2'CLES, SEQUELS, SPIN-OFFS, REMAKES, AND REBOOTS Multiplicities in Film and Television EDITED BY AMANDA ANN KLEIN AND R. BARTON PALMER UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS ｐｒｅｓｾ＠ Austin Copyright© 2016 by the University of Texas Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America First edition, 2016 Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work should be sent to: Permissions University of Texas Press P.O. Box 7819 Austin, TX 78713-7819 http://utpress.utexas.edu/index.php/rp-form @The paper used in this book meets the minimum requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Rl997) (Permanence of Paper). LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA CONTENTS Acknowledgments vn Introduction Amanda Ann Klein and R. Barton Palmer CHAPTER I. CHAPTER 2. The Kissing Cycle, Mashers, and (White) Women in the American City 22 Amanda Ann Klein CHAPTER 3. Descended from Hercules: Masculine Anxiety in the Peplum 41 Robert Rushing Cycles, sequels, spin-offs, remakes, and reboots : multiplicities in film and television/ edited by Amanda Ann Klein and R. Barton Palmer. First edition. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4773-0900-1 (cloth: alk. paper)-ISBN 978-1-4773-0817-2 (pbk.: alk. paper)- ISBN 978-1-4773-0818-9 (library e-book) - ISBN 978-1-47730819-6 (nonlibrary e-book) 1. Film sequels. 2. Film remakes-History and criticism. 3. Film genres-United States. 4. Television remakes-History and criticism. I. Klein, Amanda Ann, 1976-, editor. II. Palmer, R. Barton, 1946-, editor. PN1995.9.S29C93 2016 791.43'6-dc23 2015028439 5. Cycle Consciousness and the White Audience in Black Film Writing: The 1949-1950 "Race Problem" Cycle and the African American Press 80 Steven Doles doi:lO. 7560/309001 7. Familiar Otherness: On the Contemporary Cross-Cultural Remake 112 Chelsey Crawford CHAPTER 4. The American Postwar Semidocumentary Cycle: Factual Dramatizations 60 R. Barton Palmer CHAPTER CHAPTER 6. Vicious Cycle: Jaws and Revenge-of-Nature Films of the 1970s 96 Constantine Verevis CHAPTER ; ｾ＠ "I/ .•\ . ＮＺｾﾷ＠ r·': CHAPTER 8. Anime's Dangerous Innocents: Millennial Anxieties, Gender Crises, and the Shof o Body as a Weapon 130 Elizabeth Birmingham CHAPTER 9. It's Only a Film, Isn't It? Policy Paranoia Thrillers of the War on Terror 148 Vincent M. Caine CHAPTER rn. Doing Dumbledore: Actor-Character Bonding and Accretionary Performance 166 Mnrmv Pnmp,mnr,p, Vi CONTENTS CHAPTER r I. A Lagosian Lady Gaga: Cross-Cultural Identification in Nollywood's Anti-Biopic Cycle 184 Noah Tsika CHAPTER r2. Re-solving Crimes: A Cycle of TV Detective Partnerships 202 Sarah Kornfield CHAPTER r3. Smart TV: Showtime's "Bad Mommies" Cycle 222 My Generation(s): Cycles, Branding, and Renewal in E4's Skins 240 Faye Woods CHAPTER 14. CHAPTER rs. Extended Attractions: Recut Trailers, Film Promotion, and Audience Desire 260 Kathleen Williams r6. Retro-Remaking: The 1980s Film Cycle in Contemporary Hollywood Cinema 277 Kathleen Loock CHAPTER r7. I Can't Lead This Vacation Anymore: Mumblecore's American Man 299 Amy Borden CHAPTER r8. Serialized Killers: Prebooting Horror in Bates Motel and Hannibal 316 Andrew Scahill List of Contributors 335 Index 339 thanks her faithful writing group at East Carolina University, and the Femidemics (Anna Froula, Marianne Montgomery, Marame Gueye, Andrea Kitta, and Su-Ching Huang), for their helpful revisions and editing suggestions. R. Barton Palmer is grateful for the continuing support for his research from the Calhoun Lemon family, as well as from Dean Richard Goodstein of the College of AAH at Clemson and chair of English Lee Morrissey. Both authors owe a huge debt to Jim Burr, Lynne Chapman, and Sarah McGavick at University of Texas Press for ushering this manuscript through its various stages of production, and to Kip Keller for his always on-point copyediting. Amanda thanks her family-Zach, Jude and Maisy-for their support, and Barton is grateful to Carla Palmer, sons Camden, Colin, and Jeffrey, and daughter Tonya for their tolerance of and interest in his writing. AMANDA ANN KLEIN Claire Perkins CHAPTER ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2/6 l<ATHLEEN WILLIAMS Elsaesser, Thomas. 2001. "The Blockbuster: Everything Connects, but Not Anything Goes." In The End of Cinema as We Know It: American Film in the Nineties, ed. Jon Lewis, 11-22. New York: New York University Press. Fisher, Dan, and Scott Smith. 2010. "Consumers Bite on the Social Web about the Film Snakes on a Plane." International fournal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing 3, no. 3: 241-260. Goldentusk. 2006. Indiana [ones on a Plane Parody Trailer. YouTube, July 14. Gray, Jonathan. 2010. Show Sold Separately: Promos, Spoilers, and Other Media Paratexts. New York: New York University Press. Horwatt, Eli. 2009. "A Taxonomy of Digital Video Remixing: Contemporary Found Footage Practice on the Internet." Scope 15:76-91. IMDb (Internet Movie Database). 2006. Snakes on a Plane. Trivia page. Johnston, Keith M. 2009. Coming Soon: Film Trailers and the Selling of Hollywood Technology. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland. Kernan, Lisa. 2004. Coming Attractions: Reading American Movie Trailers. Austin: University of Texas Press. Li, Charlene, and Josh Bernoff. 2011. Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Business Press. Marshall, David. 2002. "The New Intertextual Commodity." In The New Media Book, ed Dan Harries, 69-82. London: British Film Institute. Media Junkyard. 2013. Cakes on a Plane. YouTube, 1 April. Moviemker. 2006. The Original Scary "Mary Poppins" Recut Trailer. YouTube, 8 October. Mrderekjohnson. 2006. Titanic: The Sequel. YouTube, 5 April. Neochosen. 2006. The Shining Recut. YouTube, 7 February. Rianieltube. 2010. Titanic 2 Rose's Secret-Full Trailer. YouTube, 16 October. Ryoungjohn85. 2009. Titanic II If Tack Had Lived. YouTube, 3 August. Staiger, Janet. 1990. "Announcing Wares, Winning Patrons, Voicing Ideals: Thinking about the History and Theory of Film Advertising." Cinema fournal 29, no. 3: 3-31. 3rd Floor Productions. 2006. Goats on a Boat. YouTube, 24 October. Tryon, Chuck. 2009. Reinventing CineJna: Movies in the Age of Media Convergence. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Vayabobo. 2006. Must Love faws. YouTube, 14 March. Waxman, Sharon. 2006. "After Hype Online, 'Snakes on a Plane' Is Letdown at Box Office." New York Times, 21 August. Williams, Kathleen. 2012. "Fake and Fan Film Trailers as Incarnations of Audience Anticipation and Desire." Transformative Works and Cultures 9. CHAPTER I6 RETRO-REMAKING: THE i98os FILM CYCLE IN CONTEMPORARY HOLLYWOOD CINEMA KATHLEEN LOOCK 2000s, Miami Vice (2006, Michael Mann), Transformers (2007, Michael Bay), Fame (2009, Kevin Tancharoen), and Friday the 13th (2009, Marcus Nispel) made their comeback on the big screen and initiated a film cycle that consists of high-concept blockbusters based on feature films and television series of the 1980s. Critics were quick to recognize the trend, and when Clash of the Titans (2010, Louis Leterrier), A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010, Samuel Bayer), The Karate Kid (2010, Harald Zwart), TRON: Legacy (2010, Joseph Kosinsky) and The A-Team (2010, Joe Carnahan) appeared on Hollywood's annual production slate, they confidently predicted that 2010 would become "the Year of the '80s Remakes" (Allen 2010; Time 2010). In the end, 2010 did not turn out to be exceptional for film studios' revival of the 1980s. The next year followed suit with new cinematic versions of Footloose (2011, Craig Brewer), Conan the Barbarian (2011, Marcus Nispel), Arthur (2011, Jason Winer), The Thing (2011, Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.), and Fright Night (2011, Craig Gillespie). In 2012, 21 [ump Street (2012, Phil Lord/ Chris Miller) and Red Dawn (2012, Dan Bradley) came to the cinemas, and 2013 saw the release of Evil Dead (2013, Fede Alvarez), a remake of Sam Raimi's 1981 horror classic. Jose Padilha's new RoboCop premiered in 2014, and more blockbusters are yet to come: George Miller's Mad Max: Fury Road was released in 2015, and both Kenny Ortega's take on Dirty Dancing and many other films are rumored to be in different stages of development.1 Altogether, up to thirty feature films and television shows from the 1980s will be remade in the 2010s-a number that has led Variety's Marc Graser (2010) to describe the long-past decade as "a dynamo for contemporary remakes." IN THE EARLY I 278 KATHLEEN LOOCK While these movies belong to different genres iand therefore do not share characters, settings, plots, or themes),2 they can still be regarded as forming a film cycle because they remake iconic feature films and television series of the 1980s and because they are all being released within a short period of time. Michael Cieply (2012)1 the New York Times, remarked that we are currently who writes witnessing 11an '80s moment" in Hollywood. His observation is especially appropriate, since contemporaneity is a defining feature of the 1980s (and any other) film cycle. In general, film cycles last only about five to ten years before they lose their financial viability (Klein 2011, 4). As a consequence, studios to capitalize on the current trend by producing more of the same audience interest wanes. In keeping with the timeliness factor, Cieply sees Hollywood's revival of the 1980s as 11 part of a retro mood that has revved up the careers of baby-boom performers while providing comfort food for the audience" (2012). An entire generation of today's filmmakers, actors, and cinema goers grew up with and still remembers television shows and films of the 1980s (including their related lines of merchandise). But this "retro mood"-or "retromania, 11 as Simon Reynolds (2011) calls it-is neither new nor unique to the film industry. As a trend, it currently pervades almost all areas of cultural production, including music, fashion, toys, food, and interior design (Reynolds 2011, xviixviii; see also Loock and Verevis 2012b, 1). According to Reynolds, our culture celebrates nostalgia and "obsesse[s] with the cultural artifacts of its own immediate past" (xiii). Along these lines, I want to suggest that the industrial and cultural practices that have given rise to the 1980s film cycle in contemporary Hollywood cinema can best be described as "retro-remaking." This term is not supposed to add to the conflated vocabulary that can be found in trade, mainstream, and academic publications dealing with Hollywood remaking. On the contrary, "retro-remaking" is an attempt to tackle the linguistic and theoretical challenge at hand. "Remaking," as used in this chapter, does not exclusively refer to the production of a film remake in the more restricted sense of a filmic iteration; rather, it describes a practice that generates different cinematic formats of innovative reproduction, such as the film remake, the sequel, the prequel, or the spin-off. 3 All these formats are driven by commercial imperatives and rely on pretested material that they repeat, modify, and continue in order to ensure box-office RETRO-REMAKING 279 success. This broader understanding of cinematic remaking becomes productive when studying films such as the Karate Kid remake, the sequel TRON: Legacy, and the TV-to-cinema adaptation, update, and prequel The A-Team as examples of one and the same 1980s cycle and as films that share industrial, narrative, and cultural conditions as a result of the remaking practice from which they emerged. The prefix "retro" (in "retro-remaking") stands for the specific modes and strategies that characterize the practice's current relation \or obsession) with the immediate past. It accounts for the fact that the film cycle returns to the 1980s as part of living memory, recalls and replicates elements of iconic pop-cultural artifacts of that decade, and takes an overall playful approach to the past (Reynolds 2011, xxxAs I show in this chapter, many films of the cycle tend to ebrate the originals and their 1980s aesthetic: they directly rely on their cult status and presence in cultural memory and explicitly draw attention to the earlier texts. On the one hand, Hollywood's interest in reviving that particular decade is openly criticized in newspapers and trade publications: the Telegraph's Tom Chivers (2010) writes of "that anti-golden age of cinema, the 1980s/' and his colleague David Gritten (2010) asks: "Synthetic music, largely mediocre movies, cheesy hairstyles, absurd fashions and unlovable political leaders. Who'd want to be reminded of such an era?" On the other hand, the decade evokes sentimental attachments to its films and television series, and to associated childhood memories, and there is a general apprehension among audiences that cinematic remaking will destroy these personal ties to the past (Adams 2010; Gritten 2010). This film cycle thus speaks to a troubled relationship with the 1980s, one raising interesting questions about cultural memory and feelings of generational belonging and the ways in which popular culture participates in their ongoing negotiations and reconstructions. This chapter explores these issues against the background of the timeliness of the film cycle and its particular retro-sensibility. Focusing on both the cinematic texts and the critical discourses that surround them, I first address commercial aspects of retro-remaking and analyze the practice as part of the big-budget, low-risk business model Hollywood has embraced, then turn to the textual level of the movies and closely examine codes and iconographies that evoke the 1980s, and finally end with a discussion of nostalgia and the cultural dimension of retro-remaking. 280 KATHLEEN LOOCK BUSINESS AS USUAL: COMMERCIAL IMPERATIVES AND THE i98os FILM CYCLE The preeminent driving force behind cinematic remaking is the profit principle. From the film industry's point of view, remaking is a profitable business because it minimizes costs and risks by repeating existing stories and by putting presold products back on the release schedule. Critics often regard this conservative, risk-averse practice as a symptom of a "creative vacuum" in contemporary Hollywood (Adams 2010), but they tend to forget that remaking has been a constant feature of American cinema: the dupes (duplicated positive prints) and remakes of the early silent era were followed by film serials (the chief mode of production between 1906 and 1936), which served "first and foremost, [as] commercial vehicles ... [using] cliffhangers, publicity [and] literary tie-ins ... with the intent of keeping audiences coming back for more" (Jess-Cooke 2009, 29). The remakes and sequels released during the classical Hollywood era and ever since the 1970s stem from that practice, as do the recent reboots of the Batman, Spider-Man, and James Bond franchises. 4 The 1980s film cycle is not different or new in that regard. Studios invest in the recycling of individual properties hoping for a boxoffice hit and the chance to "open up and exploit new markets, or ... to revive and create cross-media franchises" (Verevis 2006, 38). What Constantine Verevis has pointed out for 1990s remakings of classic television series from the 1960s and 1970s5 also applies to the films of the 1980s cycle: they "provide recognizable, and relatively inexpensive, self-promotional devices with which to market and brand new 'high-concept' feature films and media franchises" (38, emphasis in the original). The commercial incentive for remaking, then, is not new but it is nonetheless singled out by film critics whenever properties of the 1980s cycle are concerned. During the recent financial crisis and global recession, these critics argue, remaking has become a very attractive business plan for Hollywood. "Studios pin their hopes on the belief that cinemagoers will return to what they know in difficult financial times," writes Nick Allen (2010) in the Telegraph; he considers the "revival of classic Eighties films [to be] a well-trodden path toward shoring up bank balances in Hollywood." For Chivers (2010), too, the return to the 1980s "seems to be a symptom of the credit crunch: a sort of security blanket for studio execs in their late RETRO-REMAKING 281 30s with a nervous eye on the bottom line." And the strategy can pay off handsomely: "The recent success of the dreadful Transformers movies, among other things, [has] suggested that there is money to be made from shameless nostalgia-exploitation, no matter how ridiculous." New ideas are, in fact, riskier than old ones, representing a considerable gamble for the film industry because it is difficult to predict whether audiences will relate to them and buy a movie ticket. This calculation is crucial-enormous sums of money are at stake. Since the immense success of James Cameron's Titanic (1997), which spent part of its $200 million budget on innovative special effects and massive promotional campaigns, Hollywood has embraced a bigbudget production model that has rapidly increased the studios' overall expenses (Adams 2010). In 2011, producing a film cost an average of $78 million-as opposed to $42 million in 1995 (Hakashima 2011). Under these circumstances, studios depend on the financial success of their investments, which is why they decide to develop fewer and (supposedly) safer properties, namely, presold remaking formats such as the remake, the sequel, and the prequel-films, in short, that they think will resonate with audiences and that come with built-in franchise opportunities. For example, Clash of the Titans grossed $493 million worldwide and had estimated production costs of $163 million; TRON: Legacy made $400 million at the box office and cost $170 million to make; and 21 Jump Street earned $202 million yet cost (only) $42 million (all figures from Box Office Mojo). In the aftermath of these successful endeavors, the Clash of the Titans producers quickly released the sequel Wrath of the Titans (2012, Jonathan Liebesman) and started work on a third installment while Wrath was still in postproduction (Kit 2011); another TRON sequel was rumored to be filming in 2014 (Wickman 2012); and 22 Jump Street landed a prime release date in June 2014. The financial success of 1980s remaking formats can thus pave the way for sequelization and prolong the film cycle. But not all films meet the expectations attached to them: The Thing, Footloose, Arthur, Fright Night, and Conan the Barbarian were commercial disappointments, some of them not even covering the production costs (Grierson 2011; Zeitchik 2011). 6 The case of The A-Team (budget: $110 million; gross: $177 million) illustrates how poor commercial performances or failures complicate matters and affect the symbiosis between narrative form 282 KATH LEEN LOOCK and the industry's economic logic. In his discussion of media convergence between cinema and television, Thomas Elsaesser states that cinema "has adopted one of television's most defining characteristics: episodic storytelling and open-ended narration in a series format" (1998a, 18). "More and more feature films are given an 'open' ending, presumably in order to have the option of a sequel," he explains (1998b, 143). Joe Carnahan's high-budget, high-concept A-Team movie was planned as a reboot of the franchise because it had the kind of open ending and built-in option for sequelization that Elsaesser describes. The film tells the origin story of the A-Team, consisting of Colonel Hannibal Smith (Liam Neeson), B. A. Baracus (Quinton "Rampage" Jackson), Templeton "Faceman" Peck (Bradley Cooper), and H. M. "Howling Mad" Murdock (Sharlto Copley). Based on the original premise and opening narration of the 1980s television series (1983-1987), the four US Army Rangers who work for a Special Forces unit in Baghdad during the Iraq War (in the updated version, they are no longer Vietnam veterans) are framed, dishonorably discharged, and imprisoned for "a crime they didn't commit." In an action-laden two hours, they escape, try to clear their names, and eventually become the four soldiers of fortune the audience is familiar with from the television show. The A-Team ends with an offscreen narration announcing: "Still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team." This coda not only echoes the opening narration of the original series but is also a reminder of the A-Team's weekly presence on television. With the reference, the film therefore hints at its own serial potential: it writes an openness for further adventures into its closure, clearly anticipating further installments. Yet because of the poor earnings of the 2010 summer blockbuster, the production of a sequel was quickly cancelled (Plumb 2011). The narrative logic of the remake, which manifests itself in the open ending, fell victim to the same economic logic behind its creation as a reboot of the popular 1980s A-Team franchise. 7 Regardless of its success or failure, The A-Team serves as a good example of the commercial strategies typically involved when a 1980s feature film or television show is recycled for the big screen. First, the film is designed as a spectacular, high-concept blockbuster with an emphasis on Hollywood stars, production design, and state-of-the-art RETRO-REMAKING F 1cu RE i 283 6. i. One of the many explosion-heavy action scenes in the A-Team film. special effects (Verevis 2006, 48). In the case of The A-Team, a wellknown premise and a simple story line are combined with explosionheavy action sequences that are, as one critic pointed out, "in accordance with modern big screen box office standards ... [and] even more exaggerated and outrageous than anything seen on NBC way back when in the 1980s" (The Movie Report 2010). There are elaborate helicopter chases in Mexico, a parachuting tank that plummets into a lake in Switzerland (with the A-Team on board still able to maneuver it, of course), shipping containers on a dock in the Los Angeles harbor that topple like dominoes, and many, many explosions. The other films of the cycle similarly invested in replacing once innovative-but now outdated-visual effects of the 1980s originals with the latest CGI (computer-generated imagery) technology. About TRON (1982, Steven Lisberger) and its belated 2010 sequel, for example, the film critic Roger Ebert writes: The first "Tron" (1982) felt revolutionary at the time .... It was the first movie to create a digital world and embed human actors; always earlier that had been done with special effects, matte shots, optical printers, blue screen and so on. "Tron" found a freedom of movement within its virtual world that was exhilarating. The plot was impenetrable, but so what? "Tron: Legacy," a sequel made 28 years after the original but with the same actor, is true to the first film: It also can't be understood, but looks great. Both films, made so many years apart, can fairly lay claim to being state of the art. 2010) 284 RETRO - REMAKING KAT HLE EN LOOCK For TRON: Legacy, "state of the art" includes a digitally rejuvenated, completely computer-generated Jeff Bridges combatting the computer program CLU, and the use of 3D-an additional strategy of visually surpassing earlier versions that has also defined the comebacks of Transformers, Clash of the Titans, Conan the Barbarian, and Fright Night. Furthermore, the release of a film in the 1980s cycle is accompanied by massive marketing campaigns and cross-media merchandise. To promote The A-Team, a comic book series, a line of action figures, and an iPhone application were introduced. In fact, the comic books and toys have extended the remaking practice to cross-platform productions through the revival of merchandise that was successfully sold in the 1980s. The comic books A-Team: War Stories and A-Team: Shotgun Wedding, both published during the months preceding the film's release in June 2010, served as prequels and tie-ins to the film. They were designed "to build a solidly action-packed foundation for a new generation of A-Team fans," according to the A-Team comic editor and cowriter Tom Waltz at IDW Publishing (IDW 2010). The executive vice president of sales at Jazwares, Laura Zebersky, makes similar claims when advertising the new action toys: "The release of The A-Team film will introduce a new generation of fans to the heroes of the popular series .. . . The A-Team is a part of pop culture history and we look forward to playing a role in its return" (quoted in Densetsu 2009). As these presentations of recycled product lines reveal, the producers' marketing of The A-Team to a new, young target group heavily relies on the iconic status of tne 1980s series in American popular culture. Indeed, the marketing strategies shed light on how American popular culture historicizes itself: in the context of retro-remaking, the pop-cultural-and classic-status of 1980s films, series, and characters, as well as the entire decade itself, is re-created, reconfirmed, and reoffered for consumption to a new generation. Yet these films are not pitched exclusively at cinema's largest target audience (eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds), but also to the generation that grew up in the 1980s and is familiar with the cultural products of that time. To them, films of the 1980s cycle sell a living memory endowed with new cultural capital and a notion of timeless significance. The branding concept of the TRON: Legacy franchise, for example, clearly built on nostalgia for the 1980s. It included a viral campaign, the screening of teaser trailers and footage at special F 1Gu RE 16.2 . 285 A first look at the grid design of ElecTRONica, the months-long dance party at Disneyland Resort that prepared the release of TRON: Legacy. events, a comic book series, theme park attractions, dance parties, video games, fashion, and jewelry. "Catapult Back to 1982," urged Robin Trowbridge (2010), the entertainment show director at Disneyland Resort, in a blog post about the (then) upcoming, months-long dance party ElecTRONica at the park. Flynn's Video Arcade from the film had been re-created for the event, and Trowbridge invited potential guests to "peg those jeans, crimp that hair, and get ready to take a trip back to 1982 .... Yes, before you know it, you'll be playing TRON and other classic 80s arcade games all night long!" In the viral campaign preparing for the release of TRON: Legacy, "Flynn's Arcade" tokens and flash drives were sent to selected news websites. They contained codes and a countdown leading to the 2009 Comic-Con in San Diego, where a scavenger hunt revealed another reconstruction of Flynn's Video Arcade, this one with retro coin-operated games and actual Space Paranoids machines, as they had been developed by Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) in the original film (Short 2010). At first sight, then, the 1980s film cycle does not seem to be all that different from other supposedly low-risk, high-concept, highbudget remaking formats and franchises in contemporary Hollywood cinema. Even the heavy marketing machines accompanying these film releases appear to be similar to those used for other blockbusters. As Carolyn Jess-Cooke has pointed out for Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, the marketing and merchandising "creates generational communities, perpetuating experiences and memories . . . 286 KATHLEEN LOOCK RETRO-RE MAK ING from one generation to another, so that the act of engaging in a . . . film ... becomes heavily invested with emotional ties" (2010, 220, emphasis in the original). The examples of The A-Team and TRON: Legacy show that "generational memory-making and transference" (220) are also central to 1980s remaking formats. What distinguishes the films of the 1980s cycle from other properties, however, is the fact that they not only keep the memory of the original alive, but also explicitly capitalize on the 1980s past of the originals. And this extends beyond the commercial level of marketing and merchandising to the textual strategies of the movies themselves. For the knowledgeable audience comprising the 1980s generation and the increasingly pop-culture-literate new generation, the film cycle has many textual "bonus[ es] of pleasure" (Leitch 2002, 42) in store. PLEASURE IN RECOGNITION: TEXTUAL STRATEGIES OF THE i98os FILM CYCLE When it comes to the originals, almost none of the films in the 1980s remake cycle resorts to what Thomas Leitch has termed the "rhetoric of disavowal." Unlike most film remakes, they do not "simultaneously valorize and deny [earlier texts] through a series of rhetorical maneuvers designed at once to reflect their intimacy with these texts and to distance themselves from their flaws" (Leitch 2002, 53). Instead, they attempt to maintain a recognizable textual relation to their originals in order to both create and confirm the pop-cultural status of the earlier versions and canonize them as 1980s (cult) classics from which the film remakes of the 1980s cycle derive their own pop-cultural value. Whereas Verevis has suggested that high-concept films based on American prime-time television series from the 1960s and 1970s are "less interested in recreating the detail of their originals than in adapting the (previously market tested) source material to the conventions and expectations of the contemporary genre movie and/or blockbuster" (2006, 49), this indifference no longer seems to be the case for remaking formats of 1980s television shows and feature films. To be sure, the films of the 1980s cycle still follow the cinematic imperatives Verevis mentions, but they also use textual strategies that revive and foreground important details of their 1980s predecessors. In Philip Drake's words, they mobilize "particular codes that have come to connote a past sensibility as it is selectively re- 287 remembered in the present . . . as a structure of feeling, and these codes function metonymically, standing in for the entire decade" (2003, 188, emphasis in the original). For the 1980s film cycle, these codes include unchanged, immediately recognizable titles that locate the films in the 1980si the recycling of sound tracks, along with trademark haircuts, accessories, and signature lines; metareferences to the original and the remaking practice as such; and cameo appearances by original cast members. While most of these strategies can be detected in other remaking formats, I would argue that films of the 1980s cycle employ them in order to produce a specific retro-sensibility. A presold title already contains the basic premise of a high-concept film and promotes it by recalling an earlier version of the story; its familiarity "arouses the audience's pleasurable anticipation" (Leitch 2002, 40). Viewers know what to expect when they encounter titles like Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, The A-Team, Miami Vice, 21 fump Street, Fame, Dirty Dancing, Footloose, or Conan the Barbarian. Accordingly, the 2010 Karate Kid retells the story of a boy (Jaden Smith), who is forced to move far away with his divorced mom (Taraji P. Henson), is threatened by neighborhood bullies in the new place, and eventually makes friends with a reclusive janitor (Jackie Chan), who teaches him martial arts and ways to solve his problems. The overall plot remains basically the same as in John G. Avildsen's 1984 version-including an updated version of the memorable "wax on, wax off" routine and a climactic tournament at the end. This time, however, The Karate Kid is set in China, and, most importantly, does not feature karate but kung fu. During production, it was therefore rumored that the film would (and should) be marketed as The Kung Fu Kid. Yet rather than pitching the film as something new, Sony Pictures, wanting to profit from its valuable 1980s property, insisted on maintaining the original title in the interest of rebooting the longdormant franchise, which had once spawned three sequels, an animated television series, a video game, action figures, headbands, posters, and T-shirts (Horn 2010i Sofge 2010). In an article published in the online magazine Slate, Erik Sofge (2010) suggested that "a reboot of the franchise seem[ed] better positioned for nostalgia-driven ticket sales." By preserving the well-known title, the new Karate Kid thus encouraged recognition of, and invited engagement with, the popular -------------------------288 KATHLEEN LOOCK original, which has maintained a high degree of circulation through television reruns, DVD sales, merchandising, and catchphrases (like "wax on, wax off") that have entered the pop-cultural lexicon. The title itself activates memories of the original and the 1980s past to which it belongs. Retro-remakes also take up songs, musical themes, and details such as trademark haircuts, accessories, and signature lines from their 1980s sources. Thus, Fame includes new versions of the popular, Academy Award-winning title song, "Fame," and the ballad "Out Here on my Own," both sung by Irene Cara in the original. Similarly, Footloose recycles not only the story but also the sound track of the earlier film. Many critics have commented on the fact that Craig Brewer's remake is strikingly faithful to the original, or as Roger Ebert (2011) puts it: 11 This 2011 version is so similar-sometimes song for song and line for line-that I was wickedly tempted to reprint my 1984 review, word for word." Brewer's Footloose opens with an updated version of Kenny Loggins's original theme song, and "the first impression is one of reverence," remarks the film critic William Goss (2011). He adds that other rerecordings throughout the film speak "to that earlier sense of admiration for the original." A long sequence shows (once more) how Willard (Miles Teller), Ren's (Kenny Wormald) rhythm-less sidekick, learns dance moves to a new take on Deniece Williams's "Let's Hear it for the Boy"; Brewer also works in "Almost Paradise" and a sloweddown version of "Holding Out for a Hero" before the film ends yet again with the teenagers dancing to the "Footloose" theme. In these instances, the songs enforce the overall sense of homage that these retro-remakes render to their originals. In Leitch's words, they intend to "pay tribute to an earlier film rather than usurp its place of honor" (2002, 47). What is more, most of the songs mentioned here became number one hits and gained pop-cultural currency in their own They function, so to speak, as a recognizable sound track of the 1980s, one that is replayed in the remakes and evokes the memory both of the original films and the decade itself. The cinematic adaptation of The A-Team retains not only the characteristic theme of the television series, but also the distinctive appearances of its four characters: Hannibal constantly lights up a cigar and remarks, "I love it when a plan comes together"; Paceman remains the well-dressed womanizer and con man; Murdock is seen in his typical ball cap and leather flight jacket; and B. A. wears RETRO-REMAKING 289 his (actually, Mr. T's) trademark haircut, expresses his fear of flying in the catchphrase "I ain't gettin' on no plane!" and has the words "pity" and "fool" tattooed on the knuckles of his left and hand, echoing another of his signature lines. The film even provides the backstory for B. A.'s characteristic features, which were simply taken for granted in the series. Again, the film's fidelity to the depiction of the characters in the television show both pays homage to the nal and speaks to audience expectations, since viewers will quickly recognize their 1980s heroes and take pleasure in identifying their iconic traits. While The A-Team more or less faithfully replicates the almost cartoonish portrayal of the characters as well as the 1980s aesthetic of the episode finales (showcasing over-the-top violence, gunfights, and massive explosions), 21 Jump Street takes a tongue-in-cheek approach to its original series (1987-1991) and toys with audience expectations by acknowledging and playfully analyzing its own status as a cinematic remaking format. That film adaptations of long-running television shows comment on the practice of remaking series for the big screen is not entirely new. 8 Yet 21 Jump Street goes further by turning the revival and remaking of its own original into a basic plot element of the comedy spin-off. In the movie, former high school enemies Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) meet again at the police academy, where they eventually befriend each other and prepare for graduation. After passing the exams, they are assigned to bicycle park patrol but are immediately transferred when they fail to make their first arrest properly. Captain Hardy (Nick Offerman) tells Schmidt and Jenko: "Fortunately for you two, we're reviving a canceled undercover police program from the '80s and revamping it for modern times. You see, the guys in charge of this stuff lack creativity and are completely out of ideas, so all they do now is recycle shit from the past and expect us all not to notice. One of these programs involves the use of young, immature-seeming officers." These lines recall the original series, introduce its familiar premise of fresh-faced police officers who work undercover as high school kids, and comment on the nature of remaking in general and on the 1980s cycle in particular. On the one hand, the "canceled undercover police program from the '80s" is a stand-in for the television show, which is also evoked when the captain wants to send Schmidt and Jenko to the Jump Street Chapel headquarters but cannot remember the correct street num- ---------------------------------- - - -- - - - - - " 290 KATHLEEN LOOCK her: "[It's] down on Jump Street. 37 Jump Street," he says, pauses, and mutters: "No, that doesn't sound right." This joke draws on the cult status of the television show, which took itself quite seriously and incorporated many social issues of its time. The captain's memory gap implies that the undercover program-which really means the show-has long been forgotten and no longer occupies a place in the American imagination (although it in fact does), thereby announcing the film's own mockingly affectionate relation to its original. "The guys in charge," on the other hand, can be easily replaced with studio executives, who green-light the remaking of successful 1980s properties for want of original ideas. 21 [ump Street thus takes up and reflects on the critical discourse surrounding cinematic remaking and, more specifically, the 1980s cycle. With the verbs "revive," "revamp," and "recycle" in the captain's remarks, it even echoes the typical word choice of the (generally negative) reviews. The comment, then, knowingly exposes the commercial imperatives that have informed the production of 21 [ump Street and other 1980s remaking formats. It is further directed at a knowledgeable, pop-culture-literate audience that is not really "expect[ed] ... not to notice" but to find pleasure in the film's metareferences and winks at the 1980s past. The television series eventually takes center stage in the 21 [ump Street movie when Johnny Depp and Peter DeLuise from the original cast return as the DEA undercover cops Tom Hanson and Doug Penhall.9 Cameo appearances of actors from earlier films or television series are a common strategy in cinematic remaking (Leitch 2002, 42; Loock 2012, 138-139; Verevis 20001 20). They provide "a special reward for knowledgeable viewers" but can also suggest a sense of continuity (Loock 2012, 138). Once more, 21 [ump Street intends to surpass other films with its playful attitude toward the source material and the now-famous actor that comes with it. "We had no idea. You're like an amazing actor, man," Schmidt says to Hanson (and Johnny Depp) when he and Penhall reveal themselves to be, in fact, DEA undercover cops in elaborate disguise and not members of the drug ring that Schmidt and Jenko plan to arrest. Just as they realize their common Jump Street history-"Come on, you guys are Jump Street? That's funny, because we were actually Jump Street"-Hanson and Penhall are wounded in the gunfight finale. Hanson's last words, in the subsequent death scene, serve as an ironic comment on his 1980s fashion faux pas on the television show: RETRO-REMA K ING Fl Gu RE i 291 6.3. Tom Hanson (Johnny Depp) and Doug Penhall (Peter Deluise) from the 1980s television series return as DEA undercover cops in the 27 jump Street movie. "All the stuff that I wore, like the bracelets, the rings, the tight pants was just so that people would think I'm cool." The cameos provide a retrospective backstory for the two officers because they tell the audience what happened to them after the Jump Street program, and they satisfy the desire for final closure through the death scene. The entire premise of "reviving" both the undercover police program and the successful 21 [ump Street property "for modern times" draws attention to the difficult negotiation of timeliness and timelessness that concerns all films of the 1980s remaking cycle. In her study American Film Cycles, Amanda Ann Klein explains: "The film cycle is a commodity to be assembled, packaged, and sold as quickly as possible, not a timeless piece of art" (2011, 8). In contrast with film genres that "gained cultural capital once they were associated with timelessness-or what audiences are interested in watching for decades to come[,] film cycles . .. value timeliness-or what audiences are interested in watching right now" (9). But studios invest in the supposed timelessness of 1980s television series and feature films. The idea behind remaking is that these properties retain their commercial and cultural value over time and can be easily revived to be sold to both the original generation of viewers and a new one. The remaking formats draw their appeal from the pleasure of recognition, which is guaranteed by marketing and merchandising as well as by textual strategies that do not necessarily disavow earlier texts. The 21 [ump Street remake acknowledges the (existence and) 292 KATHLEEN LOOCK RETRO-REMAKING timeliness of the 1980s film cycle and inserts overt references to the current remaking practice in Hollywood. At the same time, it mocks the notion of timelessness ascribed to many originals of the 1980s by poking fun at the premise, 1980s fashions, and the action and high school scenes of the television series it is based on. The show exposes itself to be a product of its time and not timeless at all. This insight is crucial, since retro-remaking does in fact not turn the original into a timeless classic, but rather into a classic in (a particular) time. Retroremaking, in other words, creates pop-cultural temporality in the sense that the 1980s become recognizable, through particular codes . and iconographies, as a distinct period. PAST AND PRESENT: NOSTALGIA AND THE i98os FILM CYCLE Reviewers immediately labeled the films discussed in this chapter as 1980s remakes, linking them discursively to a cycle-a cycle that reconstructs not a historical past but a glossy "pastness" for the present (Jameson 1991, 19). This identification sheds light on the fact that memories of the decade, or its "1980s-ness," are themselves manufactured, a product of pop-cultural media representations. It also raises questions about nostalgia, which is commonly understood to be a feeling of loss or a yearning for an idealized past. For Fredric Jameson, nostalgia is symptomatic of a postmodern condition characterized by "the waning of historicity, of our lived possibility of experiencing history in some active way" (21). Nostalgia, he argues, substitutes for "genuine historicity" a "vast collection of images" (18); it is a cultural style that commodifies the past and "empties history of politics, reducing it to a recombination of stereotypes of the past" (Drake 2003, 189). Retro-remaking remembers, reproduces, and sells recognizable pop-cultural bits and pieces of the 1980s in ways that Jameson describes. Yet his critical view neglects the cultural work that nostalgia performs in the present, or as Paul Grainge puts it: "Jameson fails to account for memory and identity being negotiated by the nostalgia mode" (2002, 6). Nostalgia manifests itself, for instance, in the sentimental attachment to a simpler (childhood) past and its defining cultural touchstones, and this understanding has become a standard feature of the critical discourse that surrounds the 1980s remaking cycle. Thus, Michael Cieply (2012) writes that feature films and television shows 293 from the 1980s "are making a comeback ... because they mean something to a new generation of filmmakers" and studio executives, while David Gritten (2010) speaks much more critically of their "dismaying obsession with remaking movies from their childhood." In response to his question "Who'd want to be reminded of [the 1980s]?" Gritten states: The average Hollywood executive with the power to green-light movies. You know the type. He (it's still usually a he) would be in his mid-thirties. He's ego-driven, socially dysfunctional, badly behaved to subordinates, neurotic and essentially lonely. Oh, and he has little regard for film history. Why does he want to foist remakes of awful films such as Conan the Barbarian, Tron, Police Academy, and The Neverending Story on us? Because he loved these movies as a kid, so they remind him of the last time he felt happy. Whereas Gritten's harsh comment claims that childhood nostalgia is the driving force behind remaking 1980s properties, this same nostalgia essentially translates into a feeling of apprehension on the part of cinema goers. Guy Adams (2010) describes it in the Independent as "that all-too-familiar feeling that accompanies the desecration of a childhood memory: anger, resentment, and a deep, almost primeval sense of sorrow." Adams laments that studios "have decided to use our nostalgia against us": to watch The A-Team "is to have a sledgehammer taken to rose-tinted memories," and The Karate Kid, "which my generation watched over and over on the family Betamax, has fallen victim to a grimly predictable makeover." Interestingly, similar arguments surface in discussions about possible cameo appearances by original cast members. Ralph Macchio, who played Daniel LaRusso in The Karate Kid and two sequels, said in an interview: "I'll forever be attached to that role ... but I don't think it makes sense to show Daniel as an adult since I think he represents so many people's childhoods. I think seeing him as a grown man could sully that legacy and I just want the film to be what it was" (quoted in Wieselman 2009). His words resonate with the desire of many film critics to preserve and protect the originals and the memories attached to them. Some of these critics label retro-remaking "cultural vandalism" (Gritten 2010) or liken it to "an effort to trammel the memories of an entire generation" (Adams 2010). 294 RETRO-REMAKING KATHLEEN LOOCK Statements like these reveal the extent of personal investment in an idealized pop-cultural past that is still considered to be meaningful in the present. By expressing feelings of nostalgia and generational belonging, these film critics condemn retro-remaking, sometimes in an attempt to save favorites from what they consider to be the most recent excess of cinematic self-cannibalization: "As long as the Reboot Squad keeps its hands off Back to the Future, ET, Blue Velvet, Brazil, and Ferris Bueller's Day Off, I won't mind too much," writes Gritten (2010), for example. These largely negative views, however, are not always shared by general audiences, which enjoy the updated versions. "Popular culture loves repetition," Frank Kelleter has observed (2012, 33). And for him, remaking in particular "has a stabilizing function, as each new variation reinforces the entire system of cultural self-generation and furthers the culture's belief in its own existence and continuity" (38). From this perspective, retro-remaking is not (only) "a mark of cultural solipsism or creative bankruptcy, but a way of acknowledging that the past exists through textual traces in cultural and ideological mediation with the present" (Grainge 2002, 55). Films of the 1980s cycle, then, rely on commercial and textual strategies "that operate as catalysts for recollection, and stand in for a historical 'feeling"' (Drake 2003, 189). More precisely, they evoke a sense of "pastness" derived from the mediated memories of the 1980s in feature films and television series that have generally retained their cultural currency in the present. Retro-remaking constructs a "1980s-ness" based on what Alison Landsberg has termed "prosthetic memories"-memories that' "are not 'authentic' or natural, but rather . . . produced by an experience of mass mediated representations" (2003, 149, emphasis in the original). At the same time, the remade properties offer something new, a variation in narrative, style, setting, and cast that clearly locates them in the present (as timely contributions to the film cycle). Feelings of generational belonging among the audience are re-created and reinforced in relation to the dialectics between repetition and innovation. For the generation that consumed the originals in the 1980s, the remaking cycle is repackaging (mediated) memories of its past, endowing them with new cultural capital and a sense of nostalgia for the entire decade. For the new generation (which might be familiar with the originals through pop-cultural references, television reruns, or DVDs), the films pro- 295 vide access to representations of the 1980s past and produce new (mediated) memories linked to their own experiences in the present. The 1980s moment in contemporary Hollywood cinema has not yet passed. Retro-remaking continues to be a profitable business practice that will add still more film remakes, sequels, prequels, and TVto-cinema adaptations to the 1980s film cycle in the years to come. When exactly the cycle will end is impossible to predict. According to Klein, "A film cycle can only court the audience for so long .... Audiences may fall in love with cycles quickly, but if those same audiences lose interest in a particular cycle, they may become annoyed or frustrated if it continues to be produced for too long" (2011, 14). It is probably safe to say that, irrespective of the 1980s cycle, retroremaking is here to stay. NOTES 1. Films in different stages of development include Gremlins, Police Academy, The Neverending Story, Private Benjamin, Overboard, WarGames, Videodrome, Endless Love, Romancing the Stone, Pet Sematary, Scarface, Highlander, Ghostbusters III, The Goonies 2, and Top Gun II (Allen 2010; Chivers 2010; Graser 2010; Gritten 2010; Meslow 2013). 2. They include action, martial arts, and urban police films; science fiction, horror, and fantasy films; musicals, dance films, and romantic comedies. 3. Frank Kelleter and I are investigating this broader concept of remaking in the subproject "Retrospective Serialization: Remaking as a Method of Cinematic Self-Historicizing," which is part of the research unit Popular Seriality: Aesthetics and Practice, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), http://www .popularseriality.de; see also Kelleter and Loock, forthcoming. 4. For discussions of remaking practices in different historical stages of American cinema, see Forrest 2002; Forrest and Koos 2002b; Jess-Cooke 2009, 15-51; Ohmann 2008, 55-77; and Proctor 2012. 5. For example, The Flintstones (1960-1966), The Addams Family (19641966), Mission: Impossible (1966-1973), or Charlie's Angels (1976-1981). 6. Conan cost $90 million and pulled in only $48.8 million worldwide; The Thing cost $38 million and made $27.4 million. The other films fared a little better: Arthur (budget: $40 million; gross: $45.7 million), Fright Night (budget: $30 million; gross: $41 million), and Footloose (budget: $24 million; gross: $62.7 million); all figures are from Box Office Mojo. 7. Merchandise tie-ins in the 1980s included action figures, comic books, novelizations of episodes, and records with the A-Team theme and music from the series. 8. The opening airplane sequence of Charlie's Angels (2000, McG [Joseph McGinty Nichol]) is a case in point, as Verevis has shown (2006, 51). 9. Holly Robinson has a brief cameo appearance as officer Judy Hoffs, and old 296 KATH LEEN LOOCK footage from the series showing officer Harry Truman Ioki (Dustin Nguyen) is flickering on a television screen during the shootout finale. WORKS CITED Adams, Guy. 2010. "Hollywood Ate My Childhood: Why Film Remakes Are Desecrating Our Most Precious Memories." Independent, 22 July. Allen, Nick. 2010. "Hollywood Goes Back to the Future with '80s Remakes." Telegraph, 19 April. Chivers, Tom. 2010. "1980s Movie Remakes: 10 of the Most Ridiculous." Telegraph, 8 May. Cieply, Michael. 2012. "In Hollywood, an '80s Moment." New York Times, 29 March. Densetsu, Shin. 2009. "Jazzwares [sic] Announces The A Team Movie Toy Line." Toyark.com, "News," 17 December. Drake, Philip. 2003. "'Mortgaged to Music': New Retro Movies in 1990s Hollywood Cinema." In Grainge 2003, 183-201. Ebert, Roger. 2010. Review of Tron: Legacy. RogerEbert.com, 15 December. - - - . 2011. Review of Footloose. RogerEbert.com, 12 October. Elsaesser, Thomas. 1998a. "Cinema Futures: Convergence, Divergence, Difference." In Elsaesser and Hoffmann 1998, 9-26. - - - . 1998b. "Fantasy Island: Dream Logic as Production Logic." In Elsaesser and Hoffmann 1998, 143-158. Elsaesser, Thomas, and Kay Hoffmann, eds. 1998. Cinema Futures: Cain, Abel, or Cable? Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Forrest, Jennifer. 2002. "The 'Personal' Touch: The Original, the Remake, and the Dupe in Early Cinema." In Forrest and Koos 2002, 89-126. Forrest, Jennifer, and Leonard R. Koos, eds. 2002a. Dead Ringers: The Remake in Theory and Practice. Albany: State University of New York Press. - - - . 2002b. "Reviewing Remakes: An Introduction." In Forrest and Koos 2002, 1-36. Goss, William. 2011. "Review: ｆｯｴｬｾｳ･＠ Follows Well in the Original's Footsteps." Film.com, 14 October. Grainge, Paul. 2002. Monochrome Memories: Nostalgia and Style in Retro America. Westport, CT: Praeger. - - - , ed. 2003. Memory and Popular Film. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Graser, Marc. 2010. "Hollywood Heads Back to the '80s." Variety, 16 April. Grierson, Tim. 2011. "Apparently, People Don't Want '80s Remakes-They Just Want Movies That Remind Them of the '80s." Yahoo! Movies, 17 October. Gritten, David. 2010. "Leave the '80s in the Past, Hollywood." Telegraph, 23 April. Hakashima, Ryan. 2011. "Hollywood and Big Budget Movies: Is the Love Affair Over?" Huffington Post, 17 September. Horn, John. 2010. '"Karate Kid' Update Breaks Down Some Chinese Walls." L.A. Times, 30 May. IDW (IDW Publishing). 2010. "IDW Partners with Twentieth Century Fox Li- RETRO-REMAKING 297 censing &. Merchandising to Release New Comic Book Series Based on The ATeam." IDW Publishing, 22 February. Jameson, Fredric. 1991. Postmodernism; or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Jess-Cooke, Carolyn. 2009. Film Sequels: Theory and Practice from Hollywood to Bollywood. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. - - - . 2010. "Sequelizing Spectatorship and Building Up the Kingdom: The Case of Pirates of the Caribbean, Or, How a Theme-Park Attraction Spawned a Multibillion-Dollar Film Franchise." In Second Takes: Critical Approaches to the Film Sequel, ed. Carolyn Jess-Cooke and Constantine Verevis, 205-223. Albany: State University of New York Press. Kelleter, Frank. 2012. '"Toto, I Think We're in Oz Again' (and Again and Again): Remakes and Popular Seriality." In Loock and Verevis 2012, 19-44. Kelleter, Frank, and Kathleen Loock. Forthcoming. "Hollywood Remaking as Second-Order Serialization." In Media of Serial Narrative, ed. Frank Kelleter. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Kit, Borys. 2011. "Warner Bros. Readying 'Clash of the Titans 3' (Exclusive)." Hollywood Reporter, 2 November. Klein, Amanda Ann. 2011. American Film Cycles: Reframing Genres, Screening Social Problems, and Defining Subcultures. Austin: University of Texas Press. Landsberg, Alison. 2002. "Prosthetic Memory: The Ethics and Politics of Memory in an Age of Mass Culture." In Grainge 2003, 144-161. Leitch, Thomas. 2002. "Twice-Told Tales: Disavowal and the Rhetoric of the Remake." In Forrest and Koos 2002, 37-62. Loock, Kathleen. 2012. "The Return of the Pod People: Remaking Cultural Anxieties in Invasion of the Body Snatchers." In Loock and Verevis 2012a, 122-144. Loock, Kathleen, and Constantine Verevis, eds. 2012a. Film Remakes, Adaptations, and Fan Productions: Remake/Remodel. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. - - - . 2012b. Introduction. In Loock and Verevis 2012, 1-15. Meslow, Scott. 2013. "13 Utterly Unnecessary 1980s Movie Remakes That Are Actually in Development." The Week, 12 April. The Movie Report. 2010. Review of The A-Team. 18 June. Oltmann, Katrin. 2008. Remake/Premake: Hollywoods romantische Komodien und ihre Gender-Diskurse, 1930-1960. Bielefeld, Germany: transcript. Plumb, Ali. 2011. "Bradley Cooper: There'll Be No A-Team 2." Empire, 10 March. Proctor, William. 2012. "Regeneration and Rebirth: Anatomy of the Franchise Reboot." Scope 22 (February). Reynolds, Simon. 2011. Retromania: Pop Culture's Addiction to Its Own Past. London: Faber and Faber. Short, Daniel. 2010. "Marketing Campaign for Tron Legacy Exciting Fans." Examiner.com, 27 February. Sofge, Erik. 2010. "The Not-So-Karate Kid." Slate, 11 June. Time. 2010. "2010: The Year of the '80s Remakes." www.time.com/time/photo gallery/0,29307,1977221,00.html. Trowbridge, Robin. 2010. "Catapult Back to 1982 at Flynn's Arcade at ElecTRONica." Disney Parks Blog, 7 October. --------------------- 298 -Ｍｾﾷ＠ ｾＬ｟ＮＭ＠ KATHLEEN LOOCK Verevis, Constantine. 2006. Film Remakes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wickman, Kase. 2012. "Confirmed: Garrett Hedlund Will Star in 'Tron 3.'" NextMovie.com, 13 December. Wieselman, Jarrett. 2009. "Ralph Macchio: I Won't Cameo in 'The Karate Kid' Remake!" New York Post, 13 July. Zeitchik, Steven. 2011. '"Footloose': The 'SO's Are Dead, Long Live the 'SO's." L.A. Times, 17 October. CHAPTER 17 I CAN'T LEAD TH IS VACATION ANYMORE: MUMBLECORE'S AMERICAN MAN AMY BORDEN CRITICAL AND POPULAR USE, the name "mumblecore" achieves a sort of self-fulfilling indecipherability that may be traced back to its notably nonmythic origin story. Interviewed by Indiewire in 2005 at the South by Southwest Film Festival, the director Andrew Bujalski recycled the name from the sound mixer Eric Masunaga, who coined the term to describe a group of ultra-low-budget features he had worked on that were playing at the festival. 1 The films most often labeled mumblecore by critics and scholars are conversationdriven, minimalist productions reflective of a generation whose preferred inarticulateness marks a rising affective cultural currency that asks its characters and its audience to understand what they mean and not what they say. The core group of mumblecore films are those written or directed by Andrew Bujalski, Mark and Jay Duplass, Aaron Katz, Frank V. Ross, Kentucker Aubrey, Joe Swanberg, and Greta Gerwig, although the label has been applied also to films made by Lynne Shelton, Kelly Reichardt, and Noah Baumbach. Both the New York Times writer Dennis Lim's oft-cited 2007 mainstream introduction to the cycle and the filmography that appeared alongside Aymar Jean Christian's 2011 Cinema fournal essay are emblematic of how critics and scholars classify as mumblecore such varied films as Funny Ha-Ha (2002, Andrew Bujalski), Wendy and Lucy (2008, Kelly Reichardt), Baghead (2008, Mark and Jay Duplass), Greenberg (2010, Noah Baumbach), and Tiny Furniture (2011, Lena Dunham). Reading this list might leave one with the head-scratching sense that the movement could broadly include any film made from 2002 to 2011 that exhibits the traits of either the art cinema genre described by David Bordwell (1979) or by Michael Newman's "indie-film culture," particularly its use of charIN ITS