industry. This drive is to revitalize films and the way they are presented, and also “a desire to reboot cinema itself” (Tryon 435). In an increasingly technology-driven society, he says, the film industry’s growing challenge has been to combat “teenagers [...] satisfied with watching movies on iPads” and present the experience of cinema as something worth the rising price of a movie ticket (Tryon 435). One might assume that franchise films, having existing familiarity with audiences, would sell tickets aplenty. Recent trends may suggest otherwise, however.

​

2010’s Alice in Wonderland was a live-action version of a Disney property with a pre-existing animated version. It heavily advertised its availability in Digital 3D in its marketing campaign. Digital 3D was a brand new projection technology at the time of the film’s release (Tryon 435). The implementation of such technologies, however, required the installment of new digital projectors in theaters, and on a nationwide scale such an undertaking was a sizable investment (Tryon 435). This lead to to debate amongst filmmakers on the justification for such technologies. Similarly, Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, another film with a pre-existing animated version, brought along its own amenities with its theatrical release. The film was advertised to be the first film to be projected at 48 frames per second in theaters rather than the cinema standard 24 frames per second. This also required the installation of new projection technologies in theaters. Reception of both of these formats among audiences was mixed, with many criticizing them for being mere attempts at rehashing the cinema experience to draw in diminishing audiences (Tryon 434). These enhancements beg the question of whether or not studios actually anticipate success from their films alone without additions to draw in audiences.

​

Data shows, though, that such films lead to financial success. This is be-all and end-all for billion dollar industries, with the film industry being no exception. After all, it is a business that requires profit to thrive. James Jianxin Gong and Van der Stede have conducted comprehensive research on this topic, which was published in Contemporary Accounting Research in 2011. As stated in their report, “because only about one in 10 films recoups its production costs at the box office, the studios have every reason to be cautious” (Gong et al.). Their analysis took into account numerous variables amongst a data set derived from 3,176 motion pictures. Among them were star power, budget, MPAA rating, and whether they were sequels, part of established franchises, or original films. The effects of these factors on the successes of the films was then analyzed. They found that “the return on investment is higher for sequels than for non-sequels, despite the higher cost incurrence” (Gong et al.). This is, as they speculate, due to the lower marketing cost for a film that is already part of an established and profitable franchise, since audiences know what sort of film to expect (Gong et al.).

​

This can also be broken down to the repetition of individual elements of films to create emotional responses in audiences, the evocation of such being dependent upon audience members’ prior familiarity. Constantine Verevis explores this in his paper Re-Viewing Remakes. He describes “intertextuality” while on the topic of the lack of credit given to original films by their own remakes. While they can often hit their mark and have their desired effect, such use of intertextual conventions can often be either ineffective or problematic. This depends on how derivative they are (Verevis). For example, Disney’s live-action 2017 adaptation of Beauty and the Beast includes many motifs from the original film, both visual and auditory. The Rose, the music, and the scene in which Belle dances with the Beast already have existing impacts on audiences. Through Verevis’ logic, the film’s emotional impact may very well be somewhat discredited because the film is basing these devices on prior uses from the film’s original version.

​

In contrast to original films, franchise films can easily be seen as a financial success no-brainer: to take older, successful, pre-existing properties, and release fresh installments or even the same exact stories in new forms for modern audiences. The result is box office revenue for much less of an investment than that of an original film. Karen Krizanovich, a Film Finance graduate of the Cass Business School, explains the effect of this in her master’s dissertation on reboots. It is a “safety strategy designed to create a hybrid product that embraces only the best elements of its parent property”. Krizanovich does point out, however, that box office success is not the only modern frame of reference for a film’s success, citing the transfer of rights over multiple distribution methods as other factors at play. This serves as yet another reminder that the motion picture industry as it was once known is evolving, and rebooting franchises is one of many experiments by studios to maintain relevancy and audience interest.

​

Despite the sizeable evidence indicating purely financial reasoning for the perpetuation of franchises, there may be some benefits to audiences and filmmakers outside of the profitability. Joseph Champoux, an educator of elementary-age children, suggests educational value in a 1999 publication that reads much more like a lesson plan than a research paper. He explains the methods used in his classroom to showcase the differences in modern and previous time periods by way of showing students multiple versions of different films. Using scenes from example films such as One Hundred and One Dalmatians, Father of the Bride, Sabrina and their subsequent remakes, he would show students the original films. Afterwards, he would ask questions regarding gender roles in the films, cultural differences, and any other things that stuck out to them. Then he would show them the same scenes from other versions of the films, and use the differences they saw as a means of prompting discussion (Champoux 211-216). Through this, he was able to educate students on prior time periods and use the films as a way to “propel a class back in time” (Champoux).

​

He went on to expand on these methods in a second paper in 2006, in which he focuses on the filmmaking techniques used to convey certain themes and messages throughout multiple versions of different films. His experiences with these methods in the classroom show how different versions of a film can be effective in different areas based on their varying uses of filmmaking techniques (Champoux 51). For example, he compares the different film versions of The Hunchback of Notre Dame and how effective they are at showcasing diversity to students. He points out that “the 1997 live-action version is especially effective because it explicitly shows Quasimodo’s talents” (Champoux 59). New versions of films, then, whether they are reboots, soft reboots, or simply remakes, can be educational. A remake can wrap past stories in the context of the present. This makes them accessible to newer audiences as well as subject to comparison to their original counterparts.

​

Furthermore, they could also be chances for audiences to see different interpretations of stories and characters from different filmmakers. In an interview, Thomas Mikota, a professor of at the Florida State University School of Motion Picture Arts, recalled his experience working on Peter Jackson’s version of King Kong. In some cases, a film being remade may simply be “a director [who is] incredibly talented and has the cloud to get funding on whatever he wants, and he wants to make king Kong and put his own kind of stamp on it” (Mikota).

Ryan Lambie, a writer for the news website Den Of Geek, notes that “soft reboots” can be advantageous in this way, as they fill in existing roles with new actors, and start with a “clean sheet” (Lambie). Such strategies can allow for new possibilities for stories without entirely starting from scratch and thus retaining much of what is already revered about a franchise by audience. This can reduce risk and ensure the financial safety of a reboot scenario. In 2008, during the United States’ worst economic state since the Great Depression, Alex Billington wrote an Editorial for First Showing expressing his thoughts towards rumors about upcoming reboots of popular franchises like Ghostbusters and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Referencing the economic climate at the time, he stated that installments in franchises were very reasonable productions for Hollywood studios to make, because when “[studios] reboot a franchise that already has an established fanbase, whether minuscule or massive, they can tap into the pre-existing familiarity with the property” (Billington). He cited the success of The Dark Knight as a reason for his legitimate excitement for the potential installments in the franchises he mentioned. At the time, director Judd Apatow was rumored to be involved in the production of the Ghostbusters reboot. This was another reason for Billington’s enthusiasm. Although that aspect did not end up coming to fruition, the eventual 2016 Ghostbusters reboot was financially successful, as was the 2014 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles reboot (Box Office Mojo).

​

Franchises evidently serve as a utility for film studios that ensures profitability, as installments are proven to be an extremely safe and reliable business practice. Whether it’s through the production of a sequel, reboot, or remake, familiarity with audiences ensures benefit for both film-viewers and filmmakers. Old stories joined with the ideals of a contemporary age, new characters interacting amongst familiar motifs, beloved characters in new stories, or new filmmakers taking on either can also occur in the midst. Plus, the differences between the films and their previous versions can teach audiences about the past and our progression as a society. To paraphrase Chuck Tryon, this reflects not only a revitalization of film properties, but also a revitalization of cinema itself.