Mighty Myopic, Power Rangers: What Reboots Often get Wrong

Writing about this was never a plan of mine. I didn't even have plans to see Saban's Power Rangers (2017), but then I kept thinking about the concept of reboots seeing as it's something I've written about before to some degree. But through the lens of this particular production, it's hit me more clearly what reboots can and often do get wrong. But there is one thing that they've all been making a conscious effort towards that they're sometimes successful at pulling off: manipulating you.

I won't even get into hating these suits...but I hate these suits.

As per the usual, this is gonna require some explanation as to how this works. And I can think of no better example to cite for comparison than Devil May Cry.

To best understand where I'm coming from, let's get a little bit of context here. Despite the first entry of the series of games being released in 2001, the most important and definitive installment didn't come along until 2005 in the form of Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening.

The inception of the series as a whole was already experimental in nature as the first game began as a prototype for the fourth Resident Evil game that had yet to be made at that point. Once the development team realized that the game they had on their hands was more action-oriented than they had initially intended, director Hideki Kamiya ran with the concept. Thus, Devil May Cry was born. 

Mmmm...that's some premium early-aughts edge...

The experimental nature of the first game comes through in many aspects of its structure, so the core elements of the series hadn't come to the surface yet. The second game did little to better define the series, and the less said about it the better. Then...this happened...

Until this point, Dante was more of a blank slate than a fully realized character. Now, he had a personal style, purpose, a voice, a story, and all of it came through clearly. Possibly most important of all though...Dante had a rival.

The relationship with his brother Vergil defined both characters through juxtaposition on every level. Dante was known for wearing a red coat; Vergil wore blue. Despite being twins, Dante lets his hair hang down into his face while Vergil styled his up and away from his. Their personalities as well as their fighting styles reflect the contrast between them by being brash and aggressive and cool and reserved respectively. Even their choices in weapons, Dante primarily using twin handguns and a broadsword while Vergil opts only for a katana, frames an "East vs. West" dynamic. But there's another component to Vergil's role in the game/story...

There's a total of 21 "Missions" in the game, and you face Vergil as Dante on Missions 7, 13, and 21. At each encounter, he showcases a new ability or level of power that tests your ability as a player. But in the context of the game's narrative, Dante loses before fighting his brother a second time to a stalemate and only after their third battle does he manage to defeat Vergil. This presents Vergil as the true progression test of both the game and the character over the course of his arc. It also established Vergil as the definitive antagonist to Dante in the franchise. 

  

So, when Capcom decided to reboot the franchise in 2010 and released the new game in 2013 (titled "DmC: Devil May Cry"), the rebooted vision of Devil May Cry brought back Vergil as Dante's greatest threat...sorta.

See, much of the reboot's presentation was heavily reliant on memory of the most iconic game of the series.

Look a bit familiar...?

But no aspect was as dependent upon Devil May Cry 3's popularity as the inclusion of Vergil. Once again, Vergil was positioned as the final opponent for Dante. There's just one problem with thi--Actually, everything about this is a problem. For starters, Vergil in this incarnation is never presented as your foe until the very last minute. These are two characters who had up until this point been allies, and had only ONE difference of perspective that immediately results in these long-lost twins descending into a fight to the death. This only makes the conflict feel less genuine since neither have any valid reason to leap to that level of intense anger. The reasonable thing to do would be for Vergil to dial it back. Especially considering the fact that he's never once presented as being capable of winning this fight.

That's right. Vergil, once the greatest rival to his brother Dante, is never a legitimate threat to the protagonist then suddenly positioned as the greatest challenge. No, really. Not even in flashbacks or over the course of the story. Dante is sold as more physically capable in every way, and it goes as far as Vergil literally needing Dante to save his life at points.

"Does that dip-shit really have his initial on the front AND dashboard of his car...?"*

So, why does this all matter? Because these changes were all made in the interest of differentiating the reboot and the original, but the changes themselves convey a misunderstanding of what it is that made these elements truly work. In effect, they lose what made the original material what it was to such an extent that it would probably be better off as a new property altogether. Which leads me to...

When reviews started coming in for the latest film adaptation of the first American adaptation of the longstanding Super Sentai franchise, it became pretty clear that this was gonna be a polarizing one. And let me be clear that I wanted to be wrong about this movie. I actually like it when I'm wrong. It's a chance to be surprised or learn something new, but my initial thoughts were that this was gonna be a visual cabbage fart. What I got in this movie was the drizzling shits. So...technically I was wrong, but in the worst way...

This is not a good movie, and saying it is immediately makes you untrustworthy.** The pacing of the events are at the rate of snail thanks to a 2-hour+ run-time, and EVERY character is terribly written and their motivations nonsensical (Honestly, what the hell is wrong with Trini's mom?). And while I could rail on the design of the new suits for hours (They're clunky and the mostly monochrome aesthetic has a hideous sugary glaze much like a Krispy Kreme donut), or really lay into how terrible the mech designs look, that's not why I'm writing this.

But really, what the hell is this?

I've written before about what makes an adaptation good or bad, and the long and short of it is a concerted effort to bring the core essence of the material to a wider audience. So, it can't only appeal to the pre-existing fan base or the uninitiated. However, this will always come down to the execution. And that's a major reason why context and tone are important factors...that this like many reboots completely overlook.

It's been a few years of this ever-present trend, so it's hard not to notice how often this happens. Much like with DmC: Devil May Cry, Saban's Power Rangers and many other reboots before it, there is lip-service paid to the idea of understanding and appreciating what made the original work. However, what you get is a product that says that you were a fool for liking this property as it was presented before since this new version is better because of the ways it's different. The new _______ fixes what was wrong with the original. Just one problem: There'd be no new _______ if there was anything truly wrong with the old one.

Otherwise, we'd be getting a new take on this...***

A MAJOR complaint that many have with remakes and reboots is that the properties being remade are usually familiar material that was or still is fairly popular. Does this apply to Power Rangers? Well, how did your theater react when this played?

My bet is it was pretty positive despite the fact that that moment doesn't match the rest of the movie's tone even remotely (**mild-spoiler**--Rita Repulsa never killed anyone in the show). Putting aside the fact that it was likely the first moment you felt like you were having fun while watching this overwrought after-school special, this was one of many nostalgia beats that movies like this always have. It's built to make you forget that the kid seeing this as his or her introduction to Power Rangers doesn't know or care that mentioning "Mariner Bay" is a Lightspeed Rescue reference. That kid also has no idea why these giant robots are in the shape of dinosaurs. The movie never makes that connection (Which is funny because that means they missed a more note-worthy nostalgia beat for a lazier one...but more on the laziness in a sec'). Worst of all, that kid doesn't really have a team of heroes to look up to in these under-written "misfits."

I challenge ANYONE to tell me what made these kids worthy of becoming superheroes. In a sentence, I can tell why the characters on the show were selected. All 5 members of the team displayed admirable traits that reached beyond themselves and their own personal pursuits. And them being selected matters. Without that element of a wise overseer forming the team, you end up with a quintet of "chosen ones." That's the WORST set-up for any kind of superhero because it says that heroes are only chosen by fate as opposed to having any merits of their own to begin with. Worse, it more strongly conveys the message that it's the gaining of powers that make a person heroic more than their character. Not even Spider-Man's origin expressed that sentiment, and everyone knows the lasting lesson Uncle Ben imparted...

Close enough...

It's also a startlingly lazy approach to characterization. The teens we are introduced to in this incarnation are mostly generic or worse, insulting stereotypes. Jason is a bland impulsive dope (which does nothing to help set up any relevance for Tommy Oliver as a character either). Trini is LGBTQ in press releases only (she has no on-screen love interest other than awkward moments with Zack, and doesn't like "labels"--There is no grounds for claiming she is a groundbreaking character!). Zack is an even more impulsive dope but with a tragic home life. Billy is on the spectrum...until he's not and devolves into a generic comic relief character. Then there's Kimberly...I saved the worst for last.

Of all of these kids, Kim is the grossest and most reprehensible human being. For brevity's sake, I won't get into the specifics. What I will say is this: If you do something illegal that causes harm to someone that considered you a friend, you don't have a right to be mad at them for being mad at you. You lost that moral high ground immediately. So, the instant Kimberly says "That's what you get" in the movie, she crosses the line from flawed but honorable into full-blown asshole.

You are human garbage.

And while there are plenty of things I could still point to (like the fact that they didn't even form the Megazord on-screen!!--toldja I'd get to that laziness thing!!), the cancer eating at the heart of this movie and other reboot attempts like it is simple. Saban's Power Rangers tries to fix the wrong things for the wrong people. I'm not about to pretend that the writing on Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers was rock-solid because neither you nor I are delusional. But that's the thing: The writing was flawed, but the concept and characters were fine. Nothing about those core elements of the show needed to be tweaked for improvement, and the choices to try and correct those things just make them dumber ("Rita Repulsa betrayed the rest of her team of Rangers, you say? With a name like 'Rita Repulsa!?' INCONCEIVABLE!!!"). By trying to course-correct the fundamental aspects of the property, what you're really saying is that the problem with Power Rangers is Power Rangers. And that's a line of thinking that can only appeal to people that never liked the show or stopped watching. It's also the kind of movie I'd expect from someone who clearly didn't wanna make a movie about Power Rangers...Well played. The result is a movie I don't wanna watch again.

And I FULLY acknowledge that this is ridiculous.

Look, the point of a reboot is revitalization of a property. I get that. But how can a revitalization ever truly work if the underlying belief is that the property isn't really worth it? There is always more to the material being redone than its nostalgic value. After all, that's the reason why people remember it fondly in the first place. Until there's a genuine appreciation and understanding of a property for what it was or is, the stage is always gonna be set for failed attempts at starting new franchises. The record speaks for itself.

I'm done.

*--The answer is yes. Yes, he does.
**--Enjoying a movie and it being good are 2 separate things.
***--There's maybe 8 people that even remember "Van-pires"...and I almost went with a pic from this!