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. Unfortunately, there are reboots that take away from the art form and the legacy of the original. In order to preserve the integrity of film and praise of preexisting franchises, proper time and care is needed for rebooting franchises so the new film respects the origins while having original content.

A reboot can come in different forms depending on the type 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 (2015). 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 a continuation reboot, which usually happens when a film stays dormant for some time and 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 preexisting 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. So many films exist today to the point where it is difficult to write something completely original, without resembling another work. 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 by not taking the time for a proper production. If studios want to continue the reboot trend, then more time and care is needed for each project.

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. More genres could fall under the same fate as horror if not careful because of the lack of new artistic, original substance.

Sometimes if a franchise is rebooted too much, the original title could lose credibility. A popular title known for having one too many resets 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, which spawned two sequels. Along with having several television series over the years, the franchise had a CGI animated reboot in 2007. The reboot received poor reviews because of poor production and being unwanted by fans. Seven years later, Michal Bay helped produce the reboot for the current version of the Turtles. 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. One has to wonder when a studio should stop trying before the damage to the franchise is too great. 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.  No franchise should be rebooted this much in a small window of time. 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. Even though newer and younger audience members can enjoy the new content, original lovers of the Turtle cannot help but feel disappointed on how they have downgraded. 

If Hollywood is not careful in their production choices, audiences could see an unwanted 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 (Klein). 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 reminisces in the past too long, they can no longer see the future ahead. How are audiences supposed to enjoy new adventures if the same story structure is used every time? 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.

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 past 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 that helped 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.

While the sole purpose of most reboots is either cash or visitation to the past, some can present deeper meaning on the big screen. 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. One reboot that attempts this is Robocop (2014). With 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 occuring. 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. Thanks to the reboot, 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.

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.

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 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. Within the next few years, Disney will release a variety of different forms of reboots. 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. 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 not all can 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.

Cinema is known for the creation of stories that seem almost real. Directors and actors must capture the realism and imperfections of their characters and story to display visual greatness. Film is an art form because of how well the struggles and challenges are displayed on a level where audiences feels connection or relation with the work (Snauwaert). Some artistic masterpieces find their way back into theaters for the next generation to gander. 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.
