The "I am SO SICK of all this talk about recasts/reboots/revamps/re-whatever!" thread

[Infinity9999x]

I strongly disagree with this. In my eyes, the only difference is that Spider-Man can say what he wants because nobody knows who's talking to them.
And the point I was trying to make is, you can push & push and maybe, eventually, the series will get redone and you STILL might not get what you want.

Oh, I agree with that, there's never a guarantee that we'll get what we want.

With Spider-man, you should understand that when I compared him to Bruce/Batman, I'm not talking about the idea that's sprung up lately about Batman being the real person and Bruce being the act. I view them as two different sides of the same person.

It's the same with Spider-man, and Spider-man and Peter Parker are radically different.

When Peter Puts on that mask, it's a freeing experience for him. He can now say what he wants, and act the way he wants. He's confident, cocky, and witty as hell. In short, he acts the way he always wanted to, but was too afraid and too timid to try to.

Spider-man is a radically different person from Peter Parker, later Peter would eventually grow and start to act more like he does as Spider-man, but that was not until he was older. In the begging, Spider-man was an escape for him, the chance to be the person he wanted to be, and Raimi barely touched upon this aspect of the character, which is something I've been unhappy with since the first film.

 

[Doctor Jones]

^ Well, that's Raimi's interpretation. It's fine with me. But for me, what he got right was Peter parker. He's more important to me.

In the next set of films or whatever, there is room for more open things. Like what you said. This is just one of them.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I know I 'm not alone. Post after post, thread after thread, "Reboot, reboot, reboot. Recast recast, recast." Like the only worthwhile interpretation of a story that's been told in perpetuity for 40+ years is yours.
This is how I see it. If the movie was a total flop-just straight crashed and burned, then perhaps a reboot is in order.

Maybe. Maybe it can be rescued with some minor tweaking. Who knows? If the movie was just a complete bastardization of everything about the character and/or took a bizarre turn away from how the franchise started out,

then I can see where they may need to start fresh.
If the actor either did not gel with the director, did not get into the character, got busted with drugs/a hooker/a dead body sometime after the movie wrapped, spoke ill of the project or was not well-received overall, then maybe they should be replaced. If the actor just doesn't want to come back & the show must go on,

then they should be replaced.
If, however, the movie was a huge hit despite the incessant naysaying of whiny internet fanboys

whose expectations are based on a lifetime of reading comics religiously & are prone to get pissy over the slightest deviation from their preconceived notion of how the movie should be, this doesn't mean that they need to fire everybody, start over from scratch & just pretend that the last film never happened. Complain all you want about how they changed the costume or slightly altered the character's origin, (or wasted your time telling the origin since you feel like it should've gone straight into the action) how they should have gone with this actor over that one because this one-in your eyes-looks more like a particular artist's interpretation of the character than the person who the director hired, how your beloved favorite villain was underused/misused/killed off/whatever,

keep in mind that you are only doing so after giving them your money. (Unless you're doing it before the movie goes into production, which is even harder to get anyone to take seriously) No studio is going to ignore box office receipts over message board posts. Nor should they. These people are not swayed by the reviews of professional critics who are paid to give their opinions. They are really not going to throw away millions of dollars based on yours.
Either lay aside the script you've been writing in your head for the last 12 years & just try to enjoy the movie you're getting or leave it alone! You are not the only person who loves these characters, & many people do not share your views on what makes them cool. That doesn't mean you're wrong, it doesn't mean they're wrong-it's just a different point of view.

Great post.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Oh, I agree with that, there's never a guarantee that we'll get what we want.

With Spider-man, you should understand that when I compared him to Bruce/Batman, I'm not talking about the idea that's sprung up lately about Batman being the real person and Bruce being the act. I view them as two different sides of the same person.

It's the same with Spider-man, and Spider-man and Peter Parker are radically different.

When Peter Puts on that mask, it's a freeing experience for him. He can now say what he wants, and act the way he wants. He's confident, cocky, and witty as hell. In short, he acts the way he always wanted to, but was too afraid and too timid to try to.

Spider-man is a radically different person from Peter Parker, later Peter would eventually grow and start to act more like he does as Spider-man, but that was not until he was older. In the begging, Spider-man was an escape for him, the chance to be the person he wanted to be, and Raimi barely touched upon this aspect of the character, which is something I've been unhappy with since the first film.

I agree to an extent, but Peter Parker comes through with or without the mask. He hasn't created a false persona like Superman & Batman have. SUperman pretends to be all the things Peter Parker is. He is who he is & I don't think that Peter & Spidey are so radically different. The biggest difference I've seen is that, as you said, he's less inhibited when he's in costume. But that's it. He'll think some snide remark to JJJ as Peter whereas Spider-Man will say it out loud. But he still has the same doubts, fears & insecurities and they do show during fights. Spidey's not some dynamic, fearless megahero & he never comes across like one. ANyone who pays attention to him knows that the wisecracks are a way of masking his fears.

 

[JRPJCDJC]

I know I 'm not alone. Post after post, thread after thread, "Reboot, reboot, reboot. Recast recast, recast." Like the only worthwhile interpretation of a story that's been told in perpetuity for 40+ years is yours.

Well - get used to it. There are currently 6 billion people on the planet and they ALL see things differently. Everyone wants to tweek everything and put there own imprint on it because - quite frankly, it's not right yet. All these beloved characters are here on this earth for everyone. I mean, they're friggin' fictional characters given to earth as an offering by their creator - YOU CAN'T OWN A FICTIONAL CHARACTER!!! HASBRO!!! That's like someone saying they own the air. The point is - these charcters are here for public consumption and storied in whatever way each individual see's fit. Personally - I'd like to try and kill all of them off and reboot the whole damn thing 100% through.

Filmmaking, in the grand scheme of this planet, is still in the infant stages of it's existence. How many of the first painting, musical sonatas, or written verse are still around today and held in high regard? ZERO, or close to it. 500 years from now, people will look at movies from the current time and only a dozen or so will be left and only available for viewing in museums. That is another reason why the remakes/reboots/recastings will continue.

 

[Chris Wallace]

None of that is really my point. I'm simply saying too many people are pushing for them when they're not necessary.

 

[JRPJCDJC]

None of that is really my point. I'm simply saying too many people are pushing for them when they're not necessary.

Yes they are. Batman needed to be remade because of three different Batman's in the previous series. Superman needed to be redone because they wanted to do a Justice League movie in conjunction with Superman solo movies. And it will probably have to be redone again because JLA isn't moving along as they expected. Remaking older movies is a good idea because of the improvements that can be made with the latest technology AND the more people will be able to enjoy some classic stories they otherwise wouldn't. I understand your complaint but I think your problem is more with how they are doing them as opposed to why.

 

[[A]]

Great post.

Except for the pics that screwed everything up. And you again, by quoting the whole thing

 

[Infinity9999x]

I agree to an extent, but Peter Parker comes through with or without the mask. He hasn't created a false persona like Superman & Batman have. SUperman pretends to be all the things Peter Parker is. He is who he is & I don't think that Peter & Spidey are so radically different. The biggest difference I've seen is that, as you said, he's less inhibited when he's in costume. But that's it. He'll think some snide remark to JJJ as Peter whereas Spider-Man will say it out loud. But he still has the same doubts, fears & insecurities and they do show during fights. Spidey's not some dynamic, fearless megahero & he never comes across like one. ANyone who pays attention to him knows that the wisecracks are a way of masking his fears.

We as the readers know that, but the other characters in the books don't. And, especially in the early Spider-man comics, the difference between Peter and Spidey appeared to be huge. However, as Peter grew older, we slowly see the parts of his personality he only let out as Spider-man filter into his life as Peter Parker. It would have been nice to see this play out over the movies on screen. At first we would think that Peter was just acting differently to disguise himself as Spider-man, but then we would realize that he's not acting, that's actually him, he just never let the rest of the world see that part of him before.

And really, that's why I would like a Spider-man revamp, because there's so much more potential for better storytelling that hasn't been tapped, and I don't believe will be tapped as long as Raimi's attatched. (we haven't even talked about MJ yet, she certainly can be done better.) There are so many other stories out there that could be told if your revamped the series, Death of Gwen Stacy for example.

That's why I'm not against revamps really. Just because we don't always know if they'll turn out the way we want them doesn't mean we should stop them all together, because sometimes they can help. And as I said before, in some cases, I just wouldn't mention the past movies, so they could be a part of this series if you want to think that way, I'm just not going to reference them. It's basically the same as the comic books that way, comics ignore whole decades of material all the time.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Again, I'm not so much against revamps as I am the constant push for them. I don't want every franchise rebooted. I don't want certain ones in particular touched as far as the direction in which they're going. And it's getting to a point where you can't discuss any movie without the dreaded "re"-prefix rearing its ugly head.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Again, I'm not so much against revamps as I am the constant push for them. I don't want every franchise rebooted. I don't want certain ones in particular touched as far as the direction in which they're going. And it's getting to a point where you can't discuss any movie without the dreaded "re"-prefix rearing its ugly head.

I can see where you're coming from with that. I think it's an unfortunate side effect of Begins. Once people see a restart that not only works, but works very well, suddenly everyone thinks a restart will help everything!

However, I do think that "revamps" in the sense that I was saying, should become a natural progression in the superhero movie genre, if the genre continues to be popular. The pure constraints of time limit the amount of movies we can make with a set group of actors, and if we tried to continue the same continuity with movies for much longer then 8 to 10 years people would forget what happened in the older movies anyways. I think the natural evolution of the comic book movie is to eventually turn into a comic book format...or basically become like the James Bond movies. A few movies can be connected, I'd say 3 to 4 at the max (because that's close to a decade of film making) but then we have another episode that's completely unconnected to the last ones. I think that's the best format for comic book movies.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I can see where you're coming from with that. I think it's an unfortunate side effect of Begins. Once people see a restart that not only works, but works very well, suddenly everyone thinks a restart will help everything!

However, I do think that "revamps" in the sense that I was saying, should become a natural progression in the superhero movie genre, if the genre continues to be popular. The pure constraints of time limit the amount of movies we can make with a set group of actors, and if we tried to continue the same continuity with movies for much longer then 8 to 10 years people would forget what happened in the older movies anyways. I think the natural evolution of the comic book movie is to eventually turn into a comic book format...or basically become like the James Bond movies. A few movies can be connected, I'd say 3 to 4 at the max (because that's close to a decade of film making) but then we have another episode that's completely unconnected to the last ones. I think that's the best format for comic book movies.

I can get with that, I suppose.
Another unfortunate side effect of BB is that now we're getting reboots if the first movie isn't well-received. SOmetimes it works out.

Other times, well...

My question then becomes, what if they reboot & you still don't get what you want? Are we then to push for a revamp of the reboot? Or will we then just finally accept that no matter what, EVERYTHING we love about this particular character will not be brought to the screen?

 

[The Overlord]

I don't think I'm overreacting. And you can't use Norton's Hulk as an example as it was a reboot.

It wasn't a reboot, it was revamp, which is different.

Reboot is complete break from the previous films, a revamp just ejects some elements from the previous film, but could be considered a vague sequel or not, its up to the viewers, really.

Considering what Wangsty mess the 2003 Hulk was, I don't mind the revamp, a reboot would have been a step too far, but revamp was fine.

And why are you against recasts, sometimes, the actors can't return or ask for too much money. Terrence Howard asked for too much money to appear in Iron man 2, so Marvel replaced him. I don't see a problem with that.

 

[Chris Wallace]

It wasn't a reboot, it was revamp, which is different.

Reboot is complete break from the previous films, a revamp just ejects some elements from the previous film, but could be considered a vague sequel or not, its up to the viewers, really.

Considering what Wangsty mess the 2003 Hulk was, I don't mind the revamp, a reboot would have been a step too far, but revamp was fine.

And why are you against recasts, sometimes, the actors can't return or ask for too much money. Terrence Howard asked for too much money to appear in Iron man 2, so Marvel replaced him. I don't see a problem with that.

1-the 2003 film had Bruce as the unfortunate mutant by-product of his father's experiments. He grew up using the name Krenzler, with no real memory of his father. Ross never met him until after he became the Hulk, & he had long since abandoned the notion that he & Betty would have a future. In the 2008 film, Bruce worked under Ross trying to re-create the super-soldier serum. There were no nanomeds, none of his father's work had anything to do with it, & he bailed on Betty only because he'd accidentally hurt her as the Hulk. The two movies are not related, hence reboot.
2-I am not against recasts if they can't be avoided, as I made clear in my first post. I'm against people pushing for recasts all the damn time.

 

[The Overlord]

1-the 2003 film had Bruce as the unfortunate mutant by-product of his father's experiments. He grew up using the name Krenzler, with no real memory of his father. Ross never met him until after he became the Hulk, & he had long since abandoned the notion that he & Betty would have a future. In the 2008 film, Bruce worked under Ross trying to re-create the super-soldier serum. There were no nanomeds, none of his father's work had anything to do with it, & he bailed on Betty only because he'd accidentally hurt her as the Hulk. The two movies are not related, hence reboot.

But they still kept the thing where he was hiding in South America and who cares that they ditched all that stuff, it was pointless and convoluted and got in the way of telling, what's the point of keeping it? It just becomes contiunity porn at that point. I had no problem with them ditching all that stuff, but keeping South America thing.

Oh you may have liked the FF movies, but not only did the fans not like it, the critics didn't like it and by the second one, the audiences didn't like it, which is that series is now dead and it was nothing like the comics, that seems like a good reason for reboot to me. You have liked it, but almost no one else did, so why should they keep on FF movies with this lame structure.

Reboots if necessary, but not necessarily reboot, but there is some lame plot point that gets in the way of telling stories, it should be ditched.

2-I am not against recasts if they can't be avoided, as I made clear in my first post. I'm against people pushing for recasts all the damn time.

Well if the first movie was made 5 years ago, with no sequel, is there any point to keeping the cast, especially if very few people thought the actor was good, is there any reason to keep the actor in question? They made another DD movie, it shouldn't be reboot, Kingpin and Foggy should be played by the same actors, but everyone else should be replaced or at least Ben Affleck.

 

[Chris Wallace]

One characteristic remains the same; he hid out in the same country. It's still a reboot because they changed EVERYTHING ELSE. Not my rules, okay? "Batman Forever" is a revamp. Different director, star & set design. But it was still tied into Burton's films, if only loosely. "Batman Begins" is a reboot.

 

[The Overlord]

One characteristic remains the same; he hid out in the same country. It's still a reboot because they changed EVERYTHING ELSE. Not my rules, okay? "Batman Forever" is a revamp. Different director, star & set design. But it was still tied into Burton's films, if only loosely. "Batman Begins" is a reboot.

Whatever, the fact you have ignoring, is if lame plot points from the 2003 hulk, hinder a sequel, why should they be carried to the next film and not ignored?

 

[Chris Wallace]

I'm not ignoring anything. I feel like you either haven't read my opening post-or my many posts since-or you're ignoring my points.
1-your last post isn't a fact, as you didn't make a statement. You asked a question.
2-it may have actually been feasible to make a sequel & just ignored the plot points that didn't go over well. When a bad comic book story comes out, they don't start the whole series over. (USUALLY.) They just move forward & don't talk about the mistakes of the past.
3-I never said that they shouldn't ignore the "lame plot points". Where did I say that?
4-what you & I have actually been debating isn't whether or not Hulk should have been rebooted, but rather whether or not it was. Pay attention to the argument you're having, please.

 

[The Overlord]

I'm not ignoring anything. I feel like you either haven't read my opening post-or my many posts since-or you're ignoring my points.
1-your last post isn't a fact, as you didn't make a statement. You asked a question.
2-it may have actually been feasible to make a sequel & just ignored the plot points that didn't go over well. When a bad comic book story comes out, they don't start the whole series over. (USUALLY.) They just move forward & don't talk about the mistakes of the past.
3-I never said that they shouldn't ignore the "lame plot points". Where did I say that?
4-what you & I have actually been debating isn't whether or not Hulk should have been rebooted, but rather whether or not it was. Pay attention to the argument you're having, please.

Okay, then how would you have made a sequel to the 2003 Hulk movie, without dealing with all that "the Hulk's power comes from his father's blood" plot point? That's a major plot point from the first movie and it gets in the way of making a sequel.

 

[Chris Wallace]

By not mentioning it.

 

[The Overlord]

By not mentioning it.

Then how is Abomination supposed to get his powers? Come on, that's major plot point, being hindered by some lame plot point from the previous film, why shouldn't we eject that?

 

[Chris Wallace]

Okay, first off, I never said anything against the 2008 film. But I fail to see what Abomination's origin would have to do with Papa Banner in any case.

 

[The Overlord]

Okay, first off, I never said anything against the 2008 film. But I fail to see what Abomination's origin would have to do with Papa Banner in any case.

You said the 2008 Hulk film was a reboot and since this is the anti reboot thread..... I mean how are we defining the term reboot for the purposes of this thread?

The point was in the 2003 film Bruce got his powers from both his father's modified blood and gamma radiation, since they didn't have blood samples by the end of the 2003 movie, how were they supposed to create Abomination in the sequel then?

 

[Chris Wallace]

1-once again, I said I'm tired of people constantly pushing for reboots. That is the point of this thread.
2-Bruce's transformation was a combination of NOT HIS FATHER'S BLOOD, but rather mutations that were passed down from his father's self-experimentation, gamma radiation and the nanomeds. THere's nothing saying that the Abomination's origin would necessarily have to have anything to do with anything that happened to Bruce-hell, it could come from a military attempt to re-create his work, which is what we got in TIH. There is no reason why they would have to fall back on David at all.

 

[The Overlord]

1-once again, I said I'm tired of people constantly pushing for reboots. That is the point of this thread.
2-Bruce's transformation was a combination of NOT HIS FATHER'S BLOOD, but rather mutations that were passed down from his father's self-experimentation, gamma radiation and the nanomeds. THere's nothing saying that the Abomination's origin would necessarily have to have anything to do with anything that happened to Bruce-hell, it could come from a military attempt to re-create his work, which is what we got in TIH. There is no reason why they would have to fall back on David at all.

Okay so how would a sequel to the 2003 Hulk have been different from the movie we got instead, besides retaining the same actors from 2003?