Second Take: Will the ‘Jumanji’ reboot be a downgrade from the childhood classic?

Hollywood’s recent trend of remaking timeless classics to exploit fan bases for higher profits clearly has no problem trampling all over my childhood favorites.

The latest classic film to fall victim to the money-grabbing is “Jumanji,” the 1995 fantasy-adventure comedy film starring the late, great Robin Williams and co-starring Bonnie Hunt, Kirsten Dunst and Bradley Pierce. The reboot of the film, which is slated for release Christmas 2016, will star Jack Black, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, and Kevin Hart. However, the original “Jumanji” sets the bar so high that it is unlikely a remake will be able to make the cut.

As anyone who grew up in the late 1990s or early 2000s knows, Jumanji is the name of the board game that sucks Alan Parrish, a young boy growing up in 1969, into a wild jungle while he and his best friend Sarah Whittle are playing. Twenty-six years later, when Judy and Peter Shepherd rediscover the game and accidentally begin playing, Parrish is brought back to the present. Unfortunately for them, Jumanji is not a game that can be finished easily, and they are forced to play it to its end to rid the town of jungle animals and Van Pelt, a big-game hunter attempting to hunt Alan.

Although any plot changes have yet to be announced, audiences can expect some changes since Johnson has announced that there will be five big roles instead of three.

There are many reasons why the remake of “Jumanji” is disturbing. First, the original starred Robin Williams, whose passing in August of 2014 is still fresh in the minds and hearts of many, especially as his comedic work and acting were so distinctive and well-loved. Williams produced work that needs no revision. Revising it, rather than honoring his legacy, is to affront it.

The casting choices for the remake also kindle doubt as to whether it will be anywhere near as poignant as the original.

Johnson, who will be serving as a co-producer and playing an as-yet-unannounced role, said in an Instagram post that the filmmakers will “honor (Robin Williams’s) name and the character of Alan Parrish,” but whether that will actually occur is questionable.

So many other remakes, such as Clash of the Titans and Conan the Barbarian, have made similar claims, only for the films themselves to be complete flops. The casting of Black and Hart just adds to its dismal outlook.

Black and Hart are not poor actors or poor comedians by any means; in fact, Black’s 2003 film “School of Rock” approaches a level of appreciation to rival “Jumanji.” However, I doubt whether they have the ability to convey the heart of the original.

While “Jumanji” is a comedy, the root of the plot focuses on a lost, immature boy who felt unloved by his father and the struggles he faced as a man in a world he no longer understood. Can a movie with Kevin Hart, whose most recent comedy film is called “Get Hard,” really convey the substance the original contained?

Not only are the casting choices underwhelming, but “Jumanji,” like many films of its era, has an intangible quality that cannot be replicated in the present simply because of their place in history. Many ’90s-era films, in particular Williams’ comedies, have a retrospective lack of technical sophistication to them that cannot be credibly recreated on screen today simply because the audience will no longer buy it.

The quality of computer-generated imagery in 1996 was nothing like what it is now, but the lack of sophistication provides a novelty to the film for its longtime fans. The scenes at the end of “Jumanji,” when the group is in the Parrish manor battling rising water levels, use animatronic crocodiles and vines, which is certainly not something that will be seen in the new incarnation. Yet these quirks are what endears the original film to generation after generation. Ironically, advanced CGI in reboots often cheapens the films, as they rely on visual spectacle rather than the genuine spirit of the originals. Imagine E.T. with a CGI alien.

I don’t question whether Johnson’s intentions are earnest with the creation of a second “Jumanji.” However, it is with a heavy heart that I look to the time when the sanctity of a well-received and well-made film that has stood the test of time means nothing.