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

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I didn't believe that it was Star Trek, no. I know you didn't ask me, but I felt like it was Transformers with space ships.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I like directors going in with different takes on the material. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But why?

If I write a story, I don't want someone else coming along and giving "their take" on my story. My story is my story, and it was as it was intended to be, for good or for bad. If it was good, then my take was a success. If it wasn't good, then I probably didn't have a great story to begin with. It's not up to someone else to then come along and take MY story and then redo it THEIR way.

As an audience member, why do I want to see this new RoboCop movie coming out?

If they do the same thing that was already done... well, I've seen it already, and I liked it the first time. If they do something different with it, well then it changes from what I enjoyed from the story in the first place, so why do I want to see it when it is no longer what I want it to be?

As a result, I will -NOT- be watching the new RoboCop movie, just as I did not watch Total Recall, just as I did not see Amazing Spiderman until it was free one cable, just as I have not seen Star Trek Into Darkness, and only saw Star Trek 2009 because my brother rented it and put it one when I went to visit one night, and have not seen nor do I have any desire to see Man Of Steel, or the upcoming Superman v. Batman movie, which is a double whammy of stupid in being a reboot and a crossover.

I will not financially support reboots, with the only exception to the rule being Nolan's Batman, which while I find that trilogy to be vastly overrated, still did enough to justify its existence.

And if X-Men ever gets rebooted, which unfortunately it will due to the nature of the movie industry, I will be completely disappointed to see the source material I love so much cheapened with such a weak "creative" direction. I'm already disgusted that there is a Terminator reboot in talks.

 

[GuestStar2004]

But why?

If I write a story, I don't want someone else coming along and giving "their take" on my story. My story is my story, and it was as it was intended to be, for good or for bad. If it was good, then my take was a success. If it wasn't good, then I probably didn't have a great story to begin with. It's not up to someone else to then come along and take MY story and then redo it THEIR way.

As an audience member, why do I want to see this new RoboCop movie coming out?

If they do the same thing that was already done... well, I've seen it already, and I liked it the first time. If they do something different with it, well then it changes from what I enjoyed from the story in the first place, so why do I want to see it when it is no longer what I want it to be?

As a result, I will -NOT- be watching the new RoboCop movie, just as I did not watch Total Recall, just as I did not see Amazing Spiderman until it was free one cable, just as I have not seen Star Trek Into Darkness, and only saw Star Trek 2009 because my brother rented it and put it one when I went to visit one night, and have not seen nor do I have any desire to see Man Of Steel, or the upcoming Superman v. Batman movie, which is a double whammy of stupid in being a reboot and a crossover.

I will not financially support reboots, with the only exception to the rule being Nolan's Batman, which while I find that trilogy to be vastly overrated, still did enough to justify its existence.

And if X-Men ever gets rebooted, which unfortunately it will due to the nature of the movie industry, I will be completely disappointed to see the source material I love so much cheapened with such a weak "creative" direction. I'm already disgusted that there is a Terminator reboot in talks.

I think you fail to see the potential other directors can give a product, you seem to just not like reboots because they differ from what you are used too

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Hollywood has officially been put on notice. Anybody, or any fan, who didn't like the original films are sh** out of luck.

 

[BMM]

I think you fail to see the potential other directors can give a product...

That and failure to acknowledge that X-Men was never Bryan Singer's story to not mess with in the first place.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I think you fail to see the potential other directors can give a product, you seem to just not like reboots because they differ from what you are used too

No, it's because I've seen these damn stories already.

I guess I should just go ahead and rewrite Lord Of The Rings, cuz hey... I can bring new potential to an outdated book that needs a new take to keep it alive for modern audiences, right?

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

That and failure to acknowledge that X-Men was never Bryan Singer's story to not mess with in the first place.

Okay, but at least the movies were the stories being brought to a new medium.

Adaptation =/= reboot

Invalid comparison.

 

[marvelrobbins]

The problem Is some think if a priorioty Isn't shiney and new It's needs to be
reimaged. Who made better superman film Richard Donnor or Zach Snyder?

Superman had better reaction than man of steel.Man of steel Is reimaging of superman. They had chance to show they could adopt Superman better and
they failed.

DOFP Is 7th film In X-Men series.That shows Bryan Singer did something right.
Even if Fox reboots X-Men there Is no gurante some who keep crying reboot
will be sastified.

If Singer ever gets his remake of battlestar galactica off his ground and as been hinted In past It's closer In spirit to original show and not reimaged version some online will be pissed It's a space opera and not a 911 Allergy.

The terminator Is a classic and now they are rebooting. Why do I think we will get a reimaging announcement on terminator.

 

[X-Maniac]

No, it's because I've seen these damn stories already.

I guess I should just go ahead and rewrite Lord Of The Rings, cuz hey... I can bring new potential to an outdated book that needs a new take to keep it alive for modern audiences, right?

Lord of the Rings is just so perfect and dizzyingly vast in its production values and epic filmmaking that it won't be touched again for a long time - and maybe it never will.

Part of the reason for all these reboots is that studios want to hang on to screen rights. If they let them lapse, then the owners just sell them to another studio. It's not just studios, it's the rights owners (and then their descendants) wanting to make money too.

I agree we don't seem to get enough original ideas. That's a perennial argument.

 

[def28]

Theres plenty of original work out there. Everyone just likes talking about mainstream franchises. Hell, we got three great original films out this week that are getting alot of attention: Gravity, Rush and Don Jon.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Lord of the Rings is just so perfect and dizzyingly vast in its production values and epic filmmaking that it won't be touched again for a long time - and maybe it never will.

Part of the reason for all these reboots is that studios want to hang on to screen rights. If they let them lapse, then the owners just sell them to another studio. It's not just studios, it's the rights owners (and then their descendants) wanting to make money too.

I agree we don't seem to get enough original ideas. That's a perennial argument.

I was talking about the book, but same difference.

How you described the Lord Of The Rings movies is how I feel about the X-Men movies. They did the movies how I felt they should have been done. "Another version" isn't needed to capture the X-Men mythos. Were there missteps? Absolutely. But a reboot is only going to have missteps of it's own. A reboot will fail in ways where the current series succeeded. The difference? The series that we have now was original cinema. A reboot will just be a rehash of the same thing we've already seen.

 

[GuestStar2004]

Super hero films can be rebooted because the comics reboot all the time and so do the cartoons, if they can give different takes I'm sure movies can

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Theres plenty of original work out there. Everyone just likes talking about mainstream franchises. Hell, we got three great original films out this week that are getting alot of attention: Gravity, Rush and Don Jon.

That's awesome.

But the "reboot" mindset says that we'll need to remake these movies again in a few years cuz hey... new audience! A new director can give it a new take and reach an audience that the original didn't!

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Super hero films can be rebooted because the comics reboot all the time and so do the cartoons, if they can give different takes I'm sure movies can

But what's to gain?

It's going to be the same premise! Charles Xavier created a school for mutants where they could learn to control their powers in a peaceful environment. Humans fear mutants because of their powers, and Magneto, a survivor of the Nazi concentration camps, does not want to see the same thing happen to his people again so takes the war to humans, and Xavier assembles his X-Men to stop them, and the X-Men face many villains along the way. Oh, and Wolverine was given an adamantium skeleton and claws through a secret government experiment.

That needs to be retold again in a reboot why?

People may say "Well Cyclops"... okay... well one character is not worth an entirely new adaptation. Also, where Cyclops may get more focus, another character will get the same shaft that he did.

"Oh, there's more stories" - yes... and those stories can be told without a reboot.

"Proper Phoenix" - same thing as Cyclops... where they get one thing right, they will botch another.

There's always going to be someone, somewhere, that's unhappy with an adaptation, and we can't just go around making a new version of the movie for everyone.

 

[def28]

That's awesome.

But the "reboot" mindset says that we'll need to remake these movies again in a few years cuz hey... new audience! A new director can give it a new take and reach an audience that the original didn't!

Is that what it says Nell? That every movie needs to be rebooted? Give me a break dude. I get it you don't like reboots. You are completely failing to see how these big budget franchises that get rebooted work for other audiences.

...and ya know what? Reboots are not going anywhere. End of line.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Is that what it says Nell? That every movie needs to be rebooted? Give me a break dude. I get it you don't like reboots. You are completely failing to see how these big budget franchises that get rebooted work for other audiences.

...and ya know what? Reboots are not going anywhere. End of line.

And I won't be going to reboots.

And like I said, I'll spend my time not watching reboots instead writing a new version of Lord of the Rings. It needs to be updated for this new Kindle audience.

 

[Farren]

Super hero films can be rebooted because the comics reboot all the time and so do the cartoons, if they can give different takes I'm sure movies can

TBF a lot of the time those reboots are pretty questionable too. DC's gone trigger happy in the last decade with their reboots, and Marvel isn't much better with their overuse of retcons. The big two are probably worse offenders than Hollywood when it comes to lazy quick fixes.

Is that what it says Nell? That every movie needs to be rebooted? Give me a break dude. I get it you don't like reboots. You are completely failing to see how these big budget franchises that get rebooted work for other audiences.

...and ya know what? Reboots are not going anywhere. End of line.

Neither are bad Adam Sandler movies, but that doesn't make them suck any less.

I'm not as vehemently anti-reboot as Nell, but I have to agree that most reboots/remakes are lazy cash grabs that often add little of value. In the specific case of X-Men, I don't think it needs a reboot -- at least not in the immediate wake of DoFP (and I don't think it will be rebooted either).

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Neither are bad Adam Sandler movies, but that doesn't make them suck any less.

And boom goes the dynamite.

I'm not as vehemently anti-reboot as Nell, but I have to agree that most reboots/remakes are lazy cash grabs that often add little of value. In the specific case of X-Men, I don't think it needs a reboot -- at least not in the immediate wake of DoFP (and I don't think it will be rebooted either).

 

[def28]

Neither are bad Adam Sandler movies, but that doesn't make them suck any less.

I'm not as vehemently anti-reboot as Nell, but I have to agree that most reboots/remakes are lazy cash grabs that often add little of value. In the specific case of X-Men, I don't think it needs a reboot -- at least not in the immediate wake of DoFP (and I don't think it will be rebooted either).

X-Men is using time travel to change/fix ****. They found an alternative to rebooting within a time travel story. A luxury other franchises don't have. It needs fixing and Brian Singer knows this.

Name one Comic reboot that is worse then Green Lantern or X-Men Origins. Or a reboot worse then Jack And Jill. Punisher Warzone or Conan maybe? I've seen all this complaining about reboots yet there are no examples. So if your comparing them to Adam Sandler flicks then what are your examples since most are sucky, lazy ,money grubbing reboots? Surely its not Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, Batman Begins, Star Trek, Evil Dead, Dredd, Fright Night, Casino Royale and Amazing Spider-Man. Those films are hardly lazy. I'm not even a fan of all those films (ASM) but Id be crazy not to notice they have proven to either be a critical or financial success and were all liked by audiences for the most part. We have actuallty gotten very original and fresh updates on these franchises.

The worse reboots are horror films. Nightmare, Friday The 13th, Texas Chainsaw etc. Which already had equally bad sequels to begin with. They have always been used to cash grab. As does Saw and Paranormal Activity.

 

[GuestStar2004]

I'm Not a fan of the spiderman movies from Raimi so I'm glad we got a reboot which I much prefer

 

[def28]

I'm Not a fan of the spiderman movies from Raimi so I'm glad we got a reboot which I much prefer

Yeah, I know alot of people who are bigger fans of that. I didn't like the first ASM much, but I think that series has a ton of potential within the new cast and crew to show us different Spidey stories that Raimi wouldn't have told. Which is a good thing cause theres a billion different Spidey stories to tell. Really looking forward to part 2.

 

[Dasher10]

Yeah, I know alot of people who are bigger fans of that. I didn't like the first ASM much, but I think that series has a ton of potential within the new cast and crew to show us different Spidey stories that Raimi wouldn't have told. Which is a good thing cause theres a billion different Spidey stories to tell. Really looking forward to part 2.

5-hour clone saga film FTW.

 

[Farren]

X-Men is using time travel to change/fix ****. They found an alternative to rebooting within a time travel story. A luxury other franchises don't have. It needs fixing and Brian Singer knows this.

I got no qualms with what DoFP is doing. I actually would welcome a little selective retconning to open some doors for either cast going forward.

And I've got nothing against good reboots. I'll even add another one to your list of good ones: The Incredible Hulk. I thought that one took a smart route setting itself up in it's own rebooted world, but didn't retread the same origin story territory.

My point with Adam Sandler was that just because Hollywood keeps doing something, doesn't mean it's inherently smart or creative, or that we should find it any more palatable when it's made of poo (and no, I'm not saying ALL reboots are made of poo). I'm not disputing your entire feelings about reboots, just that one particular point.

The worse reboots are horror films. Nightmare, Friday The 13th, Texas Chainsaw etc. Which already had equally bad sequels to begin with. They have always been used to cash grab. As does Saw and Paranormal Activity.

You'll find no argument from me there. And the horror movies are also a big reason why I wrote "reboot/remake" -- remakes, horror ones included, are really a bigger mess than reboots imo. They just crib from the foreign studios. I don't personally MIND per say, because it exposes more people to the original material (same reason I don't mind the Star Trek reboots being out there -- I'll always take another Trekkie). But, yeah, lazy money grabs.

5-hour clone saga film FTW.

Give it to Peter Jackson, he'll stretch it out to 10.

 

[def28]

My point with Adam Sandler was that just because Hollywood keeps doing something, doesn't mean it's inherently smart or creative, or that we should find it any more palatable when it's made of poo (and no, I'm not saying ALL reboots are made of poo). I'm not disputing your entire feelings about reboots, just that one particular point.

Of course. I wasn't saying eat the bad crap Hollywood throws at us, or to like it just cause it's labeled a reboot. More that the debate is pointless and going nowhere.

You'll find no argument from me there. And the horror movies are also a big reason why I wrote "reboot/remake" -- remakes, horror ones included, are really a bigger mess than reboots imo. They just crib from the foreign studios. I don't personally MIND per say, because it exposes more people to the original material (same reason I don't mind the Star Trek reboots being out there -- I'll always take another Trekkie). But, yeah, lazy money grabs.

Yeah, that list is growing strong. Way more bad then good there, with almost always little effort put in. But like anything there's some good that comes with it. Mostly the older ones back when horror got creative and messy. Love The Thing and The Blob.

 

[Mr.M]

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.

I guess it was just the rush from seeing all those characters return after so many years, plus the backstory Abrams provided that I never knew like the back of my hand. I like that Abrams tried to remain somewhat scientifically accurate in spite of the fact that it was a summer blockbuster film. And Nimoy returning made the movie for me; I was not expecting that. But you are right, it wasn't Star Trek. You can't have constant quarreling and banter between shipmates. While I enjoyed the contrast between Spock and Kirk, of which the new series is built on, it doesn't represent the themes of what the series was founded upon. I don't go back as far as MarvelRobbins or some other Trekkies, so I am not familiar with the original series or movies. I'm sure all those characters had their differences at one point or another. But Star Trek is about everyone on the same page, working towards a greater good, making new discoveries, etc. Maverick captains saving planets from natural disasters or instigating intergalactic wars to reinforce their own ideologies oversteps the line that must not be crossed for that franchise.