I apologize. Last night I posted an editorial on reboots. However , I think I veered off course somewhere in that article and went straight into FOX bashing. I still maintain those views, but I got off topic and lost focus. FOX will still probably get mentioned here, but i am going to try and stay on track. Also I'm going to talk about Sony a bit too, either though I hold them in higher regards than FOX.
What I want to talk about is when to reboot and when to just leave something alone.
A reboot should be done when a studio feels that a property is losing it's appeal, but they still want to keep it going. The wanting to reboot should also stem more from creative reasons though and not so much financial ones. Batman Begins was sucsessful reboot because Warner Brothers let Chris Nolan follow his vision that he firmly belived in. It was a vey different vision from what had come before, but it was well thought out and not just different for the sake of being different. The same can be said for Casino Royale. Barbara Brocoli and Michael G. Wilson knew that many people loved the Bond franchise and wanted to keep it going. They also knew though that the direction that were going in was getting old and dull. Martin Campbell, a director that they had used to introduce Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye was brought back in to the fold to introduce audiences to Daniel Craig as a rebooted version of 007. Like Batman Begins before it, Casino Royale was a very different film that what had come before, but the grittier take on Bond manged to revive the franchise.
Other reboots seem to be going in this direction as well. While Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengence will still star Nic Cage as Johnny Blaze and the rider, the film will introduce a new origin sequence and all details relaesed so far point to a darker story with Cage doing a different take on Blaze. Despite what some people may think, this films seems to be creatively motivated and seems to be acting as redemption for the character's earlier portrayal. I know it's been referred to as a seaquel and still has Nic Cage, but all the details I hear make it sound like a reboot to me. I will give Sony a chance witht this one. Even FOX who I bash so much seem to be taking this approach with one of the Marvel characters they own. The Wolverine will still star Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, but Darren Aronofsky has made it clear that his movie stands on its own and so to me seems like a reboot or a semi reboot. This is a really smart idea because we all know Aronofsky will not be one to pushed around by FOX.
Yet i must call Sony and FOX on their motivations for some of their reboots. Before Marc Webb was selected to direct The Amazing Spider-Man and with Andrew Garfield to star, Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire were preparing for Spider-Man 4 and possibly 5. However, when Raimi told Sony he could not make their date, they showed him the door, and instantly announced a reboot. Now I like the direction of the reboot, but I must say thats a very suspicious move on their part. I think it was done so they could hold on to the character's rights in film. So while the film may have a good creative vision behind it,it still feels like Sony is rebooting it for the sake of rebooting. The same goes for this new Daredevil film. Now keep in mind, I enjoyed the original. I just dont think it came out a the right time. It came out in the wake of Spider-Man, and I do not think audiences were ready for such a gritty superhero. I think David Slade could be a good director for it, and will create a good film, but I think FOX just wants the rights.
Another aspect of reboots I want to discuss are origins. I know a lot of people are quick to say that we already know the origin of a character for a reboot, and therefore, we don't need to retread the same ground. I disagree. If your going to reboot a series, you need to establish that your movie is not part of the continuity that came before. If no origin is seen, it might be passed off a sequel witha new cast.
Origins also don't need to take a half hour to be told. I wont go as far as to call The Incredible Hulk a reboot because the previous film was handled by Universal whereas Marvel Studios handled the newer one. However, The Incrdible Hulk did retread the origin, which had been told in the previous film. The newer film changed it up a bit though and showed it in the opening credits very quickly so as not to drag it out. If other reboots follow this example, they will be in good shape.
So there you have it. Like I said earlier, I did not expect to be following up my earlier post on this topic, but my reboot editorial needed a reboot so to speak. I hope you guys enjoy both editorials.