021: Reboot redux

We're hardwired to love familiar stories. Should we just embrace the unoriginality?

It’s no secret that we’re living in the golden age of remakes and reboots. Familiar characters are being revived and thrust into new storylines (the upcoming Princess Diaries sequel, the recently announced Devil Wears Prada movie), while other new releases are straight adaptations of films or books that already exists — with differing levels of faithfulness to their foundation texts. Austen is a good testing ground for how this varies: see the BBC’s loyalist Pride and Prejudice 1995 series vs Alicia Silverstone’s Clueless (a take on Emma, of course) for a wild pendulum swing. The point being: there are varying degrees of ‘originality’ here — and it’s not always that the most ‘original’ is better for it. Both those examples are brilliant, while on the other hand, the Dakota Johnson-starring version of Persuasion achieved neither featly or crafty re-interpretation. Remakes are not created equal.

Today, we’re talking about how reboot culture took over the industry, whether originality can still play a role in reboots and adaptations… and what originality is, anyway! Let’s get into it.

---

---

Divya: It’s obviously fashionable to eyeroll at reboots and remakes, but I think it’s a bit reductive to say that any film or series that borrows from existing material is… bad. Or even unoriginal.  Even though I am tempted, every time another one is announced, to be like… again? 

Diana: Even the word ‘reboot’ is thrown around like a slur. At least ‘adaptation’ implies that a new piece of art has been created. But reboot makes it sound like you’re making more of the same thing. Like, the Harry Potter warehouse is getting re-stocked!

Divya: I was reading into this: did you know that so many movies that we consider classics are remakes? Scarface, even Ben Hur. Arguably anything inspired by Shakespeare (though I wouldn’t extend the definition that far). So maybe our instinctive gripe with reboots and remakes is just like…. we’ve now been alive long enough to see a full cycle of material? We’re just showing our age. 

Diana: Like we’ve lived long enough to get up to the second lap.

Divya: Although, I do feel like what we’re living through now is more than just a natural generational cycle. This is total saturation.

Diana: Marvel has to be the big culprit here. Like, the idea of a ‘cinematic universe’ has compressed the cycle of renewing things. Now, instead of waiting, like, 20 or 30 years to re-introduce a classic to a new generation, as soon as you’ve had success you can start the spinoffs. Like, it’s only just time for the new Harry Potter but we’ve already had all those horrific Fantastic Beasts prequels.

Eddie your cheekbones could carry this franchise only so far

Actually, as a side note, a friend of mine did point out that Harry Potter will hit differently for a new generation that is aware of JK’s politics. Because the plot of Chamber of Secrets is actually about a giant, evil phallus invading an all-female bathroom.

Divya: Oh my god, I’ve never thought of it like that. I mean HP isn’t a book you’d consider ‘personal’ but it’s so revealing in that it gives you such a clear idea of what its author believes about the world: that there are clear gender binaries, obviously, but also binaries of good/evil, peace/war, bravery/cowardice and that Chinese people can be named Cho Chang.