Emerson Pieper, staff writer

Lately, films are just getting regurgitated within the industry. There are more “reboots” of films rather than new films with original plotlines and their own ideas. Hollywood used to chase the unknown, but now? Producers and directors seem more interested in chasing what has already been created. Just scrolling through new, upcoming releases, the pattern becomes hard to ignore. There are familiar titles, familiar characters, and a repeating plot that are all returning, just in a different font.

Though most of it is due to the lack of creativity in the department of arts, the rise of nostalgia-driven reboots has created the illusion of abundance in film and television, but underneath that surface is something closer to creative drought. The issue is not that stories are being redone, but that too many of them are being repeated compared to the number of films being produced with fresh ideas.

Projects like the upcoming “Harry Potter” series highlight this. The original films are still watched and are actively culturally relevant, so the question becomes unavoidable: What is this new version offering that doesn’t already exist? Similarly, “Percy Jackson and the Olympians” attempts to retell a story that audiences have already seen on screen. While the series isn’t without merit, it struggles to justify its existence and difference beyond being a more faithful adaptation. Faithfulness alone, it still does not produce an original film.

This is where the problem with many modern reboots makes itself present. They’re not created to explore new ideas or perspectives, but rather to replicate past success with minimal risk. In an industry where budgets are massive and failure is costly, projects that they know are already a hit with the world become a safety net. “Media seems to be allergic to originality, and it’s exhausting as a consumer,” says Augsburg Student Leo Dennis.

A recognizable title guarantees public attention before a trailer is even released, and this goes in both directions, gaining good or bad attention. Not to mention that they tend to cast A-list actors and actresses rather than other actors who would fit the role of a character better, because they know that it is bound to gain more traction. As a result, studios are less inclined to invest in original stories when proven ones can simply be reused.

However, not all adaptations fall into this pattern. Some prove that revisiting a story can be an actual act of creativity rather than repetition, such as ooks being turned into movies, or as I would like to highlight, stage musicals. They offer a compelling counterargument to films that add nothing to the film they are remaking. When a film is adapted into a stage musical, it is transformed into a new medium.

Take “Legally Blonde” or “Heathers” for example. Both originate from well-known films, yet their stage versions fundamentally alter how the story is told and can even offer more insight into a character that the film could not smoothly convey. Dialogue becomes lyrics, emotional moments are amplified through the music, lighting, choreography and lyrics that create a physical dimension that film alone cannot replicate. The structure of scenes shifts to match the pacing of a live performance, forcing creators to rethink how the story unfolds. These adaptations do not rely solely on recognition.

The difference between these musicals and many modern reboots can be understood through a simple distinction: some adaptations are photocopies while others are translations. A photocopy preserves everything exactly as it was, with no originality, often losing clarity in the process. A translation, on the other hand, changes form and expression while preserving the core meaning. It invites audiences to experience something familiar in a completely new way.