Hollywood’s Reboot Mania

Hollywood has entered a vicious circle. One of reboots and remakes because, apparently, no one can think of anything original anymore. Should Hollywood really be so desperate to try and leech off the success of old shows and movies? Is there something I’m missing here? Because, let’s be honest, the success rate has been less than stellar for the majority of these remakes. Let’s take a little walk-through:


In recent years superheroes have been Hollywood’s big thing, which I’ll admit that I love. The success of the Dark Knight series and Ironman have been welcomed by nerds all over the world, but why so many reboots? Fantastic Four was only launched as a movie in 2005 and had it’s sequel, Rise of the Silver Surfer, two years later, but a relaunch is already in the works and set for 2013. Isn’t that kind of soon? Superman Returns was only released in 2006 but the reboot, Man of Steel, is also slated for a 2013 release. You could make a somewhat valid argument for both movies to relaunch, don’t get me wrong. For instance, you can’t have the same guy play both The Human Torch and Captain America (valid point, but hardly a reason for complete reboot), or that Superman Returns was really a continuation of the old Christopher Reeves movies while Man of Steel is supposed to be starting fresh. Again, valid point. But where’s the excuse for Spider-man? It all just seems too soon.


Now what about movies like Star Trek and Transformers? Okay, Star Trek was everything trekkies have been dreaming about for years, no doubt. I had several nerdgasms when I first saw it and approve of everything J.J. Abrams did with Star Trek. Transformers is a similar story, but that’s because J.J. and Michael Bay are nerds themselves and dedicated to making the things they loved as kids into something people of the 21^st century can continue to enjoy. But then there are movies like G.I. Joe and The Smurfs, which failed on so many levels. Why? Because they were out to make money rather than keep things interesting for fans.


But enough about movies, let’s look at television. Have you heard that Hollywood is remaking the 80’s drama Beauty and the Beast? You know, the one with Linda Hamilton. Yeah. Why are they doing that now? Of all shows you chose to reboot from the 80’s you pick Beauty and the Beast? Don’t get me wrong, I have a special place in my heart for that show, but seriously. What about shows like Moonlighting or Family Ties? Both great shows that people would love to see again. Hawaii Five-0 and Thundercats are showing quite a bit of success because of good writing, but I shudder to think what will become of Beauty and the Beast because Battlestar Galactica it is not. Especially if they do to it what they did to Strawberry Shortcake (you know, completely destroy and bastardize it). I thank my lucky stars no one has tried to do the same to Rainbow Brite, and we can only be grateful that no one picked up on the reboot of Wonder Woman, which was sure to be a complete disaster based on what was surfing around the internet.


When it comes down to it it makes perfect sense to reboot something for a new generation, or even remaking a successful foreign film with American actors, but at what point does the process become too much? Hollywood seems to be grasping at straws, very thin ones at that, to get any little piece of popularity that once was into modern day TV or film. What’s next? Classics like The Big Lebowski or The Godfather? Maybe Enter the Dragon or Gone With the Wind, or if they’re really feeling frisky then maybe Billy Madison or Tank Girl. Heck, I’ll admit that I’d watch a remake of Murder She Wrote if they did it right. But therein lies the problem: doing it right. We’ve seen the massive failures of some shoddily thrown together movie that someone had a great idea for but then left it in the hands of people who had no idea what the original idea was, or thought that their idea (which had very little to do with the original other than characters) was so much better.  It seems Evil Dead will be getting the rebooting experience soon as well.  Here’s to hoping they keep it campy and fun and don’t completely destroy a cult classic.

Posted by Nerd Boy Wonder 18 September Permalink

Batman Begins/ The Dark Knight: The Mantle

Last week, I talked about the fact that the Batman movies have roots in deeper levels of human understanding and this week I continue on that path with the idea of ‘The Mantle’. The Mantle is referenced both covertly and overtly within both movies and bears discussing because there is a heroic mantle of the man who will bring Gotham peace and justice, and a more sinister mantle that will devolve Gotham into Chaos.

The mantle of Batman starts not with Bruce, but his father. Thomas Wayne and his wife strived to use their riches to make Gotham a better place. It is rare that we see what exactly Martha did, but Thomas was a doctor and left WayneCorp (the company that helped Gotham) to “better men”, a fact that young Bruce has a problem believing, as he looks up to his father.

Tracing the roots back further, we later find out that Bruce’s family was involved in the underground railroad. The first movie makes lot of reference to the Wayne name and how much it means when in fact, it’s never been about the name.  As both Bruce and Alfred later realize, it’s about the meaning OF that name.

Interesting enough, Wayne is the prominent force in Batman Begins and Batman the name is the force in The Dark Knight. In this film, we realize that it’s not Batman’s name that means something.  It’s what he is accomplishing. But why does Bruce do these things?

Thomas Wayne was a doctor and a healer and wished to help people.  That lesson seems to resonate in Bruce, as shown in the flashback to Thomas letting Bruce listen to his heart. The death of Thomas rattled him so much he wanted nothing but vengeance and to cleanse the world of Joe Chill, but Rachel snaps Bruce out of that mindset when she reminds him, “your father would be ashamed of you.” Bruce already knew he wasn’t living to his fathers ideal, but he thought still he was doing the right thing. Now knowing that he was wrong, he journeys to find his path, but becomes lost.

It is with Ducard that Bruce finds his way, but he hasn’t forgotten the lesson of his father. He will not kill, he will not violate the one rule that most doctors, Thomas Wayne included, find sacred. He is seen as foolish for being compassionate, but that was what Bruce’s father was. Later, Ra’s al Ghul belittles Thomas’ compassion as idealism, but it in fact strengthens Bruce’s resolve to know that he WILL defend Gotham. His father stood between a gunman and him and Bruce stands between the scum of Gotham and Gotham itself.

Bruce chooses the symbol of the bat to do his nightly masquerade of taking it to the criminal empire, but it’s the mission that makes him really take up the mantle of the Wayne legacy. He will not kill, he will help those that cannot help themselves. It’s told by Alfred that the death of the Wayne’s shocked the powerful into action and Bruce decides to use the bat personna to shock the people into action. It works, as we see in The Dark Knight.

The Dark Knight shows two versions of the bat mantle being lifted. We have the Sons of Batmen, who take the more vigilante aspect of the mission, and Harvey Dent, who goes after criminals using the law. It should be noted that Bruce respects the law more than vigilance. In fact, he actively seeks to end his own vigilance because he sees it as a temporary thing.

Many comic fans have a problem with the idea that Batman doesn’t want to be Batman forever, but in the realistic world, it makes a lot of sense. A man who respects the law and the idea of compassion as much as Bruce Wayne would not want to be a vigilante forever, which is why the arrival of Harvey Dent is such a relief to Bruce Wayne. Much like the tale that Harvey says about a man’s duty to stand up and defend the city and then relinquish it, Batman sees himself doing just that.

No one is worthy of that; Harvey, due to his own want for vigilante justice, and the Sons of Batman for much the same reason.  Batman wishes to inspire others, but not to be like him. I will cover vigilance in a later article, but what other mantle is in the two Batman movies? The mantle of injustice.

When the movies begin, Falcone and his crime family are firmly in control. It takes a more serious twist when Batman captures him.  Inside the asylum, he makes a remark that no one can get him, not in his town. Probably the first shiver a comic fan gets in regards to that thought is in the comics. The gangsters believe the town is theirs and that it is being taken over by the freaks, which is why the next line in the film is so chilling, when Jonathan Crane simply asks, “do you want to see my mask?”

Next, in The Dark Knight, the gangsters realize that, with the presence of the Batman, they no longer have as much power as before. The gangster bank manager realizes that the criminals don’t believe in honor or respect anymore, a very true statement in regards to The Joker. The mantle of of this super villain is firmly held in place due to how he commands a room, how he is a man of his word and how he pretty much decimates the criminal empire. The final nail in the coffin is when the Russian seeks to try and understand him. The Joker says that the city deserves a better class of criminal. Much like Batman might be considered a better class of citizen, a man who stands up to corruption, the Joker is a better class of criminal and stands up to the Batman.

I will be covering the relationship and parallels between Joker and Batman another time, but it’s a fact that they both represent the truist ideas of the superhero genre. The hero who wants to inspire and the villain who wants to destroy. They are the yin and yang, the ones who bear the mantle of hero and villain. Is it any wonder that The Joker believes they will in fact, “do this forever”?

The mantle of a hero is hard to assume, as evidenced by Harvey Dent cracking under the pressure. Likewise, a villain only has a tenuous hold on a mantle, but The Joker is unique in that he represents a clear opposition to the idea of a hero. Next time, we will analyze this relationship and how The Batman, in some ways, is like the Joker.

-DarkSpirit-

Posted by Nerd Boy Wonder 10 February Permalink