Days of Future Past "Romeo & Juliet Return?": The Official Jean Grey/Cyclops Debate - Part 1

[BMM]

Agreed. I think the aversion to reboots simply because they're reboots is silly, as though an endless slew of sequels is any better. This isn't Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1, folks. They're all variations of something already presented in their predecessors and they're all arguably unnecessary.

If a reboot is good, I have no problem with it. There have been some damn good reboots lately, and if people are unwilling to give them a chance or can't find anything worthwhile to take away from them simply because they're reboots, that's a shame. Personally, I'll take an "unnecessary" reboot, like Batman Begins or Star Trek, over a sequel, like X-Men Origins, any day.

 

[def28]

Reboots are the worst thing to happen to Hollywood.

Tell that to Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, Batman Begins, Star Trek, Evil Dead, Dredd and Casino Royale. Reboots and Remakes have been happening for awhile. I could see bad reboots that are made as an easy cash grab being the worst thing to happen in Hollywood. There are a ton of those BS reboots, but expanding your modern audience is a smart move. When done correctly it can increase the popularity of the original franchise and keep it going. Don't like it, then don't see it. Just like anything else. The "reboots suck" attitude will never have the much power over a quality film.

 

[Farren]

Reboots aren't inherently bad and Like def says, there's been some good ones.

That being said I do think they're a symptom of a lack of creativity and risk taking in Hollywood. It's the same disease that led to all those Disney sequels of their Renaissance period films (Aladdin, Little Mermaid, etc).

 

[henzINNIT]

Agreed. I think the aversion to reboots simply because they're reboots is silly, as though an endless slew of sequels is any better.

... Erm.

Generally, a sequel is better. Who wouldn't prefer to see characters grow and experience new challenges in a universe that expands, over another introduction of the same people with cosmetic differences?

If a reboot is good, I have no problem with it. There have been some damn good reboots lately, and if people are unwilling to give them a chance or can't find anything worthwhile to take away from them simply because they're reboots, that's a shame. Personally, I'll take an "unnecessary" reboot, like Batman Begins or Star Trek, over a sequel, like X-Men Origins, any day.

Well this all depends on whether a reboot is "necessary". I don't think anyone would argue that rebooting Batman the first time was a mistake. If a franchise lost its way badly, or a long time has passed, there are more solid reasons to consider breathing new life into the series. However, it's undeniable that Hollywood has smelt a quick buck in re-launching franchises, and on the whole its not great at separating the creative choices from the cynical cash-grabs.

It's going to be a particularly sore topic in this section.

 

[The Batman]

As far as sequels vs reboots, it depends on the franchise. Star Trek needed a reboot, as it was lost up its own backside and inaccessible to a wide audience.

The current X Men franchise should be rebooted, IMO.

 

[henzINNIT]

I am so glad the X-Men universe hasn't been rebooted, and hope it isn't for a while yet. It's one of the more textured cinematic universes for comic book movies, and there's plenty of room to expand. I just hope FOX (and hopefully Singer) are planning ahead after DOFP. X-Force is a start but I want to see the core team in action more regularly after a choppy few years.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Tell that to Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, Batman Begins, Star Trek, Evil Dead, Dredd and Casino Royale. Reboots and Remakes have been happening for awhile. I could see bad reboots that are made as an easy cash grab being the worst thing to happen in Hollywood. There are a ton of those BS reboots, but expanding your modern audience is a smart move. When done correctly it can increase the popularity of the original franchise and keep it going. Don't like it, then don't see it. Just like anything else. The "reboots suck" attitude will never have the much power over a quality film.

Casino Royale was no more a reboot than GoldenEye was. It was a simple recasting of a film series that never had a continuity to begin with.

Batman is the exception, not the rule.

Everything else you listed? Meh. Don't care. I've seen the stories already, and I either liked them the first time and don't need to see a new take on them, or they sucked the first time around and I still don't need a "new take" on something that sucks.

"Don't like it, then don't see it"?

Well, of course! I am very proud of the fact that I have not spent a dime on reboots in theaters, DVD purchases, or rentals, and I will continue to do so as long as unnecessary reboots are made.

Basically, my mentality is - if you're doing to do something that has already been done, you better do it so spectacularly to justify me seeing the same story again. Nolan's Batman is about the only reboot that's justified it's existence. Everything else? :

... Erm.

Generally, a sequel is better. Who wouldn't prefer to see characters grow and experience new challenges in a universe that expands, over another introduction of the same people with cosmetic differences?

This, exactly this.

Why do I want to see a new movie of a movie that has already been done? What a waste of my time and money.

If it was good the first time, then it was already done right, and how arrogant of you to think that your "take" of the material is so important than I need to see it instead of the original creators who did it right.

If it sucked the first time, then why would I want to see a movie again that sucked the first time?

 

[def28]

Casino Royale was no more a reboot than GoldenEye was. It was a simple recasting of a film series that never had a continuity to begin with.

Batman is the exception, not the rule.

Everything else you listed? Meh. Don't care. I've seen the stories already, and I either liked them the first time and don't need to see a new take on them, or they sucked the first time around and I still don't need a "new take" on something that sucks.

"Don't like it, then don't see it"?

Well, of course! I am very proud of the fact that I have not spent a dime on reboots in theaters, DVD purchases, or rentals, and I will continue to do so as long as unnecessary reboots are made.


Basically, my mentality is - if you're doing to do something that has already been done, you better do it so spectacularly to justify me seeing the same story again. Nolan's Batman is about the only reboot that's justified it's existence. Everything else? :

Roayle is Bond Begins and started over, Goldeneye did not. It's a completely new timeline for Bond films. Regardless of your personal opinion of the films I listed, if you can't see how some of these reboots have benefited their franchises and opened the world to a new audience then your not seeing the full picture.

Dredd is a damn good film. Way better then the original. And Thanks to the Evil Dead reboot the chances for Army Of Darkness 2 are now high. Maybe those are not your types of film, but they have their audiences, are opening new possibilites and didn't let their franchise stay in the past. Never thought a modern Planet Of The Apes would be a success. They did something right there.

 

[psylockolussus]

I keep hearing from people reboots are answer to all problems and everyone
loves them.

people are selective when it comes to critcs.Some who think Man of steel Is greatest comic book film ever explan at best mixed reaction to it a conspiracy by critics

Into Darkness has at best a mixed reaction among longtime fans.Many didn't
like it while there are some who did.

If you think the debates on say last stand was bad just wait for them if they pull a Abrams and erase most of films.

Hmmm I think the Star Trek reboot is a success for the most part. Star Trek 11/Star Trek 12 are definitely two of the most well-received ST films by the critics and when it comes to box-office, they definitely earned more money than the previous ST movies.

Its not like the case for TASM.

 

[marvelrobbins]

When It comes to Star Trek I am 39 and have been fan since early 1980's
wayching reruns of original series and seeing wrath of Khan In theatres.I have never loved everything that has trek on it.While I love OS and DS9 I don't care much for voyager Inless I want to watch Jeri ryan as 7 of 9 I don't watch NG much anymore.And although I gave up on Enterprise early In second season On DVD I have changed my oporion and enjoy the last 2 seasons save for series finale. With exception of first contract I am not huge fan of NG films.Into Darkness was major disappointment. Maybe Alex Kurtmand and Bob Orci work better with damon Lindeloff writing with this.2009 Trek had better reaction from die hard fans.You think X-men fans are bad with going on about contunity errors.I hope rumor of Rupet Wyatt directing next film Is true.Rise of planet of the apes treated original apes with more respect than I felt Abrams treated Trek with Into Darkness.

I am very resist to pulling a trek 2009 with X-men.Because It just opens the door for trouble.If you start having characters showing up much earlier than they should be It opens door.Maybe the people who do X-Men films will do better job than they did with Into Darkness.

 

[psylockolussus]

Eh I've seen some of the early Star Trek films and I don't find them as entertaining as JJ Abrams Star Trek films. And Star Trek needed a reboot to move on, that was the same case with Batman. Its not the same case with X-Men. Almost everybody are back and despite the box-office decline in the U.S., there's still a lot of interest in doing more X-Men films with the original cast.

 

[marvelrobbins]

Eh I've seen some of the early Star Trek films and I don't find them as entertaining as JJ Abrams Star Trek films. And Star Trek needed a reboot to move on, that was the same case with Batman. Its not the same case with X-Men. Almost everybody are back and despite the box-office decline in the U.S., there's still a lot of interest in doing more X-Men films with the original cast.

I strongly disagree.Abrams makes trek too much Star Wars influences.And if your going to ripoff wrath of khan why not include some of ship to ship battles.The
minute I saw first trailer for into darkness I knew trouble was brewing.

And you mention Batman.This Is exactly the problem with reboots.Most fans of tim Burton's batman films accepted batman Begins but WB gave nolan too much power with DKR that now a year later to contune batman they have to do another reboot with Batman VS Superman.

I have heard a few say we need a reboot of X-Men so we can have original lineup.Really have the least sucessful lineup of X-Men on screen. X-Men became the huge best selling comic when Wolverine,Storm,Nightcrawler,and
Colossus were added.

 

[def28]

Edit

 

[psylockolussus]

I strongly disagree.Abrams makes trek too much Star Wars influences.And if your going to ripoff wrath of khan why not include some of ship to ship battles.The
minute I saw first trailer for into darkness I knew trouble was brewing.

And you mention Batman.This Is exactly the problem with reboots.Most fans of tim Burton's batman films accepted batman Begins but WB gave nolan too much power with DKR that now a year later to contune batman they have to do another reboot with Batman VS Superman.

I have heard a few say we need a reboot of X-Men so we can have original lineup.Really have the least sucessful lineup of X-Men on screen. X-Men became the huge best selling comic when Wolverine,Storm,Nightcrawler,and
Colossus were added.

Reboots are bad when they are in the shadows of the earlier series and thats what happening to the current Spider-Man series. I think the GA see it that way with the current Spider-Man series. The current Star Trek series is both a winner at the box-office and critics compare to the previously-released ST movies.

And the thing is the younger generation where I belong to, haven't seen all Star Trek films and the late 90s and early 00s Star Trek films weren't as popular as the JJ Abrams Star Trek films. Its not like the ST films featuring William Shatner just came out 10 years ago.

 

[marvelrobbins]

Reboots are bad when they are in the shadows of the earlier series and thats what happening to the current Spider-Man series. I think the GA see it that way with the current Spider-Man series. The current Star Trek series is both a winner at the box-office and critics compare to the previously-released ST movies.

And the thing is the younger generation where I belong to, haven't seen all Star Trek films and the late 90s and early 00s Star Trek films weren't as popular as the JJ Abrams Star Trek films. Its not like the ST films featuring William Shatner just came out 10 years ago.

Your never going to convince Abrams work on Into Darkness Is great.It's too much Star Wars influenced and like blockbusters like transformers. Would some like X-Men turned Into copy of avengers dropping much of the dark and serious
themes? Or how about Abrams work on Star Wars being a reboot.Ok those who just want to bash everything about george lucas and wish him dead,and yeah there are some who say that online,might be happy.

Personally I think there should be rule where studios have to wait 10 years before rebooting.

 

[BMM]

... Erm.

Generally, a sequel is better.

Sorry, I was referring to reboots and sequels in a broader sense, specifically with regard to those who think reboots are the worst trend in Hollywood because they stop studios from further pursuing original content. The studios' over reliance on endless sequels is just as guilty of this, in my opinion, which is why I'm not going to lambast their decisions to reboot as nothing but an unnecessary, cynical cash grab but pretend that a 10 years later sequel to Finding Nemo or a 20 years later sequel to Independence Day is coming from a place pure of heart. If one's argument is, "I've seen it. Move on, " I can almost guarantee, based on past experience, there's not going to be anything substantial in Finding Dory, or Independence Day 2, or Pirates of the Caribbean 5, or Star Wars 7, 8, and 9 that can't already be gleaned from the originals.

Who wouldn't prefer to see characters grow and experience new challenges in a universe that expands, over another introduction of the same people with cosmetic differences?.

Because, depending on the franchise, a reboot doesn't have to be the reintroduction of the same characters with little more than cosmetic differences. X-Men is one of those franchises. Yes, the same basic premise may be the same, but it's been the same for every one of the previous sequels, and it will be the same for Days of Future Past, as well as any sequel that follows it. With that in my mind, I see no reason why a potentially brief reintroduction to the X-Men universe should bar one from experiencing a 50 year library of characters and relationships that are divergent (some wildly) from the current film adaptations and are otherwise likely to never see the light of day in a 14 year old franchise whose current version may be coming to an end sooner rather than later.

This, exactly this.

Why do I want to see a new movie of a movie that has already been done? What a waste of my time and money.

If it was good the first time, then it was already done right, and how arrogant of you to think that your "take" of the material is so important than I need to see it instead of the original creators who did it right.

If it sucked the first time, then why would I want to see a movie again that sucked the first time?

Talk about arrogance. The idea that the current iteration of X-Men is the only one that can ever be presented onscreen, and that anything else isn't worthy of one's time, is silly.

 

[Mrs Vimes]

I thought that the first Star Trek reboot was fantastic. Into Darkness was somehow both entertaining and disappointing. It was fun and fast-paced and I still cared about the characters a lot, but in the end I was mostly thinking, is this the best they could come up with in four years? Way too many cutesy nods to the original Trek, too much rehashing of the same character/plot elements from Trek 09, totally wasted Benedict Cumberbatch who by all rights should have been awesome.

I'm not against reboots in principle, but something like the recent Spider-Man reboot evokes zero interest in me. Just way too soon.

 

[X-Maniac]

I thought that the first Star Trek reboot was fantastic. Into Darkness was somehow both entertaining and disappointing. It was fun and fast-paced and I still cared about the characters a lot, but in the end I was mostly thinking, is this the best they could come up with in four years? Way too many cutesy nods to the original Trek, too much rehashing of the same character/plot elements from Trek 09, totally wasted Benedict Cumberbatch who by all rights should have been awesome.

I'm not against reboots in principle, but something like the recent Spider-Man reboot evokes zero interest in me. Just way too soon.

Cumberbatch was the only good thing about Into Darkness. He out-acted everyone else in the film. You're right, though, that they didn't really seem to have come up with much new stuff in four years.

 

[X-Maniac]

Generally, a sequel is better. Who wouldn't prefer to see characters grow and experience new challenges in a universe that expands, over another introduction of the same people with cosmetic differences?

Sometimes a reboot is forced into play when major recasting is needed to move forwards. Or, at the very least, a major recasting of lead role(s) is an ideal opportunity for a bit of a clean-up and that can lead to a reboot.

The X-Men series has been around for 13 years. At some point, major cast members are going to bow out.

 

[marvelrobbins]

I thought that the first Star Trek reboot was fantastic. Into Darkness was somehow both entertaining and disappointing. It was fun and fast-paced and I still cared about the characters a lot, but in the end I was mostly thinking, is this the best they could come up with in four years? Way too many cutesy nods to the original Trek, too much rehashing of the same character/plot elements from Trek 09, totally wasted Benedict Cumberbatch who by all rights should have been awesome.

I'm not against reboots in principle, but something like the recent Spider-Man reboot evokes zero interest in me. Just way too soon.

You have answered part of problems with into darkness.Many of the longtime fans who gave thumbsdown to Into Darkness liked Trek 2009.

The Star wars influences/allusions are there from opening scene with Kirk and Mccoy running around in disguises that envokes Obi wan kenobi's enterance In original Star wars to aliens in robes who envoke sand people In robes.

And the minute you realize the enterprise Is under water on planet you immedetly have fans who feel Trek Isn't being respected.And the writers of film claim to be Star Trek fans.

When they practully sell film overseas on Benedict Cumberbatch something Is wrong.

 

[GuestStar2004]

when it comes down to it i think rebooting star trek in the way Abrams is fine, its a fresh start while still being respectful to the fans

but with star trek into darkness Abrams took some liberties i can understand fans wouldn't like, i don't blame the reboot idea for that i think that was just Abrams

 

[marvelrobbins]

Sometimes a reboot is forced into play when major recasting is needed to move forwards. Or, at the very least, a major recasting of lead role(s) is an ideal opportunity for a bit of a clean-up and that can lead to a reboot.

The X-Men series has been around for 13 years. At some point, major cast members are going to bow out.

The James Bond series before jumping on reboot wagon went 40 years by recasting.They keep moving forward.

If MS decered after third avengers to reboot Avengers and Avengers related film
after actors contracts expires I wonder If some here would support that since the tendacy nowadays In holwyood Is to reboot when actors deals expire.

X-Men series with 7 films now Is one of the exceptions to rule.Nowadays your lucky to get to 3 films before the reboot card strike or strikes again.And they are starting to not even bother having a wait.Casino Royale 4 years after Die another day.The Amazing Spider-man 5 years after Spider-man 3.Batman VS Superman 3 years after The Dark Knight rises.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Sometimes a reboot is forced into play when major recasting is needed to move forwards. Or, at the very least, a major recasting of lead role(s) is an ideal opportunity for a bit of a clean-up and that can lead to a reboot.

The X-Men series has been around for 13 years. At some point, major cast members are going to bow out.

And at that point, I would prefer to just see the series come to an end.

It IS okay to let things actually end. It IS okay to find new stories to tell instead of rehashing the same ones over and over and over and over again.

 

[Mr.M]

I like directors going in with different takes on the material. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. The problem with TASM, it not only rehashed plot elements from Raimi, but it was just a copy cat of Begins. No originality or creativity. Still made money, but I will probably pass on TASM 2, just as I passed on ASM.

I was never a Trekky at all, but I went into 09 thinking, Pine as Cpt. James Tiberius Kirk, seriously? I enjoyed it immensely, but Into the Darkness, while entertaining, just isn't Trek. It deviated from the source material. It's time to get another director in there and get back to the basics and introduce new audiences to the Trek that Rodenberry intended for it, with some liberties obviously. But not Into the Darkness liberties. That is the play from the creative standpoint, but from the business standpoint, I doubt we get that. It will be another Star Wars knockoff, and I'm not going to see it if that's what the trailer implies.

With X-Men, if they Trek it, I'd like to see some homage to Singer. You cannot completely drop the themes of prejudice and discrimination, because that's what X-Men is. At the same time, we've seen that story. What are some deeper themes you can explore? If they want to get comicbookie and go Avengers, I'm going to give them the finger and move on, because that's not X-Men. There is a place and time for that in an X-Men movie, but not for two hours on end. You have to go for deeper themes and story, and if they want to get sci-fi, then Apocalypse and Sinister require immaculate writing and creative decisions that resonate with a mature audience. If that's the direction they go with in either sequels, or a new timeline, then bring it on.

 

[Farren]

I was never a Trekky at all, but I went into 09 thinking, Pine as Cpt. James Tiberius Kirk, seriously? I enjoyed it immensely, but Into the Darkness, while entertaining, just isn't Trek. It deviated from the source material. It's time to get another director in there and get back to the basics and introduce new audiences to the Trek that Rodenberry intended for it, with some liberties obviously. But not Into the Darkness liberties. That is the play from the creative standpoint, but from the business standpoint, I doubt we get that. It will be another Star Wars knockoff, and I'm not going to see it if that's what the trailer implies.

Just out of curiosity, can I ask: did you think 09 WAS Trekish (or, more Trekish than STID)? And if so, why?

I'm not asking to challenge your opinion or anything, I'm just genuinely curious, because it seems like STID is taking a lot more heat than 09, partly for other reasons like plot holes but also for supposedly being un-Treky, and I confess I don't get how it was any less Trekish than 09 was.