The Retreads of Summer (comments by Mark R. Leeper)

[Philip De Parto]

The following commentary is reprinted with permission from

THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
09/18/15 -- Vol. 34, No. 12, Whole Number 1876

- - - - - - - - - -

The Retreads of Summer (comments by Mark R. Leeper)

Last summer I was in a discussion of current films. A
correspondent asked what I thought about the big studio output of
summertime films. I think the question came to me with a
particular point. It was that almost everything coming out to play
last summer was a remake, a reboot, or a sequel. Since that
discussion I have given some thought as to what makes a remake,
reboot or sequel acceptable.

In the warmer months it is rare to see a big film coming to my
local theaters that is not intended to bring of fond memories of
some previous film in the hopes I will buy a ticket to repeat that
experience. At the time of the discussion my favorite neighborhood
theater was running the sequels PITCH PERFECT 2, AVENGERS: AGE OF
ULTRON, MAD MAX: FURY ROAD, and PAUL BLART: MALL COP. Somehow
these did not excite me. My theater was also running the remakes
FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD, POLTERGEIST, and what I think were
original films TOMORROWLAND, HOT PURSUIT, SAN ANDREAS, and THE AGE
OF ADALINE. Even the original films, which I admit I did not
actually see, were probably not that original.

Some of these films may be just spectacular variations on films I
had already seen. MAD MAX: FURY ROAD was enjoyable, but it was not
a story film. It essentially relied on what was in THE ROAD
WARRIOR and then showed a spectacle which was almost devoid of
story. It was amazing what was in that film but it did not include
much of a plot. It was impressive as an experience, but not as a
cinematic experience. Rare was the moment in the film that was not
in an action sequence.

It is getting harder to find original experiences at movie
theaters. I have to say, however, that I am not one of those
people who really have something against having so many remakes,
reboots, and sequels. Yes, it is true that a lot of the films I
dislike and/or avoid are in these categories. But let me be clear
on this. When I buy a theater ticket I want the film viewing
experience to be worth the cost of the ticket. The filmmaker who
is making a remake is working at a disadvantage. Seeing a film too
much like some previous film I have seen is making his task harder
for the filmmaker. If I am investing the price of a ticket I
expect a return on that investment. I guess that is the underlying
and unifying theory of everything in film reviewing. It seems
almost too obvious to state: Give the viewers their money's worth.

Repaying the audience the value of their ticket investment is by no
means impossible. It has been done at least occasionally in the
past. The Coen Brothers' version of TRUE GRIT in 2010 had a lot of
content that had been previously seen in the John Wayne version
form 1969. But the Coen Brothers' version had a deeper and darker
tone than the Wayne version, which was in the end just another
western with John Wayne heroics saving the day. It was one of the
darker John Wayne Technicolor westerns, but what it did well the
Coen Brothers did better. The ending of the remake was certainly
darker with the main character ending up a one-armed spinster who
missed by four days seeing a dying Rooster Cogburn one last time.
The Wayne version had a forced upbeat ending. It was not only
closer to the book, it also felt more authentic. It just overall
was a better film. Admittedly I did not have to pay to see either
version, but I think the improvements were sufficient enough to
justify the price of a film ticket.

Much the same could be said of Philip Kaufman's version of THE
INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1978). Yes, it had much of the
same plot, but it also has imaginative images of the alien life
form and, more than most people realized, subsonic sound on the
soundtrack that game it an ominous atmosphere. Mundane images like
a telephone cord retracting were turned into ominous alien action.
The major change in the remake was transplantation to urban San
Francisco. Visual images of the aliens were creatively done and of
course did not have computer imaging, coming as it did only one
year after the first STAR WARS. Again I knew most of the story,
but I got my ticket's worth even having seen the plot done before.

What makes a reboot, remake or sequel work?

A remake or sequel has to have good actors and solid production
values. THE FLY (1958) was a very well made film with sympathetic
characters and genuine drama. It had well-orchestrated color. THE
RETURN OF THE FLY (1959) was a black-and-white cheapie with the
same props and the only innovation was the fly's head was about
eight times as big. A film may not have to be as good as the
original, but it should be darn close.

A remake, sequel, whatever, better have something to surprise the
audience and it should be good enough to make the film better. The
2008 THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL was bigger and flashier than the
original, but the major change was addition of non-corporeal
digital effects as if Gort was no longer a robot, but a weapon we
never see. It might have been difficult to match the original Gort
in awesomeness, but this certainly was not what was required.

And the filmmaker should make sure the story still plays well.
Even if the filmmakers could do THE GRADUATE more meaningfully and
funnier they would still face the problems that Benjamin Braddock
was a romantic in 1967, and today he would be a stalker and a
predator. [-mrl]