Remakes vs Reboots vs Sequels

[samsnee]

If you had to pick, which one do you think is the best approach for revisiting a franchise?

Remake: Completely ignores previous films and canon. There may be an Easter Egg nod, but it is a completely new timeline (Robocop, Child's Play)

Reboot: Doesn't completely ignore the previous films as to not upset the fanbase, but isn't beholden to it either. Generally cherry picks what was best from previous films and considers it canon. Technically still in the same universe (The Predator, Star Trek, Halloween)

Sequel: All previous films are canon. The sequel is usually years after the last film. (Star Wars, Indiana Jones)

 

[Teelie]

There is no easy answer to this. Sometimes one or the other works great for a certain franchise.

Ghostbusters remake: bombed
The Thing remake: successful
The Thing prequel: bombed
Star Wars sequels: mixed bag of success and failure
Halloween reboot: successful
Psycho remake: bombed
Star Trek movie franchise... reboot/remake?: mixed bag

It really comes down to how well you make the film.

 

[samsnee]

This is also what the current Misc Films forum looks like so clearly these things aren't going away.

 

[samsnee]

There is no easy answer to this. Sometimes one or the other works great for a certain franchise.

Ghostbusters remake: bombed
The Thing remake: successful
The Thing prequel: bombed
Star Wars sequels: mixed bag of success and failure
Halloween reboot: successful
Psycho remake: bombed
Star Trek movie franchise... reboot/remake?: mixed bag

It really comes down to how well you make the film.

That last statement is true of any movie. But I guess my question is more geared toward, do you try to "fix" a franchise and make it better, or do you just trash everything, even the good stuff?

A good example would be the new Batman movie they are now making. Rumor is it will feature a young Batman, so is it better to try not to pigeonhole it into the DCEU version of Affleck's Batman?

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

There is no easy answer to this. Sometimes one or the other works great for a certain franchise.

Ghostbusters remake: bombed
The Thing remake: successful
The Thing prequel: bombed
Star Wars sequels: mixed bag of success and failure
Halloween reboot: successful
Psycho remake: bombed
Star Trek movie franchise... reboot/remake?: mixed bag

It really comes down to how well you make the film.

This, exactly.

 

[Teelie]

That last statement is true of any movie. But I guess my question is more geared toward, do you try to "fix" a franchise and make it better, or do you just trash everything, even the good stuff?

A good example would be the new Batman movie they are now making. Rumor is it will feature a young Batman, so is it better to try not to pigeonhole it into the DCEU version of Affleck's Batman?

The DCEU is a mess and has been since before the first movie even filmed.

Every franchise needs to be seen on its own terms. The DCEU should scrap Justice League from their canon and keep Wonder Woman, Aquaman and make this new Batman a part of a better, more coherently written DCEU that isn't so fractured.

On the other hand, Star Wars already retconned their entire EU from existence with TFA and TLJ to mixed results. Some of what they removed was so much better (no one can reasonably say the Thrawn Trilogy isn't superior to the first two sequels under Disney) but they also removed a lot of terrible, terrible canon from their universe in doing so.

That reminds me too of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise which has been continuously rebooted successfully over the course of 30 years. Not all of their reboots were a hit with every audience but they had an audience for every one of them.

 

[Dr.]

The Thing remake: successful

Well... “success” should be qualified. Nowadays, Carpenter’s remake is very highly regarded. But back in 1982, the movie was deemed a box office failure and almost universally panned (reviled even) by critics.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Well... “success” should be qualified. Nowadays, Carpenter’s remake is very highly regarded. But back in 1982, the movie was deemed a box office failure and almost universally panned (reviled even) by critics.

That's kinda the thing people don't consider. Time. It changes our perspective on what does and doesn't work. On that basis alone, it's pretty much impossible to say what definitively is the best route.

 

[-JKR-]

Depends on the remake, reboot, sequel.

 

[-JKR-]

Depends on the remake, reboot, sequel.
I don't have any preference for either, as long as the filmmakers are free to express themselves and to try new stuff with each new movie.

 

[Herofan]

If a movie is good enough and the story interesting enough to make a next movie, it's good enough that that next movie actually follows it. Though of course there have been good and bad of all kinds, I think sequels tend to be a lot better, at least more enjoyable, than the others, there have been quite a few good or better sequels, fewer really good remakes, very few good or really good reboots, too often they remakes or reboots are really just more of the same and/or different for the worse.

 

[newfoundlander]

I tend to like soft reboots myself. I think theyre the most respectful of the remake, reboot, etc. I think those are gonna start turning into RebQuels.. kinda like the newer Halloween. Thats probably the next trend.

I think at the end of the day any of them can work. It depends on the movie in question and what the writers/directors decide to do with it.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Ideally sequel, but sometimes the franchise is in such disarray that starting over fresh is the best option. A sequel to a film like Fant4stic has no hope.The foundation is just too bad. But unless there is good reason to reboot, it shouldn't be done. Sony made a big mistake rebooting Spider-Man after the Raimi films and killed the golden goose. So it depends on the circumstances.

 

[Batmannerism]

Ideally sequel, but sometimes the franchise is in such disarray that starting over fresh is the best option. A sequel to a film like Fant4stic has no hope.The foundation is just too bad. But unless there is good reason to reboot, it shouldn't be done. Sony made a big mistake rebooting Spider-Man after the Raimi films and killed the golden goose. So it depends on the circumstances.

THAT ! This is a deceptively complex question because of the variety of success..

Batman Begins - best reboot ever

Terminator 2, Mad Max Fury Road, Dark Knight - best sequels ever

King Kong, Scarface, The Magnificent 7, Fistful of dollars - best remakes.

And then there's the failures..sigh.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

If you had to pick, which one do you think is the best approach for revisiting a franchise?

Remake: Completely ignores previous films and canon. There may be an Easter Egg nod, but it is a completely new timeline (Robocop, Child's Play)

Reboot: Doesn't completely ignore the previous films as to not upset the fanbase, but isn't beholden to it either. Generally cherry picks what was best from previous films and considers it canon. Technically still in the same universe (The Predator, Star Trek, Halloween)

Sequel: All previous films are canon. The sequel is usually years after the last film. (Star Wars, Indiana Jones)

Not sure I understand you're criteria here for the categories. Especially when talking about franchise genre films.

 

[Flash525]

Completely dependant on the film(s) really. If the originals are old enough, then great, otherwise I'd rather they didn't. There was a rumour not so long ago that there were thoughts to remaking PoTC, and there was nothing drastically wrong with the existing films - they're not that old either.

Others, like Kong, Godzilla, Star Trek (I feel) worked, even though Trek received mixed reviews. Bumblebee was a relaunch/reboot that I thought worked really well too. Sequels are a tricky one, as it typically depends on the length of time between them, and whether they add to the story at all.

Good Reboots: Star Trek, Kong - Skull Island, It
Bad Reboots: The Mummy, Ghostbusters,
Good Remakes: Wonder Woman, Spiderman - Homecoming, Planet of the Apes (the latest trilogy)
Bad Remakes: Clash of the Titans, Conan the Barbarian,
Good Sequels/Prequels: Pirates of the Caribbean, Rush Hour, Winter Soldier (Captain America 2)
Bad Sequels/Prequels: Dumber & Dumberer, Starship Troopers 2/3, Terminator Salvation