I happened upon a TV trailer the other day and commented to my husband, “Hey, John Carpenter did this one in the 1980s already; it was called ‘The Thing.’” And lo and behold, the title comes up and it was, indeed, a reboot of “The Thing” franchise. From the looks of it, it’s the exact same “Thing,” which is the problem.
Hollywood is eco-conscience, so at least it’s consistent with its philosophy of reduce, reuse, recycle – rehash. I’m not against remaking (or the euphemism “re-imagining”) films. Some properties were never fully realized in their original release and deserve better. Take “Logan’s Run.” Great idea, poorly executed in the 1970s, when the future meant wearing a jumpsuit. I look forward to the Ryan Gosling and Nicolas Winding Refn vision, as long as it’s radically different than its predecessor.
And that is my point. When a trailer is selling me on a remake or a revamping of a franchise, I want to see a bold new vision for the material, not an imitation of an original. The John Carpenter version of “The Thing” was, itself, a new take on the 1951 Howard Hawks film “The Thing from Another World.” This 2011 version is selling a first-time director, who seems to be imitating John Carpenter. Imitation may be a sincere form of flattery, but like imitation diet food, it leaves you wanting. I need more than John Carpenter-lite to get me into the theater.
But the directors, in these cases, aren’t always the ones at fault for a derivative vision of a film. The studio and production companies behind the remake are often the issue. It takes bold leadership from producers to allow real artists to take charge of an established property. It’s much easier to get a director who’s a “yes” man (or, much less often, a “yes” woman) and say, “Do it different, but mostly the same.”
Often, this is a first-time director, who’s excited to get any feature at all and doesn’t put up much resistance to the strategy. It’s a cheap strategy to implement, without a lot of money spent on development for the story or vision and most of the money can be put into production value – good for profit margins, bad for the art form.
Reboots and remakes can be quite wonderful and bring in blockbuster profits when in the right hands. Christopher Nolan’s “Batman” films and Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” immediately come to mind. In the wrong hands, mediocre efforts make mediocre profits (think the recent “Fame” and “FrightNight” remakes.) With access to instant information, consumers are getting ever more savvy to shoddy efforts released in theaters; note the lack of attendance to poor 3D transfers. Hopefully, producers will start to realize that we live in an era when we’re either old enough to remember the original or have access to Netflix. We know when we’re being sold the same thing.
Gina Hall is a writer/producer with more than 10 years experience in television, documentary and feature film production. She is a graduate of USC’s school of Cinematic Arts and lives in Los Angeles. Follow her on Twitter @GScottEnt.