MSN Movies Blog

Ashton Kutcher's opus, 'The Butterfly Effect,' is getting a reboot

Talk about unexpected consequences

By Kate Erbland Jul 26, 2013 11:56AM

Hollywood's love affair with remakes, reboots, reimaginings, and rewhatevers no longer surprises. What does surprise, however, are some of the properties that are now being singled out for the remake machine. "Poltergeist"? Sure. All those eighties action movies? Why not!

But a 2004 film starring Ashton Kutcher as a guy who eventually goes back in time and kills himself in the womb? Hollywood, I don't understand you.

Bing: More on 'The Butterfly Effect'

Variety reports that FilmEngine and Benderspink have tapped the film's original writer/director Eric Bress to write the new script, though he is not currently attached to direct the film. Bress is not the only returning talent, however, as producers Anthony Rhulen, Chris Bender, and JC Spink all produced the original. Oh, producers, that explains it. Why? The film, though trash through and through, was made for a slim $13 million and eventually pulled in nearly $100 million at the box office. It even spawned two direct-to-DVD sequels. Basically, it was very bankable then and the producers are likely hoping that it will be very bankable now. We question that line of thinking, but oh well. 

Bing: More on Eric Bress

The original film toyed with the concept of small changes in the past having big consequences in the future, but instead of approaching that with any sort of nuance or imagination, the project went right to the most obvious aspects possible. Kutcher's character is able to travel back in time - a skill he uses and abuses over and over, only to discover that his every attempt to make things better (and then just plain okay) in his world fails miserably. Over and over and over and over. And over.

There's no word on when this new "Butterfly Effect" will hit theaters, but perhaps someone can go back in time and change that.

Want more Movies? Be sure to like MSN Movies Facebook and follow MSN Movies Twitter.

Jul 26, 2013 5:34PM
ENOUGH with the "remakes" and the "reboots" - can't Hollywood come up with something ORIGINAL?!
Jul 26, 2013 5:20PM
The writer did the minimum research required to write this article. The character only killed himself in the womb in the alternate ending.
Jul 26, 2013 7:30PM
Actually, the original was pretty good!
Jul 26, 2013 6:33PM
Personally I thought the film was interesting.. the concept of what every thing we do changes everything that happens ...DUH ... If we all stopped for a moment and thought about our actions/re-actions maybe we wouldn't do things that were stupid or hurt someone down the line.. At least to me it's better than some of the stupid movies that show people doing stupid things that aren't even funny.
Jul 26, 2013 5:08PM
I don't understand this article. He did NOT kill himself in the womb in the 2004 film, "The Butterfly Effect."
Jul 26, 2013 11:41PM

I'm not a big Ashton fan....never really cared for him in "that 70's BS", and totally appalled by him in "two and a Half....".   But, to be honest, I was really, really impressed with his acting in this movie.  Creativity in Hollywood has long been lacking, and this movie, I thought, was very original and completely different from anything else I've ever seen.


I was disappointed that "critics" slammed this movie.....I've seen so, so much worse.  I think critics are more concerned with their little ego trips, and the talentless nobodies make a living by "slamming" people with vastly more talent than themselves.  Personally, I don't give a sh** about the critics....even to the point where, if "critics" love it, it probably sucks, and if critics hate it, it might be good.


I'm glad this is being remade.  A very original concept, a totally different type of plot....the original movie deserved so much more respect....instead of a pathetic copycat of another movie, this was a bold and innovative idea.  Maybe a remake will avoid the biased reviews that slammed the original.   I wish them the best.


Jul 26, 2013 8:53PM
What if I told you.....that everything is a remake?!?
Jul 26, 2013 7:33PM
Enough with the remakes.  Get some original material already. Or how about picking out some good books to make into movies.
Jul 27, 2013 4:54AM
You really need someone else to write these articles - Kate Erbland is a f*****g joke. "The Butterfly Effect" was a good film(with $100 million in ticket sales to prove it). Kate obviously either did not get it, or she likes to fancy herself as being so smart and clever that this movie must be a train wreck because she did not like it. Keep your catty, snyde comments to yourself and report the information(about a possible re-boot), or find a new job, because people are turned off by your pissy attitude.
Jul 26, 2013 9:01PM
how about a remake of "Somewhere In Time"?
Jul 26, 2013 11:45PM
I wish they would remake Disney's "The Black Hole"
Jul 26, 2013 6:41PM
Easy fix...Don't go see remakes.Once enough of them start flopping,they'll quit trying to remake everything just because 20 years went by.
Jul 27, 2013 4:51AM
I don't know why critics panned this film.  It is one of the most thought-provoking films I'd ever seen and there is some very talented acting, too.
Jul 26, 2013 9:11PM
And then they wonder why no one goes to the friggin' movies any more....No new or original ideas at the movies!! Boo-hiss...
Jul 26, 2013 5:19PM
It was the directors cut ending. Better ending IMO.
Jul 26, 2013 8:25PM
Lynda Obst's new book SLEEPLESS IN HOLLYWOOD explains in great detail why we keep getting remake after remake after remake. Really worth reading.
Jul 26, 2013 6:41PM
Not since "That 70's Show" has Ashton been so captivating!
Jul 26, 2013 7:18PM
Probably one of my favorite movies and I'm not excited to hear about this reboot, re-vamp, remake B.S.!
Jul 26, 2013 8:55PM
The only reason they have remakes is because there is NO creativity anymore. They think if the remake an old movie and make it more gory  it will be better. But that does not work and just proves my point. There is NO creativity left in the movie industry.
Jul 26, 2013 7:39PM
The first time I saw this movie, it was the version that the author of the article talks about.  He DID kill himself in the womb.  He caused his mother to have a miscarriage, effectively preventing his own birth and everything else that followed.  Years later, when I watched the movie on Starz, I saw a completely alternate ending, in which he survived with no recognition of his one-time love.  I thought I was crazy at first, because I knew I saw a different ending originally. 
Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
showtimes & tickets
Search by location, title, or genre: