In the modern world, film is a medium understood by everyone. A movie can portray many characters and many stories that audiences attach themselves to. Every now and then a movie comes out that rocks the world. Audiences swarm theaters again and again to view this masterpiece before its gone. Even when the film leaves, those memories and feelings for the movie remain inside each audience member who enjoyed their experience. Years go by without any mention about the once praised film until one day the studio announces the great film to make a return in a new form. Nostalgia builds up inside of the longtime fans as they mark their calendars for the release date. When those memorable movies return in a new form, audiences everywhere are filled with excitement because they have been longing for the return of their beloved film or film series. However, some fans do stand back and question what if this new movie is bad? A reboot can cause a preexisting franchise to fall if a studio is not careful. Unfortunately, studios mainly focus on the capitalist part of the industry and do not worry about quality. Currently these types of movies are flooding the market and putting to shame once great household names. The main objective for a studio is to make sure the film has purpose and respect to the original if they plan for a reboot. The sole purpose should not be profit because it’s a disrespect to the art form.

Now a reboot can come in different forms depending on the time of movie. The most basic form of reboot is a movie that completely resets the franchise from scratch. When this kind of reboot is made, creative intelligence starts with a blank space, wiping away any remanence from the franchise’s counterparts. The movie tells the same plot as the first film and the film progresses without any reference to any previous installment. The next common reboot is the ‘few years later’ reboot. These reboots keep everything already present in the series, but come with new creativity and happen after some time the previous installment ended. The most recent, successful example of a studio executing this is Star Wars: The Force Awakens. With the addition of new characters and the help of familiar faces, these reboots show a new story in similar circumstances. The last common reboot is the exact opposite of the previous reboot. A continuation reboot usually happens when a film stays dormant for some time, but when it’s time for a reboot, the new installment picks up where the last film ended as if no time had passed at all since audiences last saw the characters. Overall, a reboot takes the pre-existing universe of a film and redesign it into whatever the studio chooses. While each kind of reboot can produce a good film, there is a strong chance those reboots fail to live up to original. 

Before film production can start, there has to be a story to film. The writing process takes time in the film industry because of originality. In today’s world, it is hard to create something that no one has seen before. While some studios want their audiences to leave theaters happy, most studios at the end of the day care about profit. A reboot in the eyes of most studios is almost instant money. From a writing perspective, the majority of the job is done already. With technology today, the marketing portion for a reboot is almost little to none. Even without any trailers or posters, the preexisting brand can sell most of the tickets. Even if the movie is bad, studios still make profit. Reboots like Point Break (2015) and Poltergeists (2015) received ample amounts of hate from critics and longtime fans when their initial release was announced. As predicted, both films did nothing but hurt their respected franchises. However, each movie did more than make back their cost of production in gross income. Because studios can get away and make low par remakes of their movies, they continue to flood the market with them. A studio could choose to use that excess gross on other projects for the future. Some studios go this route to build budgets for their summer blockbusters, but most studios do not utilize this. Instead, any excess income will probably go straight into the pockets of producers. These reboots that take little to no thought soil the film industry and tarnish the art form. If studios want to continue the reboot trend, then more time and care is needed for each project.

While some studios take advantage of their audiences and ignore the quality of the reboots, there are studios who go through extra measures to guarantee the legacy of the original is not tarnished. Some studios pour in more money and resources into the reboot in hopes they get it right. One franchise that received this special care was the Muppets during their relaunch back in 2011. At first the studio felt worried about how the characters would hold up in modern times; writers thought children today would not enjoy the gang as pass generations have done. With much revision, the studio created a reboot that occurs years after the prime of the original cast. The new premise gave way to lovable new characters for the franchise while keeping the old charm of the old Muppets. The success of The Muppets (2011) received praise from fans and critics and help make the push for a sequel and a new Muppets television series. Even though production took longer and more money was needed for the budget, the movie excelled in more ways than profit. The film gave life to a new generation for youngsters to enjoy and revisit the past installments.

Studios take into consideration many elements when making a film. Along with generating a plot, characters, and setting, a writer must have purpose. While the sole purpose of most reboots is either cash or visitation to the past, some can present deeper meaning on the big screen. One reboot that attempts this is Robocop (2014). Before the announcement of a reboot coming out, not many people were talking about Robocop. The original is great in terms of story in characters, but that is not what people are looking for. With the roughly the same origin story as its predecessor, the main plot and subject matter changed to fit modern times. Instead of the original Robocop story, the reboot focused on the use of drones and AI in everyday life. During the time of release, drones and invasion of privacy were the big debates going on. The director uses this political undertone to base a plot around the movie because it fit better with what was going on in the world. Besides not having glowing reviews, the film did have purpose and succeeded. Since the movie was so bad, the original Robocop was brought into light for debate when before there was no mention of remastering it. Those individuals that could look past the surface saw the deeper meaning and understand why the film is the way it is. Reboots should not solely be purposed for profit. Even if the reboot does not spark well with critics, the film can still find purpose that can make it art.

With all this talk about what a studio can and cannot do, the question does arise: how should a studio approach the reinvention of their intellectual property? One studio has the answer and a plan for the rest of the decade on how they want to approach their classics. After the success of both the live action Disney movies Maleficent (2014) and the Cinderella (2015), the studio began to map out and plan dates for the rest of their classics. So far the studio plans to revisit almost all their earliest properties and have cast members already signed up according to reports from Business Insider. Instead of going to the straight live action remake, a lot of their titles, such as Aladdin and 101 Dalmatians, are attempting to create new stories by writing more origin stories or years later movie. This specific action is a good move by the studio because it evens out the overflow of straight up classical remakes. Within the next few years, Disney will release a variety of different forms of reboots. The Winne the Pooh reboot is actually a years later sequel where Christopher Robin revisits his friends in his adulthood. So far into their plan, the classic live action remakes have received positive reviews. The Jungle Book (2016) remake scored 95% freshness on Rotten Tomatoes and Disney has already planned on a sequel. Disney’s layout for the next few years is how a studio should approach the revival of classics. Not only does their plan achieve their main objective, which is introducing their characters to a new generation of children, but they achieve expansion of their franchise. Any company can make the same story with new skin, but enlarge their universe by going outside box and delivering new adventures with the characters’ audiences still love today. Disney accomplishes equilibrium as their new wave of films have both respect to their originals and enough new substance that makes these upcoming movies fresh.

Reinvention could be innovative if the right people are behind the camera. Reboots give creative thinkers the chance at revamping something they know and love. Some artists make these revisions sometimes so they can better relate to today’s audiences. Another reason, in rare occasions, is to make improvements on the work itself. Judge Dredd (1995), starring Sylvester Stallone, received little to no praise because of its overly cheesy nature with dark subject matter. A few years later, a reboot called Dredd (2012) came out and delivered the dark comic book movie the character deserved. Cases of improvement are rare, but have their place if done properly and does not take numerous tries.

However, how many tries does it take for a studio to get the formula right? Sometimes if a franchise is rebooted too much, the original title could lose credibility. A popular title known for having one too many restarts is the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The popular turtles in a half shell already established their brand with both their comics and hit television series at the time. In the year 1990, fans were more than happy to hear their characters getting a feature length film. While the first installment had success, the two sequels that followed did little to none in comparison. Throughout the years, they have made appearances on both animated and live action on television, even having crossovers with other superheroes like the Power Rangers. Years later in 2007, one studio took the chance and making a CGI animated feature with the Turtles, but the film was not what fans wanted. With bad story and dismal voice acting, it was clear the Turtle would not be on the screen for a while. It was not until 2014 when a different studio, with Michael Bay as producer, would go and create a third franchise reboot. The film was graded as alright amongst critics, but received enough gross income and praise from new and old fans they received a sequel and Paramount is planning to make a third instalment. Looking at just the film franchise – not to mention the multiple television series the Turtles have spawned – it took three different studios over twenty years to make a movie that could weight out with the original. One has to wonder when a studio should stop trying. While current audience members, youth and children, can enjoy the gang in their new adventure, longtime fans from the 90s cannot fully enjoy the new. Fans from the beginning have watched as their heroes were dragged through the mud in an attempt to make a new trilogy. While studios sought out to create new and original adventures, they did not take into consideration how they could hurt the legacy of the franchise. 

In terms of genre, reboots tend to happen in one more than the other. Most dramas do not get the reboot treatment, but some genres are built on reboots. The most common genre that generates is horror. This genre is easiest to revamp because a horror film is meant to scare or disturb viewers. Household names like Jason Todd, Freddy Kruger, and Michael Myers are recognized by almost anyone. All the creative effort goes toward ways to scare audiences rather than developing new characters or plot. Even the fourth horror film ever made was a remake of the first one ever made (Stephen Follow). Long running franchises like Halloween, which ran for years with several sequels, still receive reboots today. The worst example of over usage of a brand is Nightmare on Elm Street. Even with the seven sequels, a battle with Jason Todd, and a reboot in 2010, there is planning for yet another Nightmare on Elm Street that is separate from everything else (Andria). Overall, using the same intellectual property over and over again can seem repetitive and lack luster because of the lack of innovation. Horror or not, the constant remake flow has dimmed the quality of movies and more genres could fall under the same fate as horror if not careful.

While reboots should not overflow the market, these films could come as a benefit and help preserve the art form. Reboots have already saved the action movie for audiences in the United States. Back in the 80s, the action movie thrives as films such as First Blood, Die Hard, and Red Dawn gave audiences an escape from everyday life as they could follow heroes in these movies. America is known for its high tolerance of violence in movies when compared to other countries; however, that tone changed when the US suffered 9/11. While the American’s jaws dropped, many people in the Pentagon were looking for director for help. They used their creative genes to map out any future attacks the enemy could plan (O’Brien). With a horrifying event leaving the nation in shock, the tolerance for violence went down drastically. Several films in the action genre that year either cancelled production or did not fare well in the box office. For a few years, no one wanted to see an action movie because of the violence and people were in shell shock about what happened still. As for American audiences, the action genre was slowly phasing out. When it seemed like the end, in 2007 Bruce Willis reprised his role as John McClane in Live Free Die Hard and in 2008 Rambo received a reboot that placed the protagonist back in Vietnam for another round. During a time when most audiences cringe at the sight of explosions or guns in movies, people recognized their favorite action heroes and got excited. The nostalgia of Rambo and Die Hard hit hard with audiences as people went to see the reboot. While not as strong as the originals, the familiar faces paved the way for the action movies return. A genre that once made audiences skeptical and sensitive was rejuvenated by the help of familiar faces. Whether action movies would bounce back with or without these films may never be known, but the reboots served their purpose on preserving the art form.

If Hollywood is not careful in their production choices, audiences could see a second coming of the 70s in reboot form. Currently, most of the reboots are originating from the Golden Age of Hollywood, which spans from the late 70s and most of the 80s according to Amanda Klein from The Atlantic. Intellectual properties like Star Wars have the largest fan bases because of how good the original was and touches both young and older audiences. With the wide age range, reboots are the easiest to market and that saves studios more money. Even television has started their own spread of rehashing in their industry. Eventually, if this trend continues the way it is going, audiences will watch the same stories for the rest of time. What is the point of a movie collection if they are all the same movie? Either this or studios will try and make ideas out of other intellectual properties, like the movie Battleship (2012). If one reminisce in the past too long, they can no longer see the future ahead. So Hollywood does not fall into a rut of repetition forever, studios must slowly back away from their old ideas to make room for creativity.

One of the longest running franchises in film history is the 007 series. With the release of Danial Craig’s first appearance as 007, the whole series rebooted with the release of Casino Royale (2006). With a long running franchise like Bond working for years with no reboots and the only changes being actors who played Bond, why reboot? Expansion. Since there were already pre-existing storyline, there was not much room for new material for the character James Bond to discover. Also with the rest of the series, 007 severed more as a label then a character. With multiple different actors, not much character development happened because it ruins the continuity of the series, but by rebooting such a large franchise, writers can start from scratch. The reboot gave creators more room to do as they please with 007 by building a back story and showing a more emotionally driven Bond, rather than seeming like just a soldier. While most reboots show little to no room for renovation, the people behind Bond made a reboot to make more for their creativity. This style searches for new ideas to separate itself from the rest of the series while still paying respect.

Film is one of the greatest devices for storytelling for any generation. No matter the environment, a great movie can leave an impression on people for years to come. Those impressions encourage the production of reboots because audiences welcome the return of their beloved characters thanks to nostalgia. Not all reboots disappoint audiences. A studio can, if the proper care and time is taken, make a film that respects the integrity of the original while unique enough to stand by itself. Some are open to the idea of reinterpretation or reinvention. Depending on the time or events going on in the world, a film can impact audiences by showing a story through a different lens or bring back the love of a genre. One way of looking at a reboot is through point of view of a bard. A bard would tell a story to pass down for the next generation and then the next generation would do the same, but each time the story was retold it would not be the exact same. A reboot is the same concept but told through film. However, audiences cannot hold on to the past forever. At some point if a person goes to a theater with the same six movies, eventually there are no new stories for them to explore. Originality is not an easy achievement in the film industry and a studio cannot be new every time, but it is important to keep the search for fresh ideas so the art of film stays alive. An artist can look to the past for ideas, but should not let their past be their only ideas.
