Can reboots be…good? – Free daily press

Have you ever watched a really amazing movie and thought, “Wow, I can’t wait for them to do this again ten years later!”

Me niether.

Reboot sickness is plaguing Hollywood like never before. There’s nothing wrong with drawing inspiration from the past, but all reboots seem doomed from the start, forced to live forever in the shadow of their predecessor. However, a clever approach can usher in work as original as its namesake.

If Hollywood is aiming to cling to the safety boat of reboots and prequels, its recreations must follow an obvious but totally ignored rule. They must be different.

Reboots never seem to work as well as expected. More often than not, these additions to already respected properties elicit groans of dread. Viewers aren’t excited, they’re afraid their favorite movie or show will be smeared by its namesake, a legacy ruined by excess.

The worst of these offenders are in the live-action adaptations. From “The Last Airbender” to “The Lion King,” we see that the promise of real people playing the roles isn’t enough to elicit the same joy as the originals.

Movies and shows like this tend to rely on nostalgia – a hope that you’ll want to see your favorites in a slightly different way. But with so little change from the original scripts, the studios are asking for comparisons that will never tip in their favor. The key to a good reboot is to establish the new as an addition or a complete overhaul of the old.

Chloe Hannum / DFP Staff

“iCarly” is a good example of a reboot that catered to nostalgia while offering new development to keep people interested in the long run. Rather than remaking the show with new actors filling old roles, the show is set with a majority of the original cast. Combining the goofy antics that have defined the show’s popularity, cameos from former cast members mixed in with new characters and more adult stories, the show does more than hit the reset button.

The “Dexter” reboot also fulfills that same idea of ​​picking up where the show first left off. It attempts this in an even more intriguing way, as “Dexter: New Blood” seeks to alleviate the disappointment felt by many for the show’s original final season.

Another alternative to copy-and-paste rebooting is adaptations. Hollywood’s fear of original content presumably lies in the risk of investing millions of dollars in something it’s not sure people will like. To avoid such a chance, while still providing originality, an increase in adaptations over reboots would be a worthy effort.

Unlike reboots, which require differentiation from their source material if one is to appeal to their audience of choice, adaptations are often celebrated for their precision and originality. Netflix’s hit series ‘Bridgerton’, developed from the book series of the same name, broke the one-week record for most-watched English-language TV series on Netflix with the release of its second season last month. . Fans have acknowledged that the series has started to stray from the book’s path, but given its notable popularity, such freedom has only strengthened its plot.

Adding to the appeal of the adaptations, the lack of originality is not discouraged, but often praised. The promise that book adaptations offer is a viewing experience, not a rejuvenation. I’m still very impressed when the stories of the pages remain intact, retaining the very essence that made them famous in the first place. Series like “The Hunger Games” demonstrate this. When a book is already well written, the challenge is less in creating new stories and more in executing the screen adaptation, making sure you’ve done the original justice.

While it’s ideal to offer resources to new and innovative stories, it’s not realistic for reboots to disappear altogether. If we are to be faced with recycled content, the least producers can do is build on the already living worlds they have become responsible for. Something old can always become new, it’s just a matter of effort and respect.

Christy J. Olson