Reboot It, Renew It, Reshoot It, Redo It

In the entertainment industry today, and especially within animation, there is one term that has endlessly rung into everyone's ears: reboot. Every week, you seem to hear of at least one existing property being brought into the modern age in one form or another, and more often than not, this fills various crowds of people with dread. And while reboots have been around since the beginning of cinema and television, it seems in recent years the concept has gained a particularly bad reputation among pop culture fanatics. I'm sure you yourself have had your skill crawl upon hearing of certain reboots, with some like "Teen Titans Go!", "Thundercats Roar", and "She-Ra 2019" causing more outrage and controversy than most rational people would ever like to know about. So here, we'll discuss not only why this is, but how much more nuanced the circumstances actually are and how we can work with them.

First we should define with a reboot actually is, since the term isn't actually fully understood. Merriam-Webster defines it as "the act or an instance of starting (something) anew or making a fresh start", meaning that reboots either retell the existing story in their own way or just reinterpret the concept and characters to fit a different genre or vision. These are often confused with revivals and spinoffs. Revivals are simply returning a series in the same presented form (be it with the original creator, staff, or style), maybe with a time skip or tweaked format, like season 5 of "Samurai Jack" and "The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder". Spinoffs are generally meant to be an alternate or expanded take on a familiar cast or universe without serving as a direct replacement for the source material, like "Teen Titans Go!" and "The Looney Tunes Show". Although it's sometimes unclear which one of the three a series can fall under, like 2020's take on "Animaniacs", it's very important to make this distinction right off the bat as the term reboot is often erroneously used on spinoffs or revivals by mistake.

There's multiple reasons why these reboots are continually made, particularly on the business end. The most obvious reason is to capitalize on previous success. With how expensive animation is and how difficult it can get to turn in a profit, executives will want to lean toward what seems like the safest bet. Often times, profits gained from these reboots can be used to fund more ambitious, more passionate creations, so they can be considered a means to keep revenue rolling in. Barring that, they may also see potential in an existing story to fit well with modern trends or what's currently successful. This is see why superhero adaptations are a dime a dozen in this day and age. However, there have also been a number of reboots that come about because creators or a set or artists genuinely want to add their own spin to a property; not unlike the corporate requirements, but with more of an artistic vision. Keep this in mind for later.

Now, none of this is inherently flawed, but where they run into trouble within the public eye are the mixed, and generally unpredictable results they come in. Whether it be due to not putting enough care into determining a strong direction (Powerpuff Girls 2016), being too drastic a departure from what the source material should stand for (Thomas: All Engines Go), or a strong artistic ambition being undermined by executive meddling (Sonic Underground), the bad reboots stand a certain risk in terms of the franchise's reputation at large. Even though the complaints can get overblown, as you always have the original to go back to and the productions are often independent of each other, there is always going to be this lingering bad vibe just knowing its there. Not to mention just the fact they are based off something that was most likely beloved by many suggests certain expectations, like even if it proves competent on its own merits the comparisons will only be inevitable and thus put it at a disadvantage reception-wise.

But there is also more of a business concern going on, especially in more recent years. As said before, rebooting is a concept that corporations have really become seemingly obsessed with in recent years, and whenever one enters the pipeline or has something significant to show, it gets all the official online publicity. Meanwhile, original properties from these same studios would kill to have and arguably need more due to lack of brand recognition, but don't because there's less immediate success to be seen. This skewed priority is more noticeable in some studios than others (I'd say Nickelodeon is probably the most blatant), but it seems to be present across virtually all of them to some degree.

This has really gotten to fans and creatives alike, feeling it's only closing the door on originality even when it's handed right to them, and it's hard not to sympathize with how much of an uphill battle for high-quality creations to get strong attention. This was especially strong when a "Ren & Stimpy" reboot was announced in 2020; just the fact John Kricfalusi's legacy would be actively perpetuated purely for capitalism's sake as opposed to seeking and supporting fresh, unproblematic talent sat horribly with nearly everyone. And beyond that, you occasionally see disgruntled creators going off about how corporations only want reboots. A few like Owen Dennis go even further and essentially ask people to not watch them, regardless of the quality, since supporting even the good ones will encourage companies to continue making them rather than the acclaimed, unique hits like his own. And while there's certainly some validity to how this kind of stuff works, I think being firmly against reboots doesn't ultimately solve the corporate platform.

First of all, as implied earlier, most of the downsides to reboots aren't solely bound to them. They aren't even bound to spinoffs and revivals, for that matter. Even when a new brand is being developed, there's always the temptation to follow popular formulas or tropes to make it as wide-reaching and marketable as possible - a principle that can sometimes extend to the very conception of the show itself. You will always see companies try to replicate prior influence and success to the point where the end products might as well be reboots or spinoffs anyway, which we saw with Scooby-Doo in the 70s, Transformers in the late 80s, and Shrek in the 2000s. This is by no means a death knell of quality, in fact some are able to carry their own unique charm, but it's hard not to notice the actual intention going on. To an extent, feeling similar to other properties is unavoidable with all the common, popular tropes surrounding entertainment, but doing so on the base level will make the show more known for comparisons than anything else.

Secondly, reboots aren't always derivative, even though their entire concept is to take an existing property. It all comes down to the creative intent, execution, and the impact it leaves. "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" takes the base ideas present in the equine toy brand from the start, but with Lauren Faust's creativity and many more industry veterans wanting to make something that will charm an audience outside the target demographic, the property managed to feel more fresh than ever, making G4 the definitive iteration. Noelle Stevenson's "She-Ra" takes the toy-driven action cartoon and make it more of a character-driven, sci-fi action-adventure. It may only have the characters in common with the source material but has still received acclaim of its own for providing something interesting and meaningful, with strong LGBT representation to boot. And 2017's reboot of "DuckTales" took the adventures of the triplets and Scrooge McDuck to a much more dramatic, emotional direction than the more slice of life nature of the original.

What all three of the mentioned reboots mentioned above, as well as several more met with praise, all have in common is the creative intent. They all came about because the people creatively in charge actively wanted to make them happen, often involving their fond memories with the original run. This is what they desired to lend their talents to, which is really no less of an ambition than coming up with a setup and cast of your own, nor is it any less creative-driven based on the general results. But even when they have to work with something more derivative, the right talent could still pull through something worthwhile with enough freedom, and derivation in general does have its own important role in the industry. As said earlier, these profits have to come somewhere in order to fund more ambitious, groundbreaking projects, which often does seem to end up being the case with the likes of Cartoon Network and Disney Channel.

I think "creative intent" is a good way to sum up what the real goal should probably be, to be honest. It hardly matters whether a show or film is truly new, moreso how derivative and creative-driven it comes across as in both ambition and execution. The more the artists get to do what they want, the more meaningful a product will come out in the end. And it's especially important for the companies to put their faith in these artists, since you never know when the next "Shrek" or "Into the Spider-Verse" will roll around and possibly end up getting buried because of soulless reboots getting all the attention. Desiring a certain level of experience is justified, but sometimes putting faith in relatively unknown talent can work out much better than expected (see "The Mitchells vs. the Machines" for a good example), and no matter if they're working with an old property or creating a new one, they have the power to deliver something wonderful with the right control. And if what they want to work with just happens to be a tried-and-true brand, so be it.

But even if the show you choose to watch is a blatant sellout, there's zero shame in supporting it so long as you know to give all the hardworking crew, trying to make the best show they can under the restrictions and working conditions they're given, the credit they deserve. Like I said earlier, if the studio is doing things right as a business, then the success of a cash-grab project (ideally one worthy of praise) may well end up paving the way for a more positive, creative-driven future on their end. Being a little derivative is perfectly natural, and you don't need to be a reboot to fall into this trap. But the main way to let more creativity thrive in today's industry is to acknowledge the unique treasures, both the people and the products, that pull through. And some of the most unique of these can indeed end up living in reboots.