.
I consider the Ghostbusters computer game the true finale to the trilogy. It was really rather well done!
I find reboots less offensive than shamelessly endless sequels to popular movies. “What? It was a popular action movie? Well it has to be a trilogy now because you can’t just make two.”
Expendables 4! Ironman 5! Spider-Man 6! Star Wars Episode 9!
Maybe every movie has been made now, so there’s just nothing left to write?
Hmmm, the director of Bridesmaids and The Heat now doing distaff Ghostbusters…
I guess that would mean
– Melissa McCarthy as Dr. Venkman
– Sandra Bullock as Dr. Egon
– Kristen Wiig as Dr. Stantz
– Maya Rudolph as Zeddemore
Surely the built-in audience and instant interest generated by a recognizable IP covers a multitude of creative sins, box office-wise.
I wonder if part of the reason rebooting is more popular than continuing a classic story is because studios fear (know?) that if audiences see a lead over 29-years-old (24 for ladies) they’ll throw down their popcorn in disgust and leave the theater*. So no chance to see the potentially fascinating story of what’s become of Peter Weller’s craggy old RoboCop, instead better to just grab a bland young dude and re-origin the whole thing.
It’s still weird.
*Expendables proves that people will watch old dudes, but maybe only as long as it’s ALL the old dudes.
well… they’ve already started by saying, essentially, that they would be “correcting” the original. When you go into it with that spirit, I think you’re doomed. How many other examples do we have of reboots that have remembered to be “less sexist” or “more diverse” or whatever other stupid PC ideal than the original? I honestly don’t know. But I’ve seen some pretty bad ones. I vaguely recall a terrible “manchurian candidate” reboot that sucked.
I kinda like the modern sequel revival, even though it hasn’t necessarily lead to a bunch of great movies. For a long time “sequel” was synonymous with a cheaper, pointless cash grab where any character, including the hero, might be actor-swapped with a less-than-star-quality performer.
Now that they’re planned as a series from the get go, actors are signed on for the ride, they come out at a good clip, and stuff can be setup in 1 to pay off in 2 or 3. You probably didn’t need the so-so Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, but it makes the great Rise of the Planet of the Apes even better. It also cuts down on repetitive origin story slogs.
The great modern sequel sin is when they split the final film into two pointless, drawn out affairs (Harry Potter, Hunger Games, Hobbit).
The minor modern sequel sin is dropping the numbers for awful, samey second titles — Hero-Man: Rise of the Dark of the Dawn of Edge of the Silver Surfer.
I predict the overbearing EPA bureaucrat out to crush the entrepreneurial spirit is replaced by an angry Christian on a mission to prove traditional busting methods superior to science-based ones. This will involve a Neil deGrasse Tyson cameo.
“yes it will star hilarious women” = “If you utter so much as a peep of criticism, or are even a little too insistent in praising the original, then you’re a misogynist.”
Either that, or a budget-cutting, identifiably Republican official who insists on gutting regulations that keep ghost-busting sustainable or whatever. He will wear an American flag pin, utter at least one over-the-top sexist remark, and somehow be a Southerner even though it takes place in NYC.
That’s part of the trouble with the world, no one cares about culture or history or tradition anymore. So I say: either take the time to find out why it was so iconic and actually develop some understanding of the world that came before you on its terms, or get your own damned icons.
By the way, this ire is in no way directed at you, ctlaw, or anyone else in particular. This is only my personal raging at the universe.
Could be as clear cut as this^. China hasn’t seen Ghostbusters.
Yet another in the long list of the crimes of the Communist Party.