The remaking of a film is hardly anything new in Hollywood cinema. For decades and decades films have been made and remade, though there seems to be a particularly large influx of them in the last twenty years or so. When rebooting a film or franchise, do we as the viewer maintain that the latest iteration is indeed meant to be the ‘true’ story arch? When dealing with franchises, do the films become obsolete in terms of their plot, or are these new films merely supplementary, coexisting within a different universe? Further, what criteria helps define this disassociation? Is it merely a work’s relevance, its objective, (or subjective,) quality set against the other installments? Finally, once a film is remade, are any of the iterations to be considered ‘true’? Or none of them?
The thing to think about with superhero movies is, each different incarnation, or reboot, is like a different multiverse - same as the comics. Now the trouble with rebooting a franchise is trying to still remain creative and give the fans something new, while maintaining the source material, which in this case is the comics. For example, I thought Man of Steel changed too much about Superman's mythology; yet I understand they were trying to do a new take on the character. It's all about balance. – cdenomme967 years ago
I agree with cdenomme96. It should be looked at as a multi-verse. What is canon- or the true story- depends on the fan in particular. What's damaging to this notion however is the fact that once the reboot is made, it gains more focus and the old one isn't talked about as much. When the media only ever talks about the new in terms of entertainment, things get difficult. In that sense, the new most of the time becomes the new canon because the old is generally forgotten. Part of this article, for whoever takes it up, should examine the battle between the old and the new. – SpectreWriter7 years ago