Building A Better Reboot: Five Films That Taught Us How It’s Done

Batman Begins

Lesson: Focus. Have a clear, confident, and unique interpretation of the property.

Batman Begins1 540x360 Building A Better Reboot: Five Films That Taught Us How It’s Done   

Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins is arguably the greatest of all cinematic reboots, and certainly the most influential. It established many reboot practices, such as resetting continuity, returning more faithfully to the source material, and moving in a darker, ‘realistic’ direction.

While the film’s impact on both reboots and Hollywood as a whole cannot be overstated, the single greatest lesson Batman Begins taught us is that for a reboot – or any cinematic adaptation, for that matter – to truly succeed, the filmmaker must have a clear, confident, and focused interpretation of the property, one that respects the original material while offering audiences a fresh and insightful understanding.

This is where Batman Begins succeeds most spectacularly. While it is obvious throughout that Nolan has a deep and abiding knowledge of the greater Batman mythos, he constantly forces us to see the character in a new and different light. His Bruce Wayne exists in the real world, our world, where dressing up like a bat to fight crime is not taken for granted. Other writers, like Frank Miller or Dennis O’Neal, have explored the psychology behind Batman’s origin, but never to this degree. Nolan wants to understand the trauma that defines and compels Bruce Wayne on a fundamentally pathological level, and he is meticulous in illustrating every step of Wayne’s transformation.

The result is an undeniably focused film, one centered around concepts of fear – a universal emotion that connects cops, criminals, and superheroes alike – and symbolic power. Bruce’s efforts are portrayed not as simple heroism, but as a profoundly broken man’s quest to grasp a modicum of control in a world spinning into darkness. While the film’s sequels, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, generally garnered more acclaim, each finds its thematic and narrative roots in the foundation Batman Begins provides, a foundation that is confident, concentrated, and insightful at each and every turn.

This is the first and greatest rule to building a better reboot. The previous live-action Batman series withered and died precisely because no one involved had any clear vision for the franchise. Batman Begins succeeded on every possible level because Nolan and his collaborators knew exactly what they wanted to do with Batman, and they had the talent to realize every inch of their unique interpretation. They offered audiences something unlike anything that had ever been seen, and legitimized the idea of the reboot in the process.

This is a trait shared by all creatively successful reboots. It is a trait the next filmmaker who tackles Batman will certainly have to embrace, for simply repeating what Nolan did will not suffice. Whoever comes next will have to reinterpret Batman themselves, just as all who take charge on reboots must have a unique vision for their respective property.

Continue reading on the next page…

PreviousNext
Hot Stories From Around The Web
  • http://www.gamingblend.com/ William Usher

    Call me crazy but I actually enjoyed Ang Lee’s Hulk as time goes on. It seems to hold its own as it ages. I also liked that Lee’s vision of the Hulk gave him much more of a heroic undertaking and a rise to heroism as opposed to the more sloppy but action-packed reboot.

    The science in Lee’s Hulk also gave the movie a bit more grounding and something for viewers to hold on to in relating to the character as opposed to simply rooting for the Hulk simply because he was the Hulk.

    • Applerod

      I agree and really don’t think Ang Lee’s version was the huge embarrassing disastrous failure that everyone else apparently does. I guess the “problem” is that it didn’t give the audience “Hulk SMASH!!” in the first 10 minutes, instead substituting more of a meditative, artful approach to the character. I quite enjoyed the film — particularly the editing style. It had its shortcomings (sap; Nick Nolte clearly on blow; etc..), but the so-called “reboot” needs a reboot because quality-wise I consider it marginally inferior to its predecessor.

    • Joeleo

      I did like some aspects of the first Hulk movie, it had some good effects and I will give Lee credit for trying to give it a comic book feel with the split panels and whatnot, but I thought the casting was abysmal. In other movies I like Nolte, Bana (was great in Star Trek for example) and Connelly but thought they all failed in this movie. And I think Lee was probably never a comic book fan, and it showed. I do have the dvd and watch it occasionally but The Incredible Hulk got closer to the source material and did things right

      • http://www.gamingblend.com/ William Usher

        Well, getting close to source material doesn’t always equate to a better movie, maybe for fanboys (not meant in a derogatory way) but for average movie goers a more accessible film is usually a better film and Ang Lee’s Hulk was more accessible from a story and character development standpoint.

        Let’s take Punisher: Warzone for example, that was closer to the source material but man was that a horrible, horrible movie. The plot was silly, the characterization was awful, the action was goofy (swinging upside down on the chandelier? Really?) and the gore was over-excessive in a campy, B-movie way. While Thomas Jane’s Punisher wasn’t as close to the source material it was a better overall movie in terms of story, character development and continuity, which is why it ages better than Punisher: Warzone.

        I do agree about the casting for Ang Lee’s Hulk and that they could have done a better job (except for Connelly, but I’d pretty much watch anything she’s in).

  • jsmith0552

    I agree with every film on in this article with the exception of the Abram’s Star Trek film. That film looked for all the world like a person who was given a character sheet and then pasted them onto a generic Hollywood action Sci-Fi film. I expect a little more from Star Trek than a summer pop corn action flick. People still reference Wrath of Khan because it was well written and multi-layered while Abram’s Star Trek is pretty much forgotten after four years.

  • http://twitter.com/MinimeJer05 Jeremy Lebens

    Fantastic write up. I especially enjoyed the Stark Trek and Apes pages, because those were the most surprising or ones that I thought for sure were going to suck or be lesser than previously established properties.

  • james

    “Abrams captured much of what makes Star Trek special – the optimistic vision of the future, mankind’s symbiotic relationship with technology, strategy-based warfare, etc.”

    I’m sorry, but what Trek did you watch? There was nothing optimistic about it, no sense of exploration into the unknown, it was a Star Wars movie coated with Trek characters. The only thing it had in respect to the original was the cheesy mainstream lines that non-trek fans merely assumed was in it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/angie.barrows.5 Angie Barrows

      I agree.

      “… the Star Trek universe we know and love changed into something
      fresh, original, and utterly unpredictable. … it felt profoundly disorientating to see recognizable versions of Kirk, Scott, McCoy, and the other classic characters thrust into a situation where we could not be sure, even for a second, of their fate. With continuity swept away in a massive black hole, these characters were dynamic again, their story relevant and engrossing once more.”

      How is it the Trek universe with the characters we know and love if everything is changed or original and you don’t know what to expect because everyone and everything is “utterly unpredictable?” Keeping a few recognizable elements but changing all of the rest isn’t enough familiarity for me to call it the Star Trek I know and love.

      “They chose to … blow the whole damn thing up.”

      Exactly.

      • http://www.facebook.com/npu3pagg Aleksey Highlander

        i hate original Star track so freaking much.. the uniforms are so gay, most of the stories are so boring and to finish it of acting is poor ass.. Babylon 5 thats the classic sci-phy! no cheesy shit in it! but hte new movie of star track wasn’t bad at alll !!! fresh, new. something different. some proper action. no gay interactions and gay uniforms!

  • Zachariah Dearing

    Why isn’t Amazing Spiderman on the list?

    • …..

      Because it was an unnecesary movie, that doesnt have any reason to exist.. other than Sony keeping the rigths, and the casting is off, all the things it did rigth were done better by the Original Spiderman

  • lunasgathering

    I agree with the comment that motion capture should be counted as ‘real’ acting. Andy Serkis should easily have an Oscar for some of the amazing performances he’s turned in through motion capture. Gollum and the Ape are proof enough of that.

  • ace13

    Casino Royale was Boring.

  • Che Thornhill

    Batman Begins and its sequels created possibly the best reboot ever! I love Christopher Nolan to death but why try to detract from Frank Miller? As I watched the Nolan version for the first time I immediately thought of Year One because simply put, Batman Begins would not have existed in its form without that Graphic Novel. A reboot should compare a film to a film because what makes a good book does not make a good movie. The elements of a great graphic novel will never be the same as the elements of a great movie so why compare them? There are different requirements for entertainment in different mediums but one fact remains: No Frank Miller Batman = No Chris Nolan Batman.