Rebooting isn’t just for computer geeks (Mo’ Money II)

Now there’s gonna be a new “Ghostbusters”?!?!?!? When will this stop? Just once–once!–I’d like to see the studios come up with a fresh idea for a movie. But that would require a time machine and a trip back to 1955. Hey, that’s an idea–why not a “Back To the Future” sequel?

Or should I say ‘reboot?’

That’s the latest buzzword in Hollywood. Studios are no longer making sequels–they’re ‘rebooting’ franchises. After the critical and commercial success of “Casino Royale” and “Batman Begins,” Hollywood is looking to reboot any franchise that had a successful run. Marvel felt compelled to reboot the Hulk a mere three years after the first one was considered a bust (proof that there’s justice in the world: the 2008 edition made just as much money as the 2005 version).

Hollywood thinks moviegoers are suckers. The suits believe if they attach the world ‘reboot’ to a franchise, they’ll get people to flock to a tired franchise no one cares about. But it takes more than calling a film a reboot to make a franchise relevant again. The reason “Batman Begins” was successful was because it was a good movie. I say this being a well-known Batman basher (I always thought it was unrealistic to accept one man could accomplish as much as he did without the aid of any superpowers). Christopher Nolan made the franchise grittier and took out the cartoonish elements. “Batman Begins” was a success because it was a good movie.

Same could be said for “Casino Royale”–its appeal was being a well-made movie. The reboot aspect barely factored into the film. Hell, with the exception of bringing back the armless Felix Leiter in “Casino Royale” there was nothing about that movie that really said it was a reboot. Besides, I generally considered all Bond movies to be separate, independent films. If you wanna argue reboot, the franchise was rebooted each time they casted a new Bond (which would explain why Joe Don Baker can play a villain in one film and a hero in three others).

Rebooting is all the rage. I even saw the word ‘reboot’ attached to the new Terminator movie coming out next summer. I’m not sure why it would be classified as a reboot–it’s merely continuing the story where the last film left off. The fact that Warner Bros. is promoting the film as a reboot shows you exactly how much weight that word carries nowadays.

“The Punisher” is being rebooted…even though the first film seemed to be heading in the right direction for a potential franchise. Warner Bros wants to reboot Superman despite all the hype and promotion that went into the 2006 film. Do the studios think we have short memories? Or maybe that’s the problem: because we didn’t like “The Hulk” or “Superman Returns” maybe rebooting is just another way to con us into seeing sequels (as if somehow the public would sour on sequels).

I thought sequels were bad enough. It felt like Hollywood was turning to sequels because no one was smart enough to come up with any new ideas. At least a sequel required a new story; a reboot is merely a new telling of an old story. Everyone knows the origins of Superman: it doesn’t take much talent to turn that tale into a 120 minute script. “Superman Returns” might not’ve been great–but at least it was original. I’ll be damned if I’m gonna pay ten bucks and waste two hours of my life to learn mild-manner reporter Clark Kent is really an alien form the planet Krypton.

Man, I hate the movie business.