[acdcguy]

Reboots have existed since the dawn of cinema. I would say excessive unnecessary reboots are a problem. For example Batman Begins was necessary to reboot back in 2005 and Batman back in 1989 as prior incarnations were for a different time told to a different audience. But the DCEU was rebooting when reboots weren't necessary. They should have built on the established Nolan Dark Knight Trilogy, but instead they are now on their second incarnation of Batman (7th over all, not counting the 1940's serials) who may or may not be in continuity with this DCEU franchise. Just recast and continue the story. 1990's Warner Bros had the right idea but went a terrible direction in terms of story and tone. If stories remain strong and tone remain consistent (or fluctuating naturally) just recast if necessary and build on established continuity.

Another example is 2016's Ghostbusters all female reboot. The story was weak and a remake was completely unnecessary. The film should have focused on either relatives or admirers of the original team that happens to include female members of a new team with the original surviving cast passing the torch. That remake seemed to only exist to purposely piss off everyone and using identity politics as a shield against criticism. This has lead to an increase of unnecessary gender/race swapping remakes, doing a disservice to female and minority actors by turning them into tokens of a half-ass rehash instead of making new roles for them to portray in an original piece.

Another issue is Disney (and other studios, but mainly Disney) remaking their classic films (sometimes in a different medium *cough*live action remakes*cough*) or making unnecessary sequels that serve as soft reboots simply to cash in on established money making franchises. Reboots should be a way to refresh a dying or obscure franchise or film/property and awakening its true potential. If Hollywood isn't doing that then it should focus on new ideas instead of milking dry all the cash cows.