Sequels and Reboots In Our Genres

In case you've been living off the grid for the last couple years, you may be aware of a reboot/sequel/threequel that is scheduled for release next month . . . it's related to a 1984 comedy classic that many people in my age group hold near and dear.  Yes, I'm talking about the Paul Feig-directed Ghostbusters starring Kristin Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones. Pretty much since its announcement, there's been a split decision amongst the interwebs and, since the release of its first teaser trailer, Neckbeards and basement dwellers have been putting on their wrinkled NO MA'AM t-shirts in misogynistic protest.

For the record, this is not one of those pieces. 

Hear me out . . . when it comes to Horror sequels and remakes/reboots, why has there always been a problem with casting?  No one could play Freddy Krueger except Robert Englund -- this was proven when New Line and Platinum Dunes tried to remake A Nightmare on Elm Street in 2010.  Poor Jackie Earl Haley, while fine in the fedora and famous sweater, was up against impossibly stacked odds (not to mention a terrible screenplay) of trying to please a nearly thirty year old fan base that had been unequivocally used to only seeing one man portray the character.  Outside of the Horror genre, of course, there's Harrison Ford and the characters of Indiana Jones and Han Solo.  No one else could play either of those characters -- hell, even I was set to belly-ache when Chris Pratt was rumored to be in the running for an Indiana Jones reboot. 

Ultimately, what has both contributed to and, in some cases hindered (like the original Ghostbusters, its sequel and the never-ending stalling of a proper Ghostbusters III) film franchises of almost any genre?  Continuity.  Granted, with Halloween and Friday the 13th, there have mostly always been different guys playing those masked killers, so it's a bit of a no-brainer.  However, with Freddy Krueger, Indiana Jones, Han Solo, and even say, Rocky Balboa, it'd be pretty difficult to re-cast those iconic characters -- but why didn't it happen?  

As much as I love the storyline continuity throughout the eight Friday the 13th movies, why couldn't there have just been sequels picking up in the middle of one of Jason's killing sprees instead of following groundwork already laid out in previous installments?  One could argue that this occurred with Jason Goes To Hell:  The Final Friday and, with that being said, maybe that wasn't such a good idea.

My whole point is this:  why didn't our most beloved franchises -- Horror or otherwise -- follow the James Bond template and either A.) Have the leading character in simply a new adventure for each film instead of painting everything into a proverbial corner or B.) Recast whenever possible?  Imagine the wealth of Indiana Jones adventures that we could've had in the nineteen years between Last Crusade and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  This could have easily solved the seemingly endless delays to get a proper Ghostbusters III made.  Of course recasting doesn't always necessarily work out so well as was the case with 2011's dreadful Hellraiser:  Revelations where Pinhead was infamously recast and, well, viewers decided to ultimately pass . . . though the character has again been recast for next year's Hellraiser:  Judgment, so we'll have to reserve our, er, judgment a little longer.

Of course, as I speak of recasting and reboots, I can't ignore the hugely successful Mad Max:  Fury Road, which seamlessly cast Tom Hardy in its title role or the never-ending superhero reboots like Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy or Superman and, to a somewhat less-successful point, Spider-Man.  The loudest criticism was hurled at the late Heath Ledger as soon as he was cast as The Joker; I'll happily continue to eat my own hearty meal of crow once I saw the film and hailed his genius performance!  On the pseudo-failure side, there's Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man which, for my money, didn't really need to be rebooted so closely after Sam Raimi's trilogy . . . though I suspect the failure there may have been more script-based and behind the scenes instead of casting.  Same goes for Brandon Routh in Superman Returns, a fine actor and great performance that ultimately was crushed under the weight of the character itself and fans' expectations.  On the same coin, Henry Cavill has done a fine job in Supes' tights, again with my only complaints coming from the script and/or direction.  With this year's Batman V. Superman, I'd say Ben Affleck as Batman wasn't too bad and, honestly, I'm looking forward to seeing more of Bat-fleck, as having an older big screen take was a refreshing change.

As I pondered possible reasons for why these famous characters were never recast or deviated from their narrative continuity throughout their respective franchises, there was only one that kept coming to mind.  All of the franchises I've mentioned were born (or thrived) in the VHS and cable era where many of us watched them endlessly and, as a result, they endured much more so than a film that we may have only seen a few scant times theatrically during initial release or an occasional re-release.  Maybe that's why the majority of the casting changes and story continuity changes in the Bond franchise were so easy to overlook?  Raise your hand if you literally wore out your VHS of copy of a Back To The Future, Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, Rocky, Star Wars, Friday the 13th, or A Nightmare on Elm Street movie from watching it so many times....go ahead, I see you laughing, but it's true! 

So, while I'm not saying there's absolutely no sexist stance against this summer's Ghostbusters -- because it's quite obvious that there is, especially from the anonymity behind a computer screen -- I'm leaning towards the fact that those original characters and the actors who played them are so ingrained in a lot of fans' minds that it's almost impossible to accept change.  I'm not exactly thrilled about the movie myself, but it's certainly not because of its female cast.  Setting aside my nostalgia for the original and The Real Ghostbusters cartoon and toy line), I'm curious to see how it all plays out and will no doubt be there opening weekend.

And, of course, earlier this week it was announced that Platinum Dunes plans to soldier on and force another Friday the 13th reboot upon the world -- only, this time it will be different because it's going to delve into a part of Jason's origin that we haven't yet seen . . . by introducing his father, Elias Voorhees.  Originally, that character was to make an appearance at the end of Friday the 13th Part VI:  Jason Lives, though it was dropped before filming and the character was only casually mentioned in Jason Goes To Hell.  Listen, I'm all for another Friday the 13th movie but, dammit, why can't we just have a sequel that picks up like a Bond sequel, with Jason (looking cool and not like the haunted hayride knockoff of Freddy Vs. Jason of course) in the middle of a new adventure where he's doing what he does best -- hacking up teenagers?  Is that too much to ask?   My ideal Friday the 13th sequel would be just that with a poster tagline that reads:  "Not familiar with Jason?   Ask your parents to show you the first 8 movies!"  No need to rehash the past and delve into backstory that wasn't originally there in there first place; just give the fans what they want:  Jason hacking up teenagers via squishy practical special effects.