It’s become increasingly common for reboots, remakes and sequels to be produced for films and series that were created in the recent past.
Each of these is an opportunity to be more inclusive, but more often than not, creators do not actually do this. Even if fans are clamoring for more of their favorite show, it’s not always a good idea to indulge them.
The most recent example is “Gilmore Girls,” which premiered on Netflix during the week of Thanksgiving. Anticipation for its release was fueled by speculation about the last four words, which were planned by creator Amy Sherman-Palladino. They were never heard prior to the revival, because she left the show before the last season.
Despite all of the hype, the revival lost a lot of what made “Gilmore Girls” interesting — the fact that Rory was grounded in Stars Hollow by characters like Sookie and Lane was crucial to the original series, and in the revival, she lost a lot of her realism. Rory went through the whole revival claiming she was broke, but she took several flights to London to stay with her engaged ex-boyfriend. It could have made an interesting plot if Rory had realized how self-centered and unrealistic she was, but this never actually happens.
Although “Gilmore Girls” has always featured women at its center, it’s far from feminist. The revival misunderstands pride parades, mocks fat people and pushes its characters of color even further to the side. Even though there was a plot that involved Michel potentially leaving Stars Hollow if the Dragonfly Inn did not expand, it was hardly resolved. Lane, Rory’s Korean-American friend, had minimal involvement. They managed to make “Gilmore Girls” whiter than it was, which I thought was impossible. A Tumblr page called Gilmore Blacks was created to highlight how black actors were given mostly non-speaking roles.
Another reboot that started this year was “MacGyver.” I grew up watching the show on DVD, but the revival strayed away from its innovative roots and made the show more glamorous. The 20 minutes that I made myself watch were torturous when it came to plot. And then they introduced the token black character: MacGyver’s roommate. It is actually possible to write shows that are inclusive and well written, but “MacGyver” is not an example.
Often it’s better to leave a story alone — to have a couple of great seasons rather than dragging out a revival that does not live up to expectations. People who may have started with the newer version of the show may not feel any reason to go back and watch old episodes even though they were better.
Revivals are too focused on giving the audience what it wants in terms of plot, but the character development doesn’t get enough attention. Often the best parts of a series are the parts the audience didn’t like at first but were what needed to happen.
Rebooted and revived series cannot stay within the era in which they were made; they must live up to today’s standards of inclusivity. However, series such as “Gilmore Girls” often don’t take the opportunity to be more diverse, even though there were new white characters introduced. Although it’s great that some remakes attempt to be more inclusive, such as “Ghostbusters,” it would be more meaningful to create a franchise that is female-centric from the beginning.
Let’s push for new stories that originate with diverse characters instead of pushing them to the side or having them be an afterthought.
Nicole Dan is a political science and journalism junior. Her column appears on Mondays.
