Remakes, Franchises and Sequels: Are they worth it?
We live in the era of franchise films, sequels, and remakes upon remakes (here’s looking at you, Spider-Man). While some of these sequels and remakes can be awesome, much of the time it leaves me wondering: is originality not a goal anymore?
Here’s where that concept gets tricky, though. We live in a time where virtually no idea is legitimately “original” anymore. There’s so much material out there – books, films, television, and art. We are technically always using past models and structures to help us create fresh material. If you think about how many years worth of storytelling there has been, as well as the inundation of information we get via the technological era, it’s near impossible to think of a completely unique idea. So with the rise of sequels, remakes and franchises in television and film, it feels as if piggybacking on former ideas has become the new norm. And while it may be thrilling to see old faithfuls come to life in new ways, sometimes it can get frustrating for those who want to see more unique stories.
One example of this phenomenon is the recent Disney craze of making live action versions of their animated predecessor. Classics like Cinderella, Tarzan, Beauty and the Beast, and The Jungle Book have already been remade as live-actions, with The Lion King set to come out soon. While there’s something irrevocably charming about seeing beloved animated characters come to life, I’ve personally felt that these remakes fall short (an opinion that has been shared by many critics). This is less the fault of the movie itself than it is the difficulty of measuring up to a classic.
For most of us growing up with those movies, we have a firm sense of nostalgia associated with them, so, seeing it translated into a live-action version can take that magic away. It’s also risky because if the live-action adaptations follow the animated version to a T, it can come across as pointless and derivative (ie. why would I watch the new version when I can watch the original?) On the other hand, if the plot points deviate from the original, it becomes easy for the viewer to become nitpicky and compare the classic to the new version.
I think the most successful Disney adaptation that has been done is The Legend of Tarzan (2016), because instead of recreating the animated version, it sets up a storyline that is more believable for a live-action setting. As well, the timeline technically takes place after the animated story that we saw in the original, thus enabling the creators to construct a new narrative without having to compete with the original.
It’s also important to look at the other side of things. In the case of superhero movies, there’s a whole world(s) worthy of exploration that often can’t be summed up by a few films. Notorious for frequent reboots and endless amounts of sequels, it can get a bit overwhelming for viewers. However, bear in mind that various production companies are pumping out these films, technically putting them in different universes and thus not always interacting with each other.
Though I made a cheeky reference to the amount of Spider-Man remakes we’ve had within a short span of time, it’s important to remember that Tom Holland’s 2017 version was specifically crafted to fit into the Marvel Studios universe. And honestly, I think his version is my favourite so far. As well, I’ve heard only amazing things about the new animated film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018). This film plays further into the idea of multiple Spider-Mans in various alternate universes.
Another big trend is making television series out of original films, or vice versa. Bates Hotel is based off the iconic Psycho. Westworld expands on a world that was created in the film of the same name. Think about Star Wars: Clone Wars, or the upcoming series entitled The Mandalorian that is also set in the Star Wars universe; the list can go on forever. Countless animated series have been made as an extension of their film counterparts, and honestly? It’s a smart move. Television shows enable creators to develop characters and worlds in a much more infinite way than films can. I actually prefer television adaptations to sequels most of the times, because sequels are inherently tough to live up to their originals.
The point is, though I might roll my eyes the second another remake or reboot is announced, it’s important to give them a chance. You might be surprised at the original way an unoriginal idea is handled. Even in the case of sequels, I’ve often been surprised at how a different director or creator has the ability to keep a franchise alive.
Ultimately, though the foundation may be overused, remember that there is an infinite amount of ways you can use a character – something that actual graphic novels and comic books have been doing since day one. Though yes, it’s downright baffling when you see Chris Evans as the Human Torch in Fantastic 4 (2005) only to become Captain America a few years later. Let’s not forget that a reboot, distributed by the same production company, of Fantastic 4 was made a mere ten years after the original, only to become a massive box-office flop.
I think that at the end of the day, we have to give some leeway to the idea of reboots, sequels and remakes. The combination of Hollywood pumping out films as part of a capitalist structure as well as the sheer fact that completely original ideas are more hard-pressed to come by nowadays, remakes and sequels become a natural fall back. Remember that it’s what the creators, directors, producers and writers do with that material that determines its level of originality, worth, and innovation. Always be critical, but allow yourself to be pleasantly surprised, too.
~ Z ~
