As painful as it is, we should probably accept that the Gremlins movies are going to get remade, rebooted or by some other means resuscitated sooner rather than later. Especially in the wake of Jurassic World, the nostalgia factor and prospect of squeezing more profit out of a long-retired franchise is just too tempting for most filmmakers to turn down.
Zach Galligan, who starred in the original, said as much recently at a Q&A following a screening at London’s Prince Charles Cinema. Though the actor’s connection to whatever Steven Spielberg, Gremlins writer Chris Columbus (both attached to produce) and Carl Ellsworth (tasked with scribing the new installment) are cooking up is tenuous to say the least, he offered up this tidbit:
“It’s not going to be a reboot. It will not be a remake in any way, shape, or form. Chris Columbus has come out and said that the first film is very near and dear to his heart and as long as he is alive it will never be remade…So the only thing they will be – and apparently are going to be – doing is something along the lines of like Jurassic World, where it will be 30 years later.”
It’s not exactly surprising that the monster box office returns Universal saw for Jurassic World have every major studio in Hollywood scrambling to figure out which beloved franchises in their utility closets they can pull out, dust off and send back into theaters to find similar success. But is Gremlins really bankable enough to warrant the treatment? Even as a fan of the original who can see the good in Joe Dante’s oft-criticized Gremlins 2: The New Batch, I’m dubious about how much love audiences actually have left over for Billy and that adorable little Gizmo. Nevertheless, it looks like we’re going to find out.
What say you, dear readers? Is Gremlins 3 a good idea, or is this one franchise that should stay in the 20th century?
Published: Nov 29, 2015 05:17 pm