For the past few years, almost every film & TV franchise has been "brought back to life" in the form of a new movie or television adaptation. But many fans say that these new productions lack the qualities that made the original works special to begin with, and thus these newer adaptations tend to lose viewers shortly after the initial premiere. But why is that? Why is there such a poor reception to these revivals? I'll walk you through it, but there was something that made these old films and shows special, so recreating that has evidently been a challenge, particularly when faced with writing for beloved characters; though there are solutions to improve these works into the watch-worthy entertainment they wish to be.
Defining What Made These Shows/Movies Special
Many people say that new reboots lack the heart of the original shows and films that made it worth watching to begin with. What is this unspoken quality? I need to define what made the original pieces so special so that we can spot exactly what went wrong with the reboots.
Nostalgia
Many of these shows are nostalgic, set mostly in the 80s and 90s, they bring us a lot of comfort, that perhaps new shows simply cannot. One thing we should acknowledge is the age when we were watching these shows and films, and the way in which we navigated our world. Watching Full House after school felt so light because I was a child and only had a few lines of writing for homework. My life was simple, so I attach the memories and feelings of watching Full House to the show itself. While for my parents' generation, despite them being adults, things likely seemed easier then compared to now. It was the age before knee and back pain, when their children were young and enjoying their childhood. These shows also remind us of a time when many of our current geo-political issues had not yet bubbled up to the surface the way they unavoidably have today.
Light, Comedic Quality
Full House, Saved By the Bell, Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, That 70's Show, Boy Meets World, How I Met Your Mother; all of these series have received reboots, but what else do they all have in common? They were all comedies. Light, feel-good shows with dynamic characters who not only made people laugh, but made viewers invested in their stories. All of these shows also feature the dreaded laugh track/live audience. These shows were intended for viewers to come home from a long day, shut their brain off and laugh. This is evident in the audiences' reactions, but even with a laugh track, the writers/producers are indicating that the audience at home should laugh. So, when we think of these shows, we're trained to think of laughing, even if we ourselves didn't laugh. And when we feel a positive emotion, we hold onto that and understandably search for more of it. There are many series and movies being rebooted that didn't have laugh tracks, and were not comedies. but a lot of this still stands. Its a safe feeling we are trying to recreate for ourselves.
Balancing Comedy with Important Messages
While not all of these movies and shows were comedies, many still held important messages and lessons that helped kids and adults alike. For instance, TV's dad, Danny Tanner (Full House) would wrap up the episode with a slightly emotional parenting / growing up lesson for his daughters, and hug it out. In The Karate Kid, Mr. Miyagi brought balance and calm to Daniel's life- many of us saw ourselves as the underdog, Daniel Larusso and felt more confident and capable after seeing him win the All Valley. An important lesson from the third movie, Mr. Miyagi's wise words "It's ok to lose to opponent, must never lose to fear." This phrase has helped me in my real life, and resulted in me making real tangible positive changes in my life. Thats the kind of impact that these movies and shows make on people's lives. There were also serious messages in these shows that helped to educate people. In an episode of Full House, Kimmy goes to a party, gets intoxicated, attempts to leave with a drunk driver, but thankfully DJ takes her home safely. DJ has an important sit down talk with her about her mother's death due to a drunk driver, something that is very sensitive, but especially important for young viewers to understand. This was a serious issue, but the writers were able to reach a young audience with the message. I'll never forget the episode of Fresh Prince when the Banks family is accused of stealing a car because of racial profiling and discrimination. One of the most memorable moments from Saved by the Bell is "I'm so excited", Jesse's caffeine pill addiction, and Zac stepping in as a friend to help her turn things around and offer support. This wasn't a light topic, but viewers saw that there are people willing to help, and that their favourite characters go through hard times too.
These shows are balancing comedy, and having characters go through deeply human and painful situations. These characters are quite complex for sitcoms. These special episodes though, were not gruesome, and somehow at the end of the episode we felt comforted, because it was wrapped up with a bow (which yes may not be realistic, but this serves as escapism for us), and the episode's conflict was resolved, and we could complete the episode knowing our favourite characters are okay.
The Problem Now with Reboots
With the premiere of these shows are the reaction from fans - its starts out as some worry, a protectiveness over a familiar set of characters, then excitement, some appreciation, followed by criticism. Some showrunners claim its aversion to progress, but is that true, or is all of the critiscm justified? Diving into the issues found with these reboots, there is ample evidence that more consideration should be put into these projects. Particularly, there is a lack of the original cast in these reboots, writers blatant intent to veer off of source material and make beloved characters act out of their given nature; and beyond this, writers attempting to retroactively contradict (known as retcon) the original piece's work, and change the predecessor's franchise itself fundamentally.
Key Characters Missing
The characters are half of what makes a series or movie worth watching. There are story-focused moments, but then character-driven pieces and parts that are integral to establishing pathos for the characters who are experiencing the events of the story. In doing this, the stakes are actually raised for the audience, because they don't only care about the events taking place, but the outcome matters because of who it is happening to (example: Scream, Drew Barrymore's opening scene vs Neve Campbell's Sydney fighting off her attackers at the end of the film) . There have been many revivals of shows without the core cast, or missing only specific actors. Some series choose to use the format of a revolving door of character, such as Degrassi. There are new "students" every few years and new students are introduced gradually. It's a little more shocking when theres one set of characters and stories, and there is an abrupt change in casting. Fans often wonder where characters ended up after the finale and are eager to find out with the start of the reboot, but when these characters are then nowhere to be found, and rarely ever mentioned, it seems like a completely different show; the only thing they have in common is the show's premise and title (see How I Met Your Father). Would Goldilocks & The Three Bears be the same without Goldilocks herself and the Three bears? (the answer is no, and its ridiculous even if i may be grasping at straws). It sort of cheapens things and makes the show feel hollow, so of course it can't live up to the original in this case.
Character Assassination Through Writing
On the other side of this coin, when a rebooted show or film chooses to include the original characters, often fans feel protective of them on or off screen. This explains the previous issue - some writers would rather exclude beloved characters than tarnish them in the revival. Writing for an already existing character is hard, especially because their qualities did not come from you, and the actions they've previously taken were not from your own imagination, so there is reason to be challenged and have to imagine what these characters would do moving forward. Some writers have had success in this though and have found grounding qualities of characters that stay true to the source material (see Full House - Kimmy still has her quirks, but is a grown-up version of herself, a little silly, but ultimately responsible as a mother). Some on the other hand, have had to find their footing in writing for another writer's characters, and end up making them do things that are very unlike the character that we had come to know and love (see Cobra Kai - Daniel Larusso being violent, and somewhat full of himself, going against fundamentals that he believed in with and without Miyagi).
Retcon - Changing the Original Story
In the same vein of veering off of the source material, going one step further is what many writers have done with their new productions of beloved series and films. When trying to re-invent something, its a good idea to breathe new life into it, and maybe add on another perspective, like prequels that give extra context and character development (see Monsters University). But there are risks, such as trying to retcon, and change the original story itself, rather than give a different perspective on the same tale. Re-writing the past is not only something that fans and critics disapprove of, but it doesn't help to move the story along, and it comes off as lazy. This is especially prevalent in reworks that are written by people with a bias for certain characters and agendas. One prime (yet awful) example is Cobra Kai. The writers/showrunners are self-proclaimed fanboys, but appear to be open about the fact that they are fans of Johnny Lawrence and Cobra Kai alone - the main antagonists of the first film. While it is interesting to redeem a villain, or give perspective on their experience, it becomes a jarring viewing experience when the writing makes it evident that they do not garner the same respect for Daniel Larusso, or even Mr. Miyagi, the main characters in all 3 films (I'll be writing a post on my issues with Cobra Kai later on). Trying to add onto characters' backgrounds in this series was interesting when it was Johnny Lawrence, but the new season has been trying to add onto Mr. Miyagi's character to make him "flawed and complex" but it comes off as disrespectful especially when the actor and character have passed on (and again, does not do anything to drive the plot forward, this is character-based). Changing things about this character will potentially change the way people watch the original film, with these negative qualities in mind, which should not be the intention of a reboot - it should be about moving forward with existing characters, and building on stories that people know and enjoy. Not slandering the name of a character that cannot defend himself.
It's plain to see that characters are a major factor in the creation (and subsequently the success) of a project and thus should be handled with more care. These characters are known and loved by audiences, so they should be included, they should be acting within their established character, and their past should not be overwritten. Characters are important, and these shows and reboots are a chance for them to simply shine in a new light, be loved again by a bigger, newer audience, and develop further and continue their story. It's not about changing their legacy, but adding to it, and that should be the goal with reboots.
What Should Be Done?
Studios in hollywood are not always keen on following the advice of their audience, but here it would greatly benefit them. There needs to be more care and consideration not just for the fans, but for the sake of the work and the longevity of the series/film. In order to create a better revival, there should be smaller, non-Hollywood writers involved to help to ensure good writing; market research should be done prior to airing; and if fundamental changes are made in the industry, these projects can have real artistic purpose - by limiting the amount of reboots, its plausible that only the best would get made, focusing a great deal of effort on one project.
Market Research
Market research is essentially finding out what consumers think of your product before the launch. This would be looking at the gap in the market that this new product/service may be able to fill and correcting other businesses' shortcomings in one's own product. It'd be a good idea for these executives and creative teams to take a look at online communities that discuss these films and series. Tumblr would be a great source, as its format is mainly textposts, as well as Reddit threads, though information gathered from any platform can be helpful. An important aspect of market research is to show the series to a "test audience" (what's known in business as a focus group) who watch the first episode, and give feedback to the directive/ creative team, before the show is premiered to the rest of the world. This gives the creators an opportunity to rectify mistakes in the production before more criticsm is attached to the show or film. It would be a good idea for showrunners to be in touch with what fans are thinking, by paying attention to valid criticism (not just blatant hate online), taking into account what viewers like about characters and storylines, even taking into consideration their hopes and wishes for their favourite characters. Consider this; fans are paying careful attention to these characters' behaviours, and are thinking about them far more than most studio execs are. Their input is more valuable than networks are willing to admit. (After promos for the live action Sonic movie released, the animation team quickly changed Sonic's design due to the public mocking and relentless memes on Twitter.)
Creative Teams
An important aspect of creating a reboot is the creative team. I believe a way to improve the quality of these shows and films is to hire independent/smaller writers. These writers are still in the early stages of their careers, trying to prove themselves as talented, valuable writers and are often more in touch with their artistic purpose and integrity. Smaller writers who have passion projects are not often concerned with the "bottom line" which is a very corporate, profit-centered tactic used by major studios, which feels far from the origins of the works that they are now bringing back. These writers who will be hired based on merit will have a better understanding of things like world building and character development. The writing team should also be a diverse one - we need writers who know how to write female characters; as people with the same nuance and compassion given to male characters. It is beyond outdated, it's blatant disrespect for women onscreen to be treated soley as accessories and love interests to the male protagonsits. Ensuring the team of writers is prepared to handle these kinds of issues is crucial in order to breathe new life into an old series.
Industry Changes and Restrictions
Changing the format of these reboots is difficult, because not only do viewers have limited control, but I believe a lot of the change needed is within the industry itself and the way these projects get green-lit. Most people have noticed the numerous reboots coming out at all in succession of each other which feels artificial and the pace at which these are released comes off as a money-grab more than anything. A solution for anything that is happening in excess is to set limits. Limiting the amount of reboots that can come out per year would potentially get studios to focus their resources and energy into one or two quality shows or movies, rather than pumping out multiple mediocre reboots. These kinds of restrictions could be possible, as seen (or rather heard) in Canadian radio, there is a minimum amount of radio time allotted for Canadian music, to ensure that the radio is not only playing American artists. So in turn, creating a rule in film involving a maximum limit (rather than minimum) of something is not inconceivable. This would also give opportunity for new and original ideas to take precedent in Hollywood.
These changes may be diffcult to carry out, but as long as viewers stay attentive to the content they consume, we stand a chance to improve the quality of film and television moving forward. It would be helpful for there to be market research, more intentional creative teams, and restrictions on the amount of re-used projects to be aired consecutively. These studios make billions of dollars from the audience, so its time the audience has more control over what appears on our screens. Turn it off when it feels inauthentic. Criticise. Be aware of what you are consuming, and don't take lightly to bad messaging in film/tv scripts. These works exist to entertain YOU. Not the other way around. Take control of the tv. We can't control the fact that they want money - but we can control where our money goes.
Conclusion
So as reboots continue to be made, we're finding ways to navigate that artistically, and as viewers. We can remember how much these franchises meant to us in their inception and what made them special, while holding the reiterations to a high standard, and trying to make changes for future works. These films and shows cash in on the original nostalgia factor, their feel-good quality that existed even after real-world issues were addressed. These feelings are positive for us, so understandably, we can't stand to see our favourite characters who brought us these warm fuzzies be defamed for the sake of grand profits on a new show. The characters being excluded, written out of character and slandered for their younger self's actions remove the opportunity to develop these characters in a fruitful way that serves the original story. To protect the legacy of these films and series, a creative team may want to involve trial audiences, and curate a team that is prepared to take on this type of challenge, and for the future it is time to make fundamental changes in the system that is major studios in Hollywood. Not only for us, but for future generations who will inevitably be seeing promos for the thousandth Star Wars spin-off. This entire issue amounts to these reboots not living up to their predecessors, or even their promises for the new iteration. It's an unsurprising result after witnessing the recycling of ideas in a lazy attempt to gain profit through "old reliable", without offering anything of creative value. Ultimately, this is not about one or two reboots; but the art of filmmaking and storytelling.
TLDR:
The original films and shows were and still are popular for a reason
nostalgia for a simpler time
light-hearted, feel-good quality
ability to connect with audiences on a human level
The problems exist in new spin-offs in:
the exclusion of main characters/cast without explanation
characters acting unlike themselves (poor writing)
writers trying to retcon the original story to serve their bias
Solutions
market research
team of independent/small writers to ensure quality scripts
changes in the industry - limit the amount of reboots allowed to air per year
Comments