“Holes,” an arguably perfect movie with a flawless theme song, is yet another victim of the remake epidemic.
Last week, Variety reported that a “Holes” TV series has officially been picked up by Disney+.
The “Holes” movie from 2003, which stars Shia LaBeouf, Sigourney Weaver and Patricia Arquette, among others, is a classic film based on the excellent book of the same name.
It dives into themes like generational trauma, male friendships and bonding, justice, fate and destiny, while dabbling in the whimsy of magical realism — all in a way that was easily accessible for its young audience.
So, then, imagine my dismay when later reports said that the “Holes” TV show would be gender-swapped.
Deadline confirmed that the story would be “reimagined” with a female lead.
I am all for female-led stories, but repurposing a story about young boys bonding — and sharing their feelings — to feature female leads feels counterintuitive, especially at a time when American boys and men are struggling with loneliness.
So what will the gender-swapped “Holes” TV show try to say?
That is a question I often ask myself whenever news of a new remake hits the internet. What will the remake try to say that the first iteration didn’t?
And do we really need this?
Is there any merit in remakes?
You probably already know this — it feels like I’m preaching to the choir, at this point — but Hollywood is really into reboots, remakes and sequels at the moment.
But so are audiences.
Last year, I spoke to Shawn Robbins, founder of Box Office Theory and director of analytics at Fandango, about the many, many sequels that came out in 2024.
He told me that, yes, studios are leaning into sequels because they’re “risk-adverse,” but he also said there’s a genuine appetite for sequels and remakes.
Robbins said, “It speaks to, I think, the audience in general ... (and their) desire to follow ongoing storylines, ongoing character developments.”
So, with that logic in mind, I guess there could be some value in the “Holes” TV remake.
“Holes” is hardly the only book-to-film adaptation to get the TV remake treatment. Some recent examples were 2024’s “Percy Jackson and the Olympians” TV series on Disney+ and the miniseries “One Day” on Netflix.
Both remakes were warranted. Rick Riordan’s “Percy Jackson” got the film adaptation treatment in 2010 — and the movie was panned by critics and Riordan himself.
So the news of the TV series was met with cautious optimism. It was an opportunity to right the wrongs of the film and to dive deeper into the novels.
I’m thrilled to report that it did — “Percy Jackson and the Olympians” isn’t a perfect show, but it was miles ahead of the films.
The same could be said for “One Day,” a tragic, soapy Netflix series based on the novel of the same name, which got the remake treatment over a decade after the mediocre film adaptation was released.
Is a ‘Holes’ remake a good idea?
But here’s the thing: “Holes” is a universally beloved film.
It received positive reviews — a critic for the BBC called it “an entertaining little romp that refuses to patronize its ankle-biting audience” at the time — and was cemented as a modern-day fairytale.
So why fix what isn’t broken? And why make a gender-swapped version, when we need stories of young boys forming friendships and sharing their feelings?
This isn’t the first time I’ve asked, “Do we really need this?”
When it was announced that a “Pride and Prejudice” TV series was in the works at Netflix last October, there was a lot of puzzled head-scratching on my part.
There are a myriad of “Pride and Prejudice” adaptations already out there, including a well-loved movie and a miniseries. So what’s the point of making another adaptation?
Like Robbins told me, I suspect that audiences have a desire to see their favorite stories and characters play out on screen over and over again — whether or not the latest iterations add anything fresh to their stories.
But I’m still questioning the need for a gender-swapped “Holes” — especially if the goal is to get more female-led stories out there.
Why not find a female-led book, one that hasn’t been adapted into a TV show, and bring that to the screen instead?
Leave the “Holes” movie be. It’s a great film, with a great message, that still stands on its own over 20 years after it came out.
This reminds me of something that Jenna Ortega, star of the Netflix series “Wednesday,” said last year.
“I love that there’s a lot more female leads nowadays, I think that’s so special. But we should have our own,” Ortega said, according to Variety. “I don’t like it when it’s like a spinoff — I don’t want to see, like, ‘Jamie Bond.’"