ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

For God's Sake No More Reboots or Remakes

Updated on May 23, 2013

No Remakes

Neither Reboot Nor Remake

Twenty years ago Hollywood did what it rarely does – it made a well-crafted and entertaining remake of a classic TV show. 1993’s The Fugitive, starring Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones, was a critical as well as a commercial success. Apart from a few minor changes in the source material - the 1963-1967 TV series starring David Janssen – the resulting movie left one with the sense that its director Andrew Davis and its writers Jeb Stuart and David Twohy were truly paying homage to this classic TV show. But the critical and commercial success of The Fugitive is the exception to what has now become an epidemic in Hollywood – the remake and the “reboot.”

According to the site Movie Moron, Hollywood is planning to release at least 34 remakes by 2014. These remakes include classic TV shows like The Lone Ranger – starring Johnny Depp – and classic movies such as Scarface – which starred Al Pacino and was itself a remake of 1932 film. While many people still eagerly anticipate the remake of their favorite TV show or movie, a growing contingent of movie-goers - myself included - have gone from anticipating these releases to almost dreading them. The problem is that most of the remakes and reboots have been disappointing to say the least. Among the many disastrous remakes Hollywood has released are 1998’s The Avengers, starring Uma Thurman and Ralph Fiennes, 2001’s Plant of the Apes, 2008’s Get Smart and the list goes on. Not only have these remakes been mostly flops, many have left people wondering if the writers of these movies ever even saw the source material from which they were “borrowing.” This trend - which shows no sign of ending soon - is merely an attempt to profit from the intellectual legwork someone else has already done from men and women who are basically creative parasites.

Take Star Trek as one example. (For the sake of full disclosure I have to state at this point that this is my favorite show in the history of TV.) Director, J.J. Abrams has ruthlessly appropriated this mother of all of ready-made, commercially profitable franchises. He has already released two movies in the series which, granted, have been commercially successful but which have been - in my opinion – creative failures. But that is the problem. Abrams and men and women like him see the original materials as opportunities to milk existing franchises; to exploit built-in audiences only. They don’t understand or appreciate that these shows and movies mean something to the people who grew up with them. People want to know what happened to their favorite characters. They wish to recapture what they felt when watching these shows and movies. Remakes seldom do either as they are not intended to fulfill these needs.

For example, Abrams decisions to ignore Star Trek canon - created over decades by fans and writers who loved and understood the series - is an attempt to pander to mass audiences and demonstrates his contempt towards the fans of the original series. Abrams “alternate timeline” crap is merely a device he uses to profit from the pre-existing, intellectual capital of the franchise and to exploit the name, the merchandising, etc of the show. His takeover does not expound upon the ideas of Trek nor does it expand upon the characters. This is not the chore of people who seek only to appeal to the mass market.


And that is the problem with the mentality of those who remake our favorite shows and movies. They worship at the temple of mass-market appeal and are contemptuous of those who do see something very personal in these movies and TV shows. Abrams doesn’t get that Star Trek is special. He only understands that it is a cash cow. Moreover, if Abrams had been old enough at the time Gene Roddenberry first pitched Star Trek to TV executives, he would have fit in nicely with those who said the show was “too cerebral” for television. In other words, these executives were saying the masses are stupid. They were insisting upon something that was appropriately brainless and uninspired.

Let’s take another example of a remake: 1999’s The Wild, Wild West movie starring Will Smith and Kevin Kline. It was based, of course, on the TV show of the same name which bucked the sameness of the scores of westerns on TV at the time by adding to it a science fiction element. Some immediately puzzled at the selection of Will Smith - an African-American - to play the part of a 19th century secret service agent. I did not puzzle at the selection of Will Smith since he was a hot box office property having just come off the success of Men in Black. As anyone knows, producers often cast movies on the basis of how popular a particular star is at any given moment sometimes defying all logic or reason.

Smith’s race was important not simply because a white actor – Robert Conrad – had originally pioneered the role, but because the movie had to either ignore the fact that he was a black man working in the secret service in this racially hostile era or it had to acknowledge it. The first choice would have made the movie completely unbelievable and the second makes it a totally different show from the sixties series. (There were actually African-Americans in the early West who were at least as colorful and courageous as the Jim West character was and who would have been apt material for a whole different movie. I wish they had made that movie.)

However, the movie did moderately well, Smith got a video out of it and Hollywood is never one to argue with any modicum of success. One successful movie like The Fugitive means that it will continue to seek a home-run with remakes of every other property they can get their hands on. (While I am typing this Hollywood is even reported to be planning a remake of the cartoon The Adventures of Jonny Quest with a grown man (Zac Efron) cast in the role of what is supposed to be a twelve year old boy.) Eventually, Hollywood will wear the viewing public out and only then will producers quit churning out movies meant to exploit our love of these movies and characters. In the mean time, Hollywood will continue to demonstrate how its reservoir of original thinking is running nearly dry.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Melinda 

      5 years ago

      Hear Hear! Very well said, and it can't be said often enough in these times when it seems that most people marvel at mediocrity, and defend any and all things that come stamped with an iconic brand, regardless of whether they are absolute drivel or a bastardization of the original character. I don't know if this is because we now have a generation that has been taught that everyone is a winner, and therefore it is "mean" to critically analyze art, film, and literature, but it is clear that standards and creativity are slipping to our collective detriment. The question is: When the public does finally move beyond this phase, will there be any collective filmmaking knowledge left with which to rebuild?

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)