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

Star Trek

Lesson: Surprise. Don’t be bound by continuity or preconceived notions.

If it was difficult for the 007 producers to innovate James Bond after twenty formulaic films, imagine the insane task J.J. Abrams and company had in front of them when deciding to reboot Star Trek. The franchise had collectively produced five television series across thirty separate TV seasons and 726 episodes, in addition to ten feature films and a vast amount of literature. And all of it, for the most part, had attempted to exist within one unified continuity, a continuity so dense and complicated that telling new stories had become a significant challenge.

So what did Abrams and writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman decide to do? They chose to send Spock and some bitter Romulans back in time to blow the whole damn thing up.

And it. Was. Genius.

One cannot describe in words the giddy joy of watching Abrams’ Star Trek for the first time. It felt unbelievable to watch this insane, audacious story play out, to see the Star Trek universe we know and love changed into something fresh, original, and utterly unpredictable. The core plot device – Nero travels back in time and begins meddling with history – is such a simple idea, yet its ramifications are complex and multifaceted, allowing Abrams to achieve something that Star Trek had not grasped in years: The element of surprise.

With the wonderful young cast Abrams assembled playing each part to perfection, 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. 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. – but he also expanded the boundaries of the franchise by leaps and bounds. This was Star Trek, but different. And it was absolutely invigorating.

No reboot has ever created an atmosphere of stimulating unpredictability quite as well as Star Trek, but all of them would do well to learn by the film’s example. The main reason for a reboot is to offer the audience a fresh take on something that has grown mundane, and to do so by turning the ordinary into the height of excitement seems like the best-case scenario. Don’t be afraid of angering fans, either. For the most part, Star Trek was warmly embraced by even hardcore Trek nerds, and it expanded the franchise’s audience far past the typical fan-base. The film proved that when crafting a reboot, surprise can be the most valuable tool.

Continue reading on the next page…

Previous Next

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.