I’ve noticed this more and more with films. I don’t exactly understand it; especially given that it’s so many young directors doing it. And it’s done at big and small scale. Take Godzilla King of the Monsters. Great movie, but Dougherty decided to “update” Godzilla’s design. Godzilla had already been redesigned and looked great in 2014. And what was the reason? He wanted it to look more like the 1954 Godzilla. He even had the redesigned fresh roar from 2014 augmented with the original Japanese Godzilla roar. Why is that necessary? Or why did JJ Abrams have to make his Star Wars movies practically a carbon copy of Episode IV. In interviews all he or others could keep talking about was Episode IV, as though it was the most truest expression of Star Wars in existence and the other 5 movies didn’t exist. Gareth Edwards making Rogue One kept talking over and over about Episode IV and wanting it to be like Episode IV. When JJ Abrams made the 2009 Star Trek, he admitted he really didn’t know anything about Star Trek - he just had a fond memory of one scene from Star Trek the Motion Picture. Hey, I like 80s and 90s movies. Back to the Future is one of my favorite movies of all time. I think the lack of CGI and modern VFX forced film makers to put more emphasis on story than visuals. But if you already have something good going (like with the rebooted American Hollywood Godzilla), why do you keep dragging things back to the past instead of building in to the future? I just wish filmmakers would stop trying to play on Nostalgia to compensate for a decreased story telling ability. Of course that’s still better than the other extreme: taking classic good characters and running them through the mud. Like Snyder and his justice league. Which is emblematic of where so many movies go these days…dark, cynical, sarcastic and morally ambiguous. But you can use themes of the past and take what’s good about them, making the new great, without trying to recreate the past.