Hollywood’s franchise problem is out of control. Everyone knows it, and no one likes it. Between remakes, reboots, sequels and spin-offs, an astonishing 37 sequels will be released in 2016.
Although audiences hate it, there’s an incredibly simple reason why movie producers are making so many of these: money. On average, sequels make eight times more than original movies. As unfortunate as it may be, Hollywood will continue to be dominated by sequelized films for as long as this trend holds true.
So we’re stuck with sequels.
Yes, audiences could collectively boycott unoriginal movies. But that is highly unlikely. Rather than continuing to complain about Hollywood’s lack of ingenuity, I suggest we, as viewers, learn to deal with it and judge each film on its own merits.
After all, sequels aren’t always bad. Some can even be better than the original. Take Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight,” for example, which is undeniably better than “Batman Begins.” Even more surprising, it took five movies for the Fast and Furious franchise to release what is considered to be its best film, “Fast Five.”
In fact, sequels and remakes have undiscussed benefits: they allow filmmakers time to perfect their craft and reinvent an old story. “The Dark Knight” firmly grounded Nolan’s trilogy to reality while “Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back” rewrote the ‘happily-ever-after’ portrayed in George Lucas’s original. Going even further, the recent live-action remake of “The Jungle Book” reimagined a children’s story within a dark, mysterious and dangerous jungle.
Where modern adaptations and franchise installments run amok, though, is their slavish recreation of themselves in the likeness of their predecessors. A perfect example of this practice gone wrong is “Independence Day: Resurgence,” a movie so dedicated to reminding audiences that the original happened that it forgets to write its own story and characters.
Another unspoken upside of the current film landscape is its ability to introduce beloved characters and worlds to new audiences. Last summer, “Mad Max: Fury Road” ushered me into a franchise that I never would have watched otherwise.
While devoted fans to the originals may feverishly disagree, J.J. Abrams’s “Star Trek” films have done just that and the all-female “Ghostbusters” remake may as well.
First, it’s important to note that the dominant sentiment of disapproval amongst their respective fans is completely understandable. Can’t Hollywood let our heroes rest in peace, both literally and metaphorically, without trampling on their memory? Why must the original cast of “Ghostbusters” be replaced and why must J.J. Abrams tarnish the “Star Trek” franchise with his artistic liberties?
If you, as a viewer, are truly outraged by these remakes and reboots, there is a very simple solution — don’t see them. Otherwise, I’d recommend that you accept these new adaptations for what they are: an opportunity for a couple of generations to bond over reenvisioned classics.
Of course, millennial movie fans could watch the original “Ghostbusters.” But try to imagine a five-year-old girl sitting down to enjoy a 1984 movie with Bill Murray’s unceasing deadpan humor, pre-CGI effects and an all-male cast. Compare that to the prospect of the same girl seeing Paul Feig’s remake,with its vibrant effects, slapstick humor and, most importantly, a cast to whom she can relate.
As much as it disappoints my dad, I have never been compelled to watch hours of the space-cop drama that early “Star Trek” television shows and movies were. Yet J.J. Abrams’s modern adaptations make for sexy and thrilling space adventures that grab the attention of younger audiences, including myself.
In the current film franchise landscape, sequels and reboots are, and will continue to be, funnelled out at an exceptionally high rate. We can complain about their lack of ingenuity or simply accept them for what they are. Sequels are supplements to the original; reboots and remakes are modern adaptations. Both can either enhance or diminish the source material of their predecessor, depending on whether they unambitiously devote themselves to remaking the same movie or boldly reimagine it.
During the weekend of July 22, my father and I made one of our rare trips to the movie theater to see “Star Trek: Beyond.” For about two hours, we enjoyed the thrill of seeing the characters and worlds of my dad’s beloved franchise. It wasn’t be the same series he loved in his youth, but it’s not supposed to be. And that is totally okay, and maybe even good.