In the world of cinema, original versions as compared to remakes, reboots, or even later sequels tend to be vastly different. Whether it's a new direction a director goes in, a difference in actor and/or characteristics because of a new generation, or a downright decline in quality, later versions of the same film or add-ons can often take on a completely different tone than the original material.

Let's first consider remakes. These fall into a sort of grey area with reboots. Often a remake will happen decade(s) after the original film was released with a set of young new faces. If it's based on a book will it be as accurate? Will the newer version be as loved or more loved than the original adaption? Sometimes the remake happens specifically because of the time gap since the original film and seeks to "revive" a franchise or series. This is when it gets into reboot territory, and can also happen with sequels.

Obviously, some of our thoughts on remakes, sequels, and reboots will be subjective. All in all, remakes, reboots, or sequels -especially the first two- will be all out unnecessary. Often that isn't entirely the case, but more often than not, that's what it boils to. Here we have our first example of necessary reboots. -With some subjectivity.- Take, The "Dark Knight" Trilogy, basically the most recent "Batman" films -except Batman v. Superman- that started years after the first two Batman movies.

One can hardly deny the acting chops of Michael Keaton, Michelle Pfeiffer, Jack Nicholson, or Danny DeVito as their respective characters. They're iconic roles that will be remembered forever if for nothing else than their uniqueness and presentation. What else could one expect from a Burton film? We as a public highly praise Heath Ledger's Joker, and Christian Bale's "Batman" in the later films that took on a darker and much different tone. For an example such as this, the important thing is that the series was kept alive especially such high quality rate for so long, but we must also remember that this is great example of the reboot/remake not being unnecessary and -especially considering "Batman and Robin"- and not cancelling out the worth, value, and goodness of the original.

Let's move onto an example of a remake/reboot where the quality goes down sufficiently and the tone is severely changed. It lends to the idea of the unnecessary remake when it changes the quality of actual genre of the film in question. Think about the "Chucky" movies most young people our age know. Whether or not they freak you out, they're a far cry from the original 4 films. A good bit of "millennials" haven't even heard of the "Child's Play" movies that started the franchise. This isn't to be said in a condescending tone, as I myself had not heard of them as a kid. The film goes from a position of pure planned, and well-devised horror, to a movie still steeped in scares, but washed with a more shallow comedy. This doesn't count them as bad, but is certainly a notable change in tone. Horror franchises from the 80s often had many sequels that continued to be good and keep a similar tone at least into the fourth production. One can only be glad it took the series until "The Curse of Chucky" to get into the actual bad, and only connected to the original story by the monster, territory.

The next example is an even greater and more obvious shift in content and quality. The 1975 scifi-horror movie, "The Stepford Wives" was artfully done with great acting and an unsettling plot, depicted both seamlessly and realistically. It scares audiences today, but especially women of the 70s who couldn't help but wonder: if their husbands had the opportunity to (slight Spoiler alter) completely change them, would they? If they could be remade in his mind's image of the perfect wife, would it be done?

Well, in 2002, Hollywood decided it'd be a great idea to take that and turn it into a comedy starring Nicole Kidman. Is it a bad film on its own? Some would say. It isn't trying to at all follow its predecessor and almost makes a parody out of it. Is it actually bad? This is sort of another subjective answer. It's alright on its own, but something completely different and out of the blue and dare I say...unnecessary.

Let's not even venture into the "Psycho" remake with Vince Vaughn.

On a different note, the newest "The Great Gatsby" movie is a great film but quite different from the original adaption, which wasn't quite as colorful and adhered more closely to the novel. The newest one is more artistically-interpreted, featuring unique cinematography and more modern pop and hip-hop style music in place of typical jazz. Some movies are remade so much that there's a version in every color and every decade.

The ''Children of The Corn" remake is both bad and unnecessary. The actual act of redoing a movie -especially if it's already considered a classic- has been worn out to the point that it's a small miracle when one turns out okay, or even great.

Amidst all of these remakes and reboots, classics and cult-followings, it's practically impossible to go on without mentioning the recent remaking of "Ghostbusters". The original film and its sequel are both heralded as classics for obvious reasons. The first installment in the series is used to teach people how to make films. People have cited many things as the reasons for backlash against the new films' creation, including sexism, nostalgia, poor quality, etc. Will the excuse of not being necessary come into question? The reason the film is losing money on advertising -because they overshot the hype- is pretty transparent and it'll fade into history like many other sequels and remakes before it.

I'll conclude with a reminder of both my point and a great bit of advice; Appreciate films, think about them reasonably, and watch the original first, and even then- only in some cases.