ReImagining

[redmarvel]

Movies that take the name of an old film and it's Plot and repurpose or reimagine it.

Do you think this is a good idea or Stinks to high heaven?

Spoiler

I haven't seen Disney's "Adventures in Babysitting" yet and don't really want to - I'm biased. They could have easily given it a different name like "Babysitting Adventures" since they're giving it a totally different spin.

 

[Kyle]

I love re-imaginings a lot better than remakes.

Spoiler

Those being very iconic ones. It forces/allows the creative team to completely do their own thing and go in their own direction rather than trying to recreate the original beat by beat with only some creative freedoms allowed. Sometimes reboots are both and you can see this beyond easily where gates were thrust up - take Rob Zombie's 'Halloween' for example. The first part of that film was a very intriguing and original character study, the likes of which we rarely get to see in horror films. The second part of the film, where it becomes the classic 'Halloween' film is a disappointment in comparison, but it's not hard to fathom a guest why. In the first part, Rob Zombie was allowed to go crazy and do whatever he wanted - in the second part, he had to turn in a remake.

I'd say superhero film "do-overs" are more akin to re-imaginings than they are to reboots as well since the creative team behind it isn't aiming to do the same old original story - rather taking an idea in a completely new direction. Although it gets into trickier grounds here. I'd say Nolan's Batman films since the go against the grain and against the execution of every Batman film prior, he didn't just aim to update it - he aimed to completely revolutionize the way superhero films are approached in terms of favoring reality over stylization and "camp" (for lack of a better term). On the other hand 'The Amazing Spider-Man' I'd say is more of a reboot since it had in general the same basic approach and it told the same exact story basically just with a different villain.

Easiest way to define this with Amazing Spider-Man and 2 hypothetical films:

Spider-Man Remake: An 18 year old gets bit by a radioactive spider, becomes friends/enemies with the father of his best friend the Green Goblin.
Spider-Man Reboot: A 17 year old gets bit by a radioactive spider, becomes friends/enemies with the scientist partner of his father The Lizard.
Spider-Man Re-Imagining: A 17 year old gets caught in a horrible radioactive accident, now he must stop an alien menace from destroying NYC known as Venom.

 

[Jochimus]

I don't necessarily have a problem with reimagining, IF there's a genuine, definitive and consistent purpose AND execution to it, and it doesn't go out of its way to completely invalidate the original, even if the content isn't the same/not the same continuity or the newer puts a mirror to said themes to show a more opposing effect.

I love re-imaginings a lot better than remakes.

Spoiler

Those being very iconic ones. It forces/allows the creative team to completely do their own thing and go in their own direction rather than trying to recreate the original beat by beat with only some creative freedoms allowed. Sometimes reboots are both and you can see this beyond easily where gates were thrust up - take Rob Zombie's 'Halloween' for example. The first part of that film was a very intriguing and original character study, the likes of which we rarely get to see in horror films. The second part of the film, where it becomes the classic 'Halloween' film is a disappointment in comparison, but it's not hard to fathom a guest why. In the first part, Rob Zombie was allowed to go crazy and do whatever he wanted - in the second part, he had to turn in a remake.

I'd say superhero film "do-overs" are more akin to re-imaginings than they are to reboots as well since the creative team behind it isn't aiming to do the same old original story - rather taking an idea in a completely new direction. Although it gets into trickier grounds here. I'd say Nolan's Batman films since the go against the grain and against the execution of every Batman film prior, he didn't just aim to update it - he aimed to completely revolutionize the way superhero films are approached in terms of favoring reality over stylization and "camp" (for lack of a better term). On the other hand 'The Amazing Spider-Man' I'd say is more of a reboot since it had in general the same basic approach and it told the same exact story basically just with a different villain.

Pretty much all this.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

I think a Re-Imagining, if done right of course, can be a breath of fresh air.
Revisiting the same old origin of a character time & time again is boring.
I'm not saying totally disregard his /her origin & make up a new origin all together.

I just mean, let's use Batman as an example for his origin.
We know who he is.
We know why he became who he is.
We know how he becomes who he is.
We don't need to sit through or waste 30 minutes of every movie he is in re-hashing that.
If his origin is changed or altered slightly , like how he trained to become Batman [being trained by ninjas in the Himilayas] , then that is a welcome change that is fresh and I applaud.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

most stories borrow pilots/themes from other sources

so, I give credit to reimaginings for at least owning up to it, instead of trying to pass it off as an original concept