This is the first debate of our new monthly feature, entitled ‘THN Friday Face Off’. One Friday every month will see two THN titans of film knowledge duke it out over a pressing issue relating to our most beloved art form. Each film fanatic will argue from a different viewpoint on a particular subject, in a bid to persuade our exceptionally attractive readers, as well as his or her colleague, they should be deemed the winner.
Of course, there are no definitive right or wrong answers. However, we would love for you to get involved by sharing your opinion, and voting for whoever you think has argued their case in a more effective way. You can do this by commenting below, tweeting us via @thncom, or commenting on our Facebook page. Before doing so, we ask that you read the opposition’s stance on the matter here.
First up is a question that’s becoming more relevant with each passing day: ‘Do Reboots Do More Harm Than Good?’
I believe reboots do more good than harm. I wouldn’t dream of saying that all reboots are a good idea; I’ve seen more than my fair share of shocking “continuations” to a franchise. But I do feel that reboots have their place in the modern world, that when done right, they can match and even best their origins. And, just as fairy tales and epic poems have been retold and readapted down the centuries, remakes are a way of bringing a much loved story to a new audience, to claim as their own and tell to the next generation.
Making it Relevant
It’s said that there are only six plotlines. That originality is almost impossible. Anything you can dream, odds are someone’s already done it in one medium or another. The only thing left is variation. Taking a story from a bygone age and making it relevant to a new generation.
When THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL was remade in 2008, I went back and watched the 1951 original for the first time. And while it is still a perfectly good movie in its own right, for me it has no relevance. I didn’t grow up in an age of Cold War paranoia, with the spectre of nuclear death hovering over the horizon. For me, the remake sits a little closer to my heart because its message of ecological disaster matters to me.
Getting Back to Basics
Some movie franchises go on way too long. Look at the BOND franchise; by the time we got to DIE ANOTHER DAY, the series had burned itself out, becoming increasingly derivative and collapsing under their own mythology. Hell, you could argue that each Bond film is a remake of the last, following the same basic plot with different names and places.
CASINO ROYALE gave us a James Bond unburdened by forty years of familiarity. Here was a fresh new Bond for a fresh new age. And putting aside my personal feelings on the film, SKYFALL has provided a fresh slate for James Bond, taking him back to his roots whilst making him matter; the real supervillains aren’t sitting in swivel chairs with a fluffy white cat, they’re in basements full of computers, fighting, as M so nicely put it, in the shadows.
CASINO ROYALE also provides new audiences with a starting point, a Year Zero approach shared by 2009’s STAR TREK.
In going back to a franchise’s origins, it opens it for a new generation. And either way it’s a potential success;
If the reboot is successful, it opens the doors for new films for new and veteran fans to enjoy. If it’s not, then it draws people back to the original, to appreciate how it was done better the first time around.
They’ve Been Doing it Forever
Ever since primitive man first started lying to the missus about the wildebeest that got away, stories and fables have been told and retold through countless generations. Storytellers, bards and minstrels would roam the landscape, bringing with them tales of far off lands, and then people began to write them down.
But over time as these stories were retold, performed and copies, things would change. Jokes would change to make fun of the neighbouring village or the new High King. A copyist would write in their own material, the storyteller would forget a passage and have to improvise.
The spoken, and written word has been evolving and adapting over time. The only difference is, now, we have the ability to record a story and preserve it as it was then, and these recordings are held as the definitive version.
To me, a remake of a movie is no different from a new production of a play.
How many times has HAMLET been adapted for the screen? From star-studded blockbusters to three blokes in a shed, some stories are constantly being retold.
Now, you can do HAMLET as a four-hour epic with three thousand extras, or in ten minutes with sock puppets. The story and the characters are still there, in one form or another, but each one is unique and should be accepted as its own entity.
A Necessary Evil
Hollywood is a business, and to run a business you need money. If remakes are what sells, then they’re a necessary evil. If a studio remakes a horror movie for $10 million dollars and makes $110million in return, that’s a hundred million dollars for them to spend on something new.
You could argue that remakes are the cinematic equivalent of the cheap novels in the supermarket; cheap, derivative and easy to digest, providing money for the important stuff.
At the end of the day, reboots are inevitable. At some time someone will have the idea of taking an old story or an old movie, and remaking it for a new generation.
Please do tell us what you think, but first, be sure to read the counter-argument, which can be found here.
