I saw this for the first time not long ago and thought that it was fine just the way it was. I haven't read the comics so I might be missing something but the movie stood just fine on its own. Don't know why a reboot would be necessary/desirable. Can't people come up with some original ideas once in a while????
I don't know why it wouldn't
be. Yes, the original stands fine on its own, but making another movie would not change that in any way
. Why would it? This isn't a zero-sum game. Different interpretations of the same story or the same concept can coexist without detracting from each other in the least. The existence of David Tennant's Hamlet and Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet -- or heck, even Mel Gibson's Hamlet -- doesn't undermine Laurence Olivier's Hamlet or Richard Burton's Hamlet or Derek Jacobi's Hamlet. The earlier versions aren't erased from existence when the new ones come along.
(And even the Hamlet
performed at the Globe Theatre right after Shakespeare wrote it was a remake
, just as virtually all of Shakespeare's plays were. Originality is in the execution, not the source.)
And as I said -- The Rocketeer
isn't a one-time story like Hamlet
. It's the premise for a continuing
series of adventures. The makers of the 1992 film clearly hoped
there would be sequels, since its conclusion was open-ended. So I just do not for the life of me understand the notion that finally bringing the Rocketeer back to the screen would in any way harm or undermine the previous film.