Film Sequels, Remakes and Reboots

Today, across the blogosphere, bloggers will be writing on the topic of film sequels, remakes and reboots as part of a Kid In The Front Row blogathon.

Here's my ten cents:

Sequels

Sometimes, you love a book or a film so much that you simply can't wait to spend more time with a favourite character. You wonder what happens next, where they go, what they do. Sequels of popular, well-loved films can therefore be a very welcome occurrence.

However, it all depends on the standard of the sequel. If a sequel doesn't live up to its predecessor, it can ruin the franchise's image and spoil your favourite characters.

There's also the issue of when to stop? A film franchise can become so popular that film after film is released. Surely a good thing is left well alone, lest it run the risk of becoming completely saturated and losing its original charm?

If there's a repeatable, successful formula to a screenplay, films get away with it. It's why films like Shrek and Toy Story keep on going. Shrek in particular is an impressive franchise. It's got a loveable set of characters (perfect for merchandise!) and the writers manage to keep it fresh and exciting. I was very dubious about this franchise, until I sat down to join my dad when he was watching the latest sequel on television. I was impressed. Some films manage to maintain interest and mature at the same time, and I think Shrek is one of those types. I'm yet to see Toy Story 3, but am sure it wont disappoint. With Andy all grown up now, this particular sequel is all about the next generation. What happens to the toys now?

But what about non cartoon films? I don't feel sequels like The Lost World and My Girl 2 worked. Regarding Jurassic Park, the original was a thing of wonder - new World, compelling characters and scary dinosaur chase scenes. The sequel was a let down - same World, characters returning for more inevitable chase scenes. Ok, so Dr Ian Malcolm has more of a battle than he bargained for in the form of his daughter, Kelly, having come along for the ride and landing herself in danger. But the magic was lost and the plot struggled to have substance. Did you know that the sequel was based on a sequel novel, written at the request of fans? Nevertheless it was disappointing and earned a whopping $300 million less than the original. In My Girl, Vada has moved on in her life and a new boy is on the scene. In the original, a young Macaulay Culkin won our hearts and I, for one, was reduced to tears at the outcome. Do we really want a new boy to replace Macaulay? Are we really bothered about moody Vada's quest to find out about her mother?

As screenwriters, should we be honing in on the sequels craze? Hollywood loves a franchise opportunity, so perhaps the answer is yes. It seems every time we watch a movie these days, the ending is left open for interpretation. Films are left open to the possibility of sequels and are, a lot of the time, deliberately set up. Keeping your screenplay's potential for multiple plot lines in mind is beneficial, especially if you are writing an action film or a children's film with strong characters.

I feel that a sequel works if it could be a successful film in its own right. I was horrified at the thought of a remake of Dirty Dancing. I still haven't seen Havana Nights, but upon researching it on the internet, I came across comments by people which declared it as an excellent film in its own right. It was different from the original but had its own quality. A sequel or remake which succeeds in this fashion has a good chance of being appreciated though, having said that, it also depends on the scale of the original's following. Heck, I still haven't seen Havana Nights and probably won't - what does that say about me, given I am a HUGE fan of the original Dirty Dancing?

Remakes

I get the whole "stories are retold from generation to generation and evolve" thing, but is it necessary and does it work?

Classic films are retold aplenty on stage, so why do we scoff at the remakes of our beloved films on the big screen? It's because they're not the same as we once remembered. If you were charmed by one version, another version is likely to cause you grief, playing havoc with your precious memories. But will other generations appreciate these stories if they're not represented in a way that will appeal to them? Unless you're a film buff, you'd much rather go see a modern version of a story than a crummy old black and white one, right? How many times have you watched a film and then gone and read the book or sourced the original? Modernising films and bringing them to a wider audience is surely a good thing if it inspires such activity?

However, there's always the risk that the new version will take over... Who bothers to see Kubrick's Lolita when you can watch Lyne's version, which is much more risqué in its content and thus all the more suspenseful? In this sense, whereby a story is interpreted as per today's social acceptances representation-wise, a story can be made more complex and revealing. But as for whether it's necessary is a tricky question to answer. Those who enjoy analysing films may fully appreciate the original just as much as somebody else may better appreciate the remake.

It's a debate much like that of adaptation. Will the process ruin the original or enhance it? I know that, for me, the adaptation of The Time Traveller's Wife was deeply unsatisfying. I didn't like Clare's character on screen at all and felt cheated by the film. I also didn't like the remake of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory. In making it a Tim Burton weird-fest, it lost a certain charm and it completely altered the characters and our perceptions of them.

However, some remakes have won me over. I enjoyed Superman, Batman and Scooby Doo. Perhaps my standards aren't as high as other people's because I was never a particular fan of the characters from these films as a child. I didn't read comic books and, aside from The Adventures of Superman on TV, I'd never seen any other remakes of these stories. In the case of films such as X-Men, Spiderman and Sherlock Holmes, I can honestly say I wouldn't have felt compelled to read the comics/books or watch previous film versions without the modern blockbuster hits of recent times. In this way, remakes work and are necessary to reach new audiences. Only this weekend we had a fresh new take on Sherlock Holmes in the form of a UK TV series. I just loved seeing this bouncy, younger and dishier new version of Sherlock Holmes and the up-beat way in which the story was told.

So, do remakes work? I believe that remakes can be great, but some can be dire. As with adaptations, I think authenticity is key. Stray too far from a character's behaviour or the right sort of plot line and you'll be in trouble with the fans. You don't want to offend them now, do you? After all, they could be your key to a lot of money from franchise earnings and merchandise...

Reboots

In my view, this is essentially remakes, but on a faster scale. Oh no! Our film has lost interest after a mere three years! Quick! Grab the latest hunk and up the blockbuster effects and shazam! We're back in the game!

Fine, if you're a feeble fan and suck it all up. But why I ask? Why the need to constantly reboot films that are probably best left be after the one reboot? Well-loved films will always remain well-loved. They'll be passed down through generations. We don't want to break out World War 3 now, do we?

Gran: The original is best. We can't watch anything other than the original.

Dad: But the 70s version is way better. The wee lad will be bored if we watch the original!

Wee Lad: Dad! Gran! The new version is out at the cinema! The old ones don't have any special effects, they'll be boring! This one's in 3D!!!

Oh dear. Still, the World is our Oyster. Ultimately, it's up to us to educate ourselves on films, old and new, and judge for ourselves which we appreciate the most.

What's your take on these three types of film?