With the success of remakes and reboots of popular Disney franchises, the House of Mouse has set its sights on giving the holiday classic Home Alone the same treatment. The hilarious comedy, about a young boy left alone on Christmas while his family flies to Europe, made over $400 million dollars world wide in 1990. At just eight years old, Macauley Culkin was made a superstar for being able to carry an entire film as Kevin McCallister, tasked with outwitting two burglars (Daniel Stern and Joe Pesci) from invading his house.
The film inspired a very successful sequel with the original cast and director, followed by three other films that were considered soft reboots themselves in the late '90s and '00s. The franchise has never returned to its former glory days, but fans are content to keep watching the original films whenever they want a laugh. Below you'll find 5 reasons why a Home Alone reboot on Disney+ is a good idea (& 5 why it's not.
10 WHY IT'S A GOOD IDEA: IT REVITALIZES THE FRANCHISE
While some naysayers of a remake or reboot of a franchise (yes, with 5 films, Home Alone is a franchise) don't relish the idea of their beloved IP getting ruined, they miss the point that it often serves to revitalize a franchise that may have already devolved from its original concept.
Even better, it can be introduced to a new generation of fans. While they might not be interested in watching the original Home Alone because they find its premise too outdated, a fresh take might get them invested if they feel like it was made with them in mind. After all any of the films after Home Alone 3 proved the same approach wasn't working.
9 WHY IT'S NOT: MODERN TECHNOLOGY NEGATES THE PLOT
The premise of the Home Alone films work precisely because they're from a time when Kevin's parents couldn't immediately ring him up on a smart phone, or send a Lyft to pick him up and take him to the airport, where he's able to get on a plane because they've Venmo-ed him cash for a ticket.
Because Kevin can't be tracked down by a mobile app with GPS, or send a text to his parents saying he's fine, or get caught on their smart house's doorbell video camera, he's able to get into all sorts of hijinks. Any reboot will have a hard time convincing audiences that the pint-sized protagonist wouldn't have a dozen different ways to get in touch with his parents via modern technology.
8 WHY IT'S A GOOD IDEA: THEY CAN STILL INVOLVE MACAULAY CULKIN
For many fans of the original and McCauley Culkin's portrayal of child badass Kevin McCallister, they'll only entertain the notion of a reboot with Culkin included in some way. Some fans have suggested he could play the new protagonist's father, while others have suggested he play one half of the Sticky Bandits, like Marv.
Culkin has already spoofed his appearance as Kevin McCallister in a series of modern commercials advertising the abilities of Google Assistant voice-command, programming it to engage some of the same traps he constructed to thwart the Sticky Bandits in Home Alone. Culkin is clearly able be self-deprecating about the film that brought him so much fame, and would no doubt bring the same tongue-in-cheek humor to the new reboot.
7 WHY IT'S NOT: THE MOVIES ARE CLASSICS ALREADY
Home Alone was not only one of the most popular films of the '90s, bringing in over $250 million dollars domestically when it premiered in 1990, it became an instant Christmas classic alongside modern holiday films like A Christmas Story.
From the top cast of comedic talent including Catherine O'Hara, John Heard, Daniel Stern, Joe Pesci, and John Candy, to the well written story by John Hughes and direction by Chris Columbus, it's a well made film that spawned a worthy sequel (Home Alone 2: Lost in New York) that added the legendary Tim Curry to the shenanigans.
6 WHY IT'S A GOOD IDEA: IT MAKES US FORGET ABOUT HOME ALONE 3-5
The original plan was to film Home Alone 2: Lost in New York and Home Alone 3 back-to-back, but Macauley Culkin had grown tired of the role and wanted to take on a different challenge. Therefore Home Alone 3 went ahead without the character of Kevin McCallister in 1997, and was actually followed by 2 sequels.
The third film not only didn't involve Kevin, the other original characters, or director Chris Columbus, but completely removed the stakes of the first two films, adding in a subplot about a missile computer chip that could potentially start World War III. It does have a very young Scarlett Johansson as protagonist Alex Pruitt's sister, Molly.
5 WHY IT'S NOT: THE REBOOT DOESN'T NEED TO BE GRITTY
There have been rumors that the new Home Alone reboot would be a gritty take on the original, with the stakes made higher by criminals that were far less bungling than Marv and Harry. The creative minds behind Uncut Gems have released a video discussing how they would treat an edgy take on the franchise, but is that the right direction to take it?
There were already elements about the original films that were dark - they're incredibly violent for "family friendly" programming, but the violence is done in such a way as to make them humorous, not harrowing. Just because Home Alone could resemble something like Krampus doesn't mean that it needs to.
4 WHY IT'S A GOOD IDEA: IT CAN GO IN A NEW DIRECTION
Nowadays there's a lot of different family dynamics showcased in the entertainment industry. While "movie families" are hardly ever realistic, they're at least meant to be relatable. Whereas the original showcased an upper middle-class family living in a giant house in the Chicago suburbs, the reboot could focus on a different family structure, such as one involving a same-sex couple, or include family members that are disabled, LGBTQ+, or people of color.
The family may also not reside in Chicago at all, but in a completely different state from Illinois. They may also not even live in America, but in another country, opening up the reboot for some humor around different cultural attitudes and traditions.
3 WHY IT'S NOT: THE NEW CAST
The breakout star of Jojo Rabbit, Archie Yates, has been tapped to play a prominent role in the reboot. He won't be playing Kevin McCallister, but a new protagonist left home alone by his parents. His inclusion (and others) has made fans nervous about the concept of watching a whole new cast attached to their favorite films.
Granted, Home Alone 3 introduced the concept of a different cast to the franchise, and was able to achieve modest success. Home Alone 4: Taking Back The House tried to put a whole different cast together to play characters from the original Home Alone (including Kevin and Marv) and failed to recapture the magic.
2 WHY IT'S A GOOD IDEA: CREATIVE NEW TRAPS
If we're being honest, one of the best parts about Home Alone is the many ingenious traps that Kevin McCallister creates to thwart the Sticky Bandits trying to invade his home. From setting Harry's head on fire, to burning Marv's face with a hot iron, each one speaks to the clever innovation of Kevin's mind.
In a new film, who's to say that a new protagonist couldn't utilize modern technology to invent some even more exciting traps? Something involving voice-command, remote-controlled apps, and even drones? In some ways, there's no limit to the damage a child could do to adults using the tablet they're always glued to.
1 WHY IT'S NOT: IT'S CASHING IN ON NOSTALGIA
Many diehard fans of Home Alone view a reboot headed to Disney+ as a simple cash grab to capitalize on their nostalgia. They think Disney will do just about anything to make money off popular past franchises, especially given the success of heir recent live-action remakes of their animated movies.
The reboot would have to be pretty innovative to distance itself from this perspective, especially since fans are still happily watching the original film every Christmas. They would prefer Disney create a new, separate holiday classic rather than potentially ruin an old favorite.
from ScreenRant - Feed https://ift.tt/396gwHx
0 comments:
Post a Comment