Oh dear lord I’m so tired of the remakes and reboots…
But I suppose we should start with some definitions, shouldn’t we?
A remake is where they look at what was originally a perfectly fine, probably good, maybe even outstanding movie, and they just make the whole damned thing all over again for no good reason.
This is, of course, theft, but they call it homage so they get away with it.
But, well, why? I mean, really, why? The original was a fine movie, perhaps even excellent. Maybe even a true work of art. So why the hell remake it? Just watch the original, for heaven’s sake.
A reboot is something else again. A reboot takes a film idea and fundamentally alters it, transforms it totally. Basically it is the reboot maker saying the original was crap, the director was crap, the writers were crap, so I’m going to do it better. It is arrogant beyond belief. It’s the director and film makers claiming they can do it better. But everyone knows they can’t because if they had any creative talent at all, they’d be doing something original and not be digging through the archives looking for something to steal.
I call it theft because that’s what it is. Remakes and reboots are both essentially theft. Oh, sure, they legally own the rights, but it is still the taking of ideas that were not theirs to begin with.
It’s sort of like house robbery.
The remaker breaks into your house, steals your TV, but does the dishes for you, waters your plants and feeds the dog on the way you.
The rebooter breaks into your house, steals your TV, smashes your dishes, urinates in the potted plants and shoots your dog on the way out.
4 thoughts on “Reboots and Remakes”
I would have just called it creative bankruptcy. But I guess I can see your point.
Although I acknowledge that I have enjoyed reboots and remakes, I still prefer original media. But that is something of a rare jewel in the movie/tv industry these days. At least in the big budget films.
Ooo, I like “creative bankruptcy”. Wish I’d thought of that.
Maybe calling it outright theft is a bit harsh and creative bankruptcy more accurate. I can’t think of many remakes or reboots that were better than the original right off the top of my head, and a lot that were far, far worse.
Willy Wonka comes to mind right off the bat. I liked the original a lot. Wilder had this innocent psychotic thing going through the whole film and it was perfect, I thought. The new one wasn’t bad, but I don’t think Depp was a good choice for the character and didn’t do a very good job of it. To me he seemed just plain creepy. Wilder had this barely controlled outright lunacy that just peeked out once in a while, while Depp’s version of the character just made me feel mildly nauseous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am obviously going to be considered a heathen, but I like the newer Star Trek movies better than the older ones. (with the exception of 4)
But mostly you are right. Reboots and Remakes usually don’t hold much water.
Not a heathen . The reboot of ST wasn’t horrible from strictly a film quality point of view. They’re even above average as SF films in their own right. What irked so many old ST fans was that the new films pretty much blew away almost 50 years of well established story lines that a lot of people had really come to love. The movies aren’t bad, they’re even pretty good. But it’s not really Star Trek as originally conceived.
LikeLiked by 1 person