Reboot or Remake?

[CatInASuit]

In keeping with the current hollywood tradition of rebooting its franchises for modern audiences instead of remaking them?

Which is best for a film?

To try and remake the earlier film, the same characters, roughly the same plot and updated for modern audiences or to try and put a new twist on it, ignore what had gone before and set sout your own story.

Does it matter which method should be chosen or in the end does it come down to just how good the resulting film is?

I'm thinking along the lines of the Batman reboot being well-received, though all the films are worth watching, the first two from Burton and the current Noel films. But the Superman reboot went nowhere and doesn't stand to the Donner film.

But then, I can't see how you could reboot or remake any of the Indy Jones movies So what do you think?

[What Exit?]

Star Trek worked well enough, let's see what #2 brings.

Bond has been well received though I am not a fan of the new ones.

Indy, Aliens, Ghostbusters probably wouldn't work.

Terminator could reboot I think, I would be a fan I suspect but a reboot even makes sense in the parameters of the world created.

Maybe a Thin Man reboot could work, the die hard fans like myself are fairly small in numbers and a really deft hand could maybe pull it off.

Lethal weapon could reboot but I don't see it being worth doing.

How many old franchises are worth touching at all?
Flint, Matt Helm? I think not.

Some of the old detectives could work like Sherlock has. Mike Hammer could work.

[OneCentStamp]

I'd rather watch a reboot than something intended to be a faithful remake - even if I dislike the actual results of the reboot.

[Zuul]

But the Superman reboot went nowhere and doesn't stand to the Donner film.

Superman Returns was meant as an "alternate sequel" to Superman and Superman II. So it was something like a half reboot.

And really not terribly done at all. My brother and I spent most of the movie cracking jokes. At the end of it, somehow Superman's son had become "Super Pickle" in our narrative.

[parzival]

After seeing the recent Muppet Movie, I wonder if there should be a third term - the "revival". Bringing back an old franchise not so much to build a new one on its ashes but to either revel in/cash in on nostalgia. It'd apply to most of the TV shows that got movies* and is not always unnecessary.

While acknowledging that Everything is a Remix, I'm not a fan of remakes that only try to marginally improve on the best version to date. I also don't see a whole lot of point in a 'reboot' if it's trying to build a new story with modified characters, such as the Star Trek movie.

Some franchises built around a character might be okay to reboot. James Bond I consider an exception, because every movie is essentially a remake. Even the unofficial Bond movie that is an actual remake of a Bond film feels just as fresh as any of the others.

*But not all: See Angels, Charlie's or Impossible, Mission.

[What Exit?]

The Muppet movie is a great revival, it helps that Muppets don't age. The Scooby Doo Revival (cartoon version) was well done and there has been 3 or 4 new series now since Cartoon Network resurrected the dead franchise in the 90s.

"Untouchables" has got to be the best movie base on a show and the movie is an all time great and the show was well to be nice, dated beyond hope. "The Avengers" movie is probably the worst move based on a show and the show was pretty awesome, especially for the time.

I love the Doctor Who revival and it is a revival indeed. Again, it helps in revivals when the characters have ways not to age. Though bringing Sarah Jane back a few times was genius. The WKRP revival in the late 80s was dreck. Of course the main characters were all missing so it was more like "After M*A*S*H".