Remakes, Requels, and Reboots: Recapturing the Magic or Running Out of Tricks?
Remakes can be a risky bet on nostalgia that might leaves audiences disappointed in the present
I’m not necessarily against remakes. In the hierarchy of my preferences I would rank getting additional mileage out of existing intellectual property the following way:
Requels (Star Wars, Halloween, Scream, Creed, Ghostbusters:Afterlife and Frozen Empire)
Reboots (Planet of the Apes, A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010), JJ Abrams Star Trek)
Remakes (Robocop (2014), Total Recall (2012) , Road House (2024), and Ghostbusters (2016))
To build this out a bit more a “requel” is a legacy sequel in a franchise that will bring on new characters but have the legacy characters worked into the narrative to pass the torch. Although, let’s be real, often audiences want the legacy characters to stick around.
A “reboot” is a “requel” without the legacy characters. These films usually ditch everything that came before, strip the franchise down to the studs, and then attempt to rebuild on the foundation.
Remakes take the original story and just retell it. A great example of this is Peter Jackson’s King Kong (2005), which retold the original story with updated special effects. This is different than Kong: Skull Island (2017) which was a reboot of the original story but part of an ongoing Monsterverse franchise.
Remakes are at the bottom of my list because they are a high risk and low reward proposition for all involved. Yes, there are some examples of when they have worked quite well. Remaking The Shop Around the Corner to You Got Mail worked out pretty well in December of 1998. However, the shot for shot remake of Psycho, which was also released that month, did not work out. Well, okay, unless the idea was to make a shot for shot remake of Psycho to prove that nobody should ever remake Psycho. If so, mission accomplished Gus Van Sant.
The reason why a studio is even entertaining the idea of doing a remake is because the original is well liked. They aren’t remaking movies that bombed the first time out. This is just a risky proposition. The first people that are going to be interested in your remake are people that love the original. You are already having to clear a high bar.
This subject is on my mind because of two remakes. The first is the Doug Liman directed Road House that premiered on Amazon Prime Video. I watched the film and was entertained, but it’s nowhere near the lighting in the bottle that is the original Road House. I mean, that movie is just dang near perfection.
Which left me wondering why anybody needed to remake Road House. When I was done watching the new version I couldn’t tell you what about it was similar to the original beyond the title and the main character’s name. That movie could have been called Fight Pit or Rum Punch or something and I would’ve gotten the same mileage out of it. Actually, no, I’m willing to bet that I would have enjoyed it more because I wouldn’t have been actively comparing it to the original.
The other remake that got me thinking about this subject is The Crow (2024). The original Crow was a faithful adaptation of the graphic novel by James O'Barr. The graphic novel was rooted in O'Barr's personal tragedy of losing his fiancée. Even setting aside the tragic on-set accident, the 1994 adaptation is a beautiful film about revenge, justice, love, death, and ultimately hope. It's a highly stylized gothic comic book movie that's equal parts romance and western, in my opinion. Brandon Lee is perfect in the lead role and has more than a few truly wonderful moments.
I just don't get the same sense from this highly-stylized trailer.
I wish the filmmakers well with this remake of the 1994 original. People have been trying to remake The Crow for 20+ years with everybody from Bradley Cooper to Jason Momoa. This is the version that will finally make it to the screen.
Again, speaking solely as somebody that loves the original, they just have a high bar to clear. That being said, it came out 30 years ago and people younger than me might truly dig it.
In the end I’m sympathetic to studios wanting, or even needing, to go back to old wells. As much as audiences complain that there aren’t original films being made they don’t always reward those that make them by getting to the theater to see them. I don’t necessarily blame audiences either. If you are going to go out to the theater to see a movie you want some assurance that it is worth your time. I get it. I don’t agree with it, but I get it.
It’s just when there studios and filmmakers have to choose between requel, reboot, or remake, I think the requel is the best choice. You get to build on the foundation of the original while offering something new-ish.
That’s what Twisters seems to be doing
Then again, why not just take the original concept and make something new out of it. That’s ultimately the route I would take if given the choice.