Nostalgia, Reverence and Member-Berry Poisoning

[henzINNIT]

I don't know when it started exactly, but I reckon 2015 really sealed the deal. With the success of 'Jurassic World' and 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens', the brain-trust in Hollywood had a new template to apply to their catalogue of dormant franchises. And so, the past few years have been full of 'soft reboots' and 'legacy sequels'.

It's a simple trick really. The modern remake is a dice roll. You open yourselves up to criticism for being unoriginal and/or paling in comparison to the original work, as well as the ire of fans who don't want you messing with beloved properties. This new approach aims to please all targets, and if you do it right you can have your remake, remixed with some new faces, and even get a pop out of digging up some of the old ones for cameos.

This thread is to discuss how franchise films are made today. I feel like I've been batting around this topic for a while, but never wanted to derail any particular thread with the larger discussion. I can't be the only one feeling this way. Like we have entered the realm of mega-budget fan-films. Where IP has become so dominant that the content has become about brand management, celebrating itself, and reckonising that thing you know.

I think part of the reason I responded quite well to 'The Matrix Resurrections' was because in many ways it's a satire of this template.

 

[DarkKnight88]

I don’t really think this is anything new, though maybe not to the extent it is today. I agree it’s on a much larger scale but Hollywood has always mined old IP. Films/TV have reflected to the nostalgia of their particular generation.

The 70s and 80s were filled with 50s/60s nostalgia, from films and tv that played in the nostalgia of it (American Graffiti, Happy Days, Grease, Back to the Future, Stand By Me), to remakes (The Thing, The Fly, The Blob, Invaders from Mars, invasion of the Body Snatchers, Twilight Zone: The Movie) and sequel tv series (Brady Bunch, Leave it to Beaver, I Dream of Jeannie, Gilligan’s Island, Munsters, Gidget).

 

[Gothamsknight]

I don't know when it started exactly, but I reckon 2015 really sealed the deal. With the success of 'Jurassic World' and 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens', the brain-trust in Hollywood had a new template to apply to their catalogue of dormant franchises. And so, the past few years have been full of 'soft reboots' and 'legacy sequels'.

It's a simple trick really. The modern remake is a dice roll. You open yourselves up to criticism for being unoriginal and/or paling in comparison to the original work, as well as the ire of fans who don't want you messing with beloved properties. This new approach aims to please all targets, and if you do it right you can have your remake, remixed with some new faces, and even get a pop out of digging up some of the old ones for cameos.

This thread is to discuss how franchise films are made today. I feel like I've been batting around this topic for a while, but never wanted to derail any particular thread with the larger discussion. I can't be the only one feeling this way. Like we have entered the realm of mega-budget fan-films. Where IP has become so dominant that the content has become about brand management, celebrating itself, and reckonising that thing you know.

I think part of the reason I responded quite well to 'The Matrix Resurrections' was because in many ways it's a satire of this template.

And unsurprisingly, many people rejected that movie. Which is shame because I loved The Matrix Resurrections.

 

[metaphysician]

*shrug* Its just a slight variation on what Hollywood has always done: look at what the audience likes, and give them more of it.

Also, seriously, people need to remember that a big part of why Hollywood used to "not do" sequels, at least nearly as much? Wasn't because of some dedication to creativity and originality, but because prior to the arrival of VHS? A direct sequel, dependent on having seen the prior movie to work, was a *hard bet*, because there was no easy way for people to watch prior movies. They made "new" movies because they *had to*, a sequel was only viable for the most incredibly successful, universally seen and regularly rescreened films. VHS changed this, and thus changed the risk calculus. Thus, sequels, because now everyone was only a visit to the video store away from having rewatched the prior film.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Re-using old stuff people love is way easier than coming up with new IP's that people love.

And you might as well milk the old stuff dry. I mean there's the demand for it.

 

[Frodo]

I don’t really think this is anything new, though maybe not to the extent it is today. I agree it’s on a much larger scale but Hollywood has always mined old IP. Films/TV have reflected to the nostalgia of their particular generation.

The 70s and 80s were filled with 50s/60s nostalgia, from films and tv that played in the nostalgia of it (American Graffiti, Happy Days, Grease, Back to the Future, Stand By Me), to remakes (The Thing, The Fly, The Blob, Invaders from Mars, invasion of the Body Snatchers, Twilight Zone: The Movie) and sequel tv series (Brady Bunch, Leave it to Beaver, I Dream of Jeannie, Gilligan’s Island, Munsters, Gidget).

Yeah, this really is nothing new.
Singing In The Rain in the 1950s was a Nostalgic call back to the films of the silent era and the early talkies of the 1930s.
And that's just one of many examples.
Each generation is going to look fondly back at a previous generation .

We revisit the past and fond memories via remakes, reboots, re-imaginings.
That's never gonna change, regardless of how many new IPs you've got.
Eventually, those "new IPs today" will be revisited in 20 or so years.

I just want good products if they're gonna revisit or remake something.
That's all I hope for.

Then again, I really don't get worked up and bothered by these type of things anyway.
If they stink that's one thing.
But I'm not bothered by the idea of revisiting them in itself.

 

[kguillou]

Here's the thing. I think in this last decade we've entered this new age of Hollywood I call the "Never say never" era. There used to be a time where when a franchise was done or when an actor's tenure as a character was done it was DONE. Finished. Never coming back. Move on.

Now, we're finding a lot of these actors and actresses who played roles from 10,20,30, 40 years ago actually WANT to re-don the mantle so to speak and play these roles again and we as fans cant resist that very tempting thought of catching up with a character we loved decades ago and seeing what they've been up to since they left us. No Way Home executed this concept expertly, theres a right way to do it and a wrong way.

I don't want my entertainment to be just nostalgia of course, I want new ideas and creativity, but like No Way home showed you can BE creative with nostalgia and bring a NEW concept out of it (i.e. the multiverse).

And like another poster mentioned, I think a BIG part of this is the home video streaming age we live in where we are all spending lots of our time revisiting old movies and tv shows we once loved and getting those things trending online and then next thing you know its #bringbackTobey #bringbackAndrew.

 

[Frodo]

Here's the thing. I think in this last decade we've entered this new age of Hollywood I call the "Never say never" era. There used to be a time where when a franchise was done or when an actor's tenure as a character was done it was DONE. Finished. Never coming back. Move on.

Now, we're finding a lot of these actors and actresses who played roles from 10,20,30, 40 years ago actually WANT to re-don the mantle so to speak and play these roles again and we as fans cant resist that very tempting thought of catching up with a character we loved decades ago and seeing what they've been up to since they left us. No Way Home executed this concept expertly, theres a right way to do it and a wrong way.

I don't want my entertainment to be just nostalgia of course, I want new ideas and creativity, but like No Way home showed you can BE creative with nostalgia and bring a NEW concept out of it (i.e. the multiverse).

And like another poster mentioned, I think a BIG part of this is the home video streaming age we live in where we are all spending lots of our time revisiting old movies and tv shows we once loved and getting those things trending online and then next thing you know its #bringbackTobey #bringbackAndrew.

To be fair, the "never say never " development really applies mostly to superhero films and tv.

The casts of tv shows like Leave It to Beaver, Father Knows Best, even Howdie Doowdy returned to their roles 20 and 30 years later in reunion shows and films.

The Star Trek film franchise began a decade after the series was taken off the air .
So the idea of actors returning to a franchise is really not new.

It just seems newer because alot of people who grew up with more recent franchises like SW, Terminator, in the 80s and 90s ,have been around long enough to see the nostalgia wave hit their generation and their franchises.
But , it happened before for the baby boomer generation, in television at least.

I do agree though , it used to be that with mostly Superhero franchises, an actor played the role once for a period of time ,and that was it.

The "never say never" thing applies much more to the possibility of actors returning to superhero roles , since that was less likely until relatively recently.

 

[BatLobster]

To me, the trend is a byproduct of the rise of superhero films and specifically the Marvelization of movies, and also just in line with the trend of Hollywood constantly trying to meet audiences where they're at.

The MCU basically got audiences used to the idea of films being treated with the never-ending world expansion of comic books. And superheroes themselves are inherently nostalgic because the audience has a built-in childhood attachment for a lot of these characters. Couple that with the rise of streaming and all the great long-form storytelling that we've gotten in that medium, and I think Hollywood is trying to keep up. And offer something besides superheroes that can give audience that type of "OMG" thrill. Audiences clearly like investing in long-form stories and tracking characters over a long period of time. That's where legacy sequels can scratch a similar sort of itch, while of course delivering some of that nostalgia dopamine hit.

I think Matrix Resurrections and Scream 5 are two examples of films that have some self-aware fun with the trend and showing how you can still make clever, worthwhile films within that mold. And for all the criticism thrown at it, I still do think Ghostbusters Afterlife was a fun and heartfelt film that revisited that universe in a unique way that hadn't been presented before.

I don't think it's inherently bad as a concept btw. It all just depends how it's tackled. I think it can be a satisfying way to look back on where we've been while also thinking about where we're going. As an audience, as a society, etc.

 

[kguillou]

Yes, you're right thats true and there are other lesser known examples of actors returning to roles like Paul Newman returning to his role in "The Hustler" nearly 30 years later in "The Color of Money" with Tom Cruise. It's definitely happened before, I guess it just seems like its happening a lot more often now and yes, maybe more prevalent in superhero/blockbuster films. Harrison Ford has basically returned to all of his iconic roles in the last few years, Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Bladerunner.

 

[Frodo]

To me, the trend is a byproduct of the rise of superhero films and specifically the Marvelization of movies, and also just in line with the trend of Hollywood constantly trying to meet audiences where they're at.

The MCU basically got audiences used to the idea of films being treated with the never-ending world expansion of comic books. And superheroes themselves are inherently nostalgic because the audience has a built-in childhood attachment for a lot of these characters. Couple that with the rise of streaming and all the great long-form storytelling that we've gotten in that medium, and I think Hollywood is trying to keep up. And offer something besides superheroes that can give audience that type of "OMG" thrill. Audiences clearly like investing in long-form stories and tracking characters over a long period of time. That's where legacy sequels can scratch a similar sort of itch, while of course delivering some of that nostalgia dopamine hit.

I think Matrix Resurrections and Scream 5 are two examples of films that have some self-aware fun with the trend and showing how you can still make clever, worthwhile films within that mold. And for all the criticism thrown at it, I still do think Ghostbusters Afterlife was a fun and heartfelt film that revisited that universe in a unique way that hadn't been presented before.

I don't think it's inherently bad as a concept btw. It all just depends how it's tackled. I think it can be a satisfying way to look back on where we've been while also thinking about where we're going. As an audience, as a society, etc.

I agree.
That's why I really not one for complaining about " Too much nostalgia" and the " Why are they revisiting that after all this time" mentality.

For me, it depends on execution.
If the product remains good or the property is tackled from a new and interesting way, I do see the harm in it.
Yeah, something may never be "exactly the way it was when I was...", but nothing ever is.
It's about still delivering good stories to those who remember these characters, and with luck, hopefully build a new generation of fans.

 

[henzINNIT]

It becomes a problem for me when I can't see past the references, or when there's nothing to latch on to beyond nostalgia. I look back at this legacy sequel thing and see partial successes at best in most cases, and very often massive story shortcomings. TFA probably remains one of the better films like this for me, but the plot is weak. A few years later and I'm not watching SW content for the most part. Those shows have been too much for me. Everything happens on Tatooine.

No Way Home is like high quality, medical grade fan service. They worked really hard gathering people and preserving secrets to give fans the most thorough servicing ever. I give them credit there. And I don't particularly enjoy dunking on something people are enjoying. But really, beyond the novelty, I don't think the film holds up to much scrutiny. Everything is a contrivence for the sake of those guest stars, and sadly just about everything in the story tracks back to MCU Peter being an idiot in some way.

Sony's handling of Ghostbusters has been interesting to observe, mostly because they seem massively behind the curve. The 2016 film was basically advertised like a nostalgia movie. If they had made Afterlife then, releasing in the wake of Force Awakens, Sony would have probably raked it in. With Afterlife coming 6 years later, after a failed reboot, and after plenty of other reboots had failed, I was less receptive to a walk down memory lane. I still don't know how I feel about the ending. The action figure made me shudder a bit.

Post-demise reprisals isn't a completely new phenomena either, but I expect this (as well as de-aging) to expand in the future.

 

[BatLobster]

No Way Home is like high quality, medical grade fan service. They worked really hard gathering people and preserving secrets to give fans the most thorough servicing ever. I give them credit there. And I don't particularly enjoy dunking on something people are enjoying. But really, beyond the novelty, I don't think the film holds up to much scrutiny. Everything is a contrivence for the sake of those guest stars, and sadly just about everything in the story tracks back to MCU Peter being an idiot in some way.

I've seen it twice, it's a fun ride, and I enjoyed it. I grew up on Tobey Spidey, so of course it was nice seeing him and his world become such a central part of this movie. Especially because I haven't cared much for MCU Spidey. I think it was the exact type of catharsis that people were looking for at the movie theaters after the past couple of years that is basically guaranteed entertainment and moments you can cheer.

But I have no qualms saying it's not a particularly good movie. The second half really helps redeem the first half, which is very flimsy.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I don't know when it started exactly, but I reckon 2015 really sealed the deal. With the success of 'Jurassic World' and 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens', the brain-trust in Hollywood had a new template to apply to their catalogue of dormant franchises. And so, the past few years have been full of 'soft reboots' and 'legacy sequels'.

Since you said 2015 I'll mention Terminator Genisys, first Terminator sequel since 2009, and led to Dark Fate becoming a thing.

 

[henzINNIT]

I've seen it twice, it's a fun ride, and I enjoyed it. I grew up on Tobey Spidey, so of course it was nice seeing him and his world become such a central part of this movie. Especially because I haven't cared much for MCU Spidey. I think it was the exact type of catharsis that people were looking for at the movie theaters after the past couple of years that is basically guaranteed entertainment and moments you can cheer.

But I have no qualms saying it's not a particularly good movie. The second half really helps redeem the first half, which is very flimsy.

Yeah, agreed. I think I said elsewhere, but NWH is like the most fun 6/10 ever for me. There's undeniable charm to seeing those people again. Garfield got a redemption. That was nice and I don't care at all for those movies. I like Holland in the role, but I haven't cared much for MCU Spidey either. Giving him the 'Great Power' origin 3 films in was the last thing I needed. I thought he'd done that already before Civil War.

Since you said 2015 I'll mention Terminator Genisys, first Terminator sequel since 2009, and led to Dark Fate becoming a thing.

Terminator is a great point of reference. That series has tried (and failed at) most tactics for franchise extension. Weirdly, I think you could argue that they often tried more than one approach at once. Dark Fate for instance would have been better if they picked a lane. A much later sequel starring Linda Hamilton (similar to Halloween 2018 or Logan) could have worked. A loose remake with those new characters could have worked (I liked Mackenzie Davis as Grace). The mixture we got did not work very well at all.

 

[Luigi]

Don't have a problem with this when it's done well, such as Blade Runner 2049 and Candyman (2021), which expanded on the themes of their predecessors.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I've seen it twice, it's a fun ride, and I enjoyed it. I grew up on Tobey Spidey, so of course it was nice seeing him and his world become such a central part of this movie. Especially because I haven't cared much for MCU Spidey. I think it was the exact type of catharsis that people were looking for at the movie theaters after the past couple of years that is basically guaranteed entertainment and moments you can cheer.

But I have no qualms saying it's not a particularly good movie. The second half really helps redeem the first half, which is very flimsy.

Yeah, agreed. I think I said elsewhere, but NWH is like the most fun 6/10 ever for me. There's undeniable charm to seeing those people again. Garfield got a redemption. That was nice and I don't care at all for those movies. I like Holland in the role, but I haven't cared much for MCU Spidey either. Giving him the 'Great Power' origin 3 films in was the last thing I needed. I thought he'd done that already before Civil War.

Yup. I swear, the Raimi movies were such a massively important part of my childhood. I never thought I'd see the day where Tobey Maguire would return as Spider-Man. Leading up to the film, I was definitely hyped, but I always felt like "well, it's still gonna be an MCU film" which it was and is. A month later, it's still hard to believe Tobey returned, but I've noticed I've mostly forgotten about the film overall. I mean, it didn't leave that huge of an impact on me, despite being a very very enjoyable movie. I think that's part of the reason why fan service can be criticized because the initial hype wears off over time and it sometimes loses it's impact. I still think No Way Home is a good time, but it's not even close to being the best comic book film ever made, let alone one of the best films (which people were saying it was).

 

[Frodo]

Spiderman No Way Home has stayed with me since I've seen it .

Then again, I've been a Spiderman fan since the early 90s, and followed the development of the Spiderman film franchise since the rights were still tied up in litigation.
Alot of fans take for granted that, no matter what , a Spiderman film will be made and released.

I'm old enough to remember a time before there were Spiderman films, and appreciate how far the franchise has come.

The film is a 20 year celebration of a film franchise, that seemed, for a good twenty years between all the failed attempts , would never be able to be made.

So while the film does have alot of fan service, I'd be lying if I claimed that's all it was to me.

 

[Gothamsknight]

No Way Home is a 9/10 for me on a fan service level. On it's own, it's about a 7.5/10. I also think it's far better than Homecoming and Far From Home, and yes I was one of the people who took issue with MCU Spidey in the past. I'm gonna end up buying the film on 4k as well, which is a first for me for any Spidey flick since the Raimi trilogy, so there's that.

 

[MadVillainy]

For me with bringing back older characters and that type of nostalgia it really depends if it's actually in the service of the story like Blade Runner 2049 or Tron Legacy and something like you know "Oh we're making a Baywatch movie, we need to make sure to get a Pam Anderson and Hasselhoff cameo". The latter is more fanservice to me, which isn't bad. But I've personally never cared for fanservice like that.

I haven't seen No Way Home, so I can't comment on the quality of the movie, but the reason I wasn't really hyped for it because pre-release it seemed like those certain characters coming back felt more like easy fanservice than actually servicing the story. Like the whole movie and the marketing and the hype was "Look who's coming back" rather than "Look at this cool story, action scene, or whatever we have here." And to me, maybe I'm getting old, but that can't get me to the theaters. And then I heard some things from some friends and read the spoilers and it seems like I was right. I'll have to see about the action scenes, but the story doesn't really impress me. And that's what I care about most. I'll enjoy the movie when I see it. I'm 100% sure of that. I've liked every MCU movie at least a bit. But I wasn't rushing to see it.

But at least in NWH, they returning characters have a major role. There are some rumors for an upcoming MCU movie where some of the cameos, if they're true, are actually kinda annoying. Bringing back characters who had a good sendoff is lame, not creative, and clearly just used for cheap fanservice. And that's why I'm not a huge fan of the DCEU and MCU using the multiverse because as of now it just seems like they're using the concept for cheap fanservice instead of putting story first. But we'll see

The real thing bad thing about using nostalgia to me are these TV revivals. For some reason, I feel like 9/10 of them are bad. I liked Dexter: New Blood but I see it's very mixed among fans. All the other major ones I read about fans hating them. Maybe it's because most of these revivals are overriding endings that already happened? Idk.

At the end of the day, I just want good stories. Nostalgic or not. So

 

[henzINNIT]

Blade Runner 2049 is an exceptional film and sequel. It really threads the needle, telling a full and complete story that is different from the first but also speaks to the same themes. Hard for me to consider anything in that movie as fan service. Compared to other films it has remarkable restraint in terms of familiar stuff. It feels like the same universe but also visits very different places. So much of that film is 'new'.

Yup. I swear, the Raimi movies were such a massively important part of my childhood. I never thought I'd see the day where Tobey Maguire would return as Spider-Man. Leading up to the film, I was definitely hyped, but I always felt like "well, it's still gonna be an MCU film" which it was and is. A month later, it's still hard to believe Tobey returned, but I've noticed I've mostly forgotten about the film overall. I mean, it didn't leave that huge of an impact on me, despite being a very very enjoyable movie. I think that's part of the reason why fan service can be criticized because the initial hype wears off over time and it sometimes loses it's impact. I still think No Way Home is a good time, but it's not even close to being the best comic book film ever made, let alone one of the best films (which people were saying it was).

I thought all the Spider-men were fun and had great banter, but it was a great display to me of how profound a director's influence is on the movie. Seeing Raimi characters outside a Raimi universe was interesting. J Jonah Jameson for instance was pure electricity and even with the same actor, he's pretty generic in the MCU.