Presented by the Fantastic Pavilion and Mórbido Film Fest, a Marché du Film panel entitled “It’s Alive! Remake, Reboot, Reborn: The Business of Genre IP” held a magnifying glass up to the reimagining of genre stories. Moderated by Mórbido Film Fest head programmer and sales/distribution professional José Luis Mejía Razo, the talk brought together film-industry analyst Stephen Follows, Mórbido Group CEO Pablo Guisa Koestinger and Globalgate Entertainment EVP of Worldwide Content Meg Thomson. The conversation converged on several key propositions, including a repeated emphasis that there is no one-size-fits-all strategy for reboots.

“There’s no specific recipe for what IP will travel,” said Thomson, kicking off the panel by introducing the idea that there must be a motive for a story to be retold, but the reasons behind them can be endless. Follows concurred, stating that the words “reboot, remake, whatever” are an “artificial layer” that is added on top, as many aspects must be reimagined regardless. The concept of originality, he argued, is a “false classification”. He further highlighted that there are never any requirements for a remake: a remake doesn’t need to scare people in the same way as the original.

Guisa Koestinger proposed: “If a story is truly universal, then you can tell it again from a different perspective and from a different culture.” He jokingly added that the Pinocchio and Frankenstein tales are technically the same concept, and that Guillermo del Toro has had success with both versions. Thomson gave several examples of how remakes in different national contexts, with the right tweaks, can become exceedingly successful. The Spanish black comedy-horror The Coffee Table by Caye Casas (2022) was remade into the successful The Turkish Coffee Table by Can Evrenol (2025), while the 2022 Danish-Dutch title Speak No Evil became a 2024 film of the same name starring James McAvoy, adding a Hollywood-esque ending for a US audience.

Guisa Koestinger also suggested that the audience has a significant bearing on whether a picture could be seen as a remake or a reboot. Giving the example of the Betty Boop IP, he proposed that it could even be seen as a new and “original” story for younger audiences who are not familiar with the character. The same could be said about remakes in different territories, where the work might be seen as completely new, with the remake aspect being less relevant to the lifespan of the film. He interjected with the example of South Korean breakfast films, where popular movies are recut into a 30-minute work for families, combining the consumption of media with a half-hour meal in the morning.

Mejía Razo closed the panel by asking the participants for their recommendations when it comes to adaptation. Guisa Koestinger lamented the fact that producers are often less interested in investing in genre films, even though genre has proven to keep cinemas open. As such, his proposal is to do remakes, which “adds security [for] the investors” by providing unique cultural angles. It may also offer an easier platform for filmmakers crafting their first film, where it can potentially be cheaper to pick up existing IP, rather than developing an original story.

Thomson suggested that it is good practice to see what worked and what didn't work about the original; rather than altering everything simply for the sake of changing it, a more effective method would be to focus on thoughtfully tweaking particular elements – or to “localise and personalise”. Follows added that one technique to accomplish this would be to write down every audience assumption about a story, then go down the list, and choose to either deliver on the assumption or subvert it in a remake.