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

[Chris Wallace]

Superman needs a reboot. Singers mistake was NOT doing that. Also, the last 3 Superman movies have been awful. It's not like they're rebooting over "one little mistake." The entire franchise since part 2 has been a god damn trainwreck of epic porportions. You need to start over, do a brief origin (20 minutes of the film, at most) and then have Superman introduced to Luthor, and an actual villain that he can fight (parasite maybe?) to get the awful taste of Superman Returns out of peoples mouths.

I have to agree. But if you paid attention to my opening post, I think my criteria have at least mostly been met.

 

[dude stannis]

I hate reboots, they're just bollocks. Since when did a bad sequel mean you have restart from scratch all over again and piss all over everything that was good about a franchise?

If they had rebooted Die Hard after 2, we wouldn't have Die Hard With a Vengeance, if they rebooted Indy after Temple of Doom we wouldn't have Last Crusade, as well as Mission Impossible.

MOS was always going to be different from SR, Singer said so before it was even released. Anyone clamouring for a reboot fits under the X-Men portion of Chris' post.

So I'm more than happy for the entire concept of reboots to get flushed down the toilet and never be mentioned again. Ever.

 

[Chris Wallace]

"X-Men" was just an example.

 

[Doctor Jones]

That's because fanboys expect if you pull a reboot like the Batman franchise, it gaurentees success and will hopefully have what THEY want. "Hey BB and TDK worked, I guess reboots do work after all!" What the hell? I think Batman is the first reboot for a CB franchise. They expect the next BB or TDK. Get a grip and the hell over yourselves.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Funny thing is, not EVERYBODY got what they wanted out of the Nolan revamp.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Funny thing is, not EVERYBODY got what they wanted out of the Nolan revamp.

True. But I'm talking about how they constantly refer to those films and Nolan as God. And now they expect or want every superhero film to measure up to TDK. Which some of them can't. They expect Spider-Man to be dark and gritty. That's NOT Spider-Man. They call him "Your FRIENDLY Neighborhood Spider-Man" for a reason. Batman's really the only CM hero that it could work for. Realistic and gritty. Or who can ge that deep with it's themes and morals. Spider-Man is friendly to all ages. He's the lighter guy. He should stay that way. Whoever says otherwise is an idiot.

 

[Chewy]

Bryan Singer was god in 2003. Then Superman Returns came out.
Sam Raimi was god in 2004. Then Spider-Man 3 came out.

The Hype is cyclical like that.

 

[Chris Wallace]

You & I are in agreement, Jones. I'm just saying that despite the overwhelming acclaim & success of the Nolan Batfilms, they still didn't please everybody. No film can. And that approach cannot be taken with every superhero. Like you said, it would never work with Spider-Man. Grim & gritty is not the approach for a guy who once had a balloon in the Macy's parade, & whose likeness has been rented out for birthday parties. And Batman is Batman. A few years back, fans were pushing for a Burtonesque Spidey film. Now it's a Nolanesque Spidey film. Neither is a good idea. Raimi took a genuinely good approach but did not please everyone. I think the biggest points of controversy are the organic webbing & his handling of the alien parasite disguised as a set of tights. Neither was a problem for me. But when you have a film dealing with super powers, secret identities & bizarre names, you have to make some allowances. And slavish devotion to a 40-year-old story is just not smart filmmaking. There's going to be changes & not all will be bad, but not all will be to every fan's liking.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Bryan Singer was god in 2003. Then Superman Returns came out.
Sam Raimi was god in 2004. Then Spider-Man 3 came out.

The Hype is cyclical like that.

Are you suggesting that fans will turn on you at the drop of a hat?
Heresy!

 

[Chewy]

Yeah, and I'll flesh it out a little further

Bryan Singer was god in 2003. Then Superman Returns came out.
Sam Raimi was god in 2004. Then Spider-Man 3 came out.
Chris Nolan is god in 2008. Then ______
Jon Favreau will be god in 2010. Then ______

Fill in the blanks

I wonder who is next in line for the dubious honor of being fanboy god for a few years after making a successful superhero sequel before they make their third superhero film?

 

[Chris Wallace]

Which, mind you, will still be successful. But the fanboys will have already made up their collective minds & then nitpick the movie to death.

 

[dude stannis]

"X-Men" was just an example.

I know, it could well be Burton's Batman. But what I'm saying is that example describes the people who want Superman rebooted.

Which, mind you, will still be successful. But the fanboys will have already made up their collective minds & then nitpick the movie to death.

That's certainly the vibe I got from TDK no doubt Iron Man 2 will feature the same.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I'm really kind of on the fence where Supes is concerned. So many things were wrong & I really don't want them acknowledged in a future film:
The kid
The stalking
Richard
THe kryptonite island
The 5-year sabbatical to look for a planet THAT BLEW UP
The 40's atmosphere
The suit
And they would have to really ramp up the action. At the same time, I don't want to see Krypton explode again. I think something like Doomsday would be the shot in the arm that the franchise needs.

 

[dude stannis]

Well Superman found his place in the world at the end. He was happy with lois and family living their lives. So stalking, kids and Richard are cameos.

The Kryptonite Island was dealt with.

He took his five year sabbatical. He wouldn't have been taking another one.

The suit would be changed anyway, for action figure purposes and whatnot.

Ramp up the action and boo-yah you've got a superior sequel.

 

[[A]]

I an not sick of it. Probably because I just visit a couple of sub-forums, heh

 

[Doctor Jones]

You & I are in agreement, Jones. I'm just saying that despite the overwhelming acclaim & success of the Nolan Batfilms, they still didn't please everybody. No film can. And that approach cannot be taken with every superhero. Like you said, it would never work with Spider-Man. Grim & gritty is not the approach for a guy who once had a balloon in the Macy's parade, & whose likeness has been rented out for birthday parties. And Batman is Batman. A few years back, fans were pushing for a Burtonesque Spidey film. Now it's a Nolanesque Spidey film. Neither is a good idea. Raimi took a genuinely good approach but did not please everyone. I think the biggest points of controversy are the organic webbing & his handling of the alien parasite disguised as a set of tights. Neither was a problem for me. But when you have a film dealing with super powers, secret identities & bizarre names, you have to make some allowances. And slavish devotion to a 40-year-old story is just not smart filmmaking. There's going to be changes & not all will be bad, but not all will be to every fan's liking.

I agree with all of this. I think the lesson here is that you can't please everybody. I have no problem with the organic web-shooters. You have to take liberties when adapting comics to film. Fans just don't understand that. And if they did stick to the comics, it just wouldn't work. And then, the fans would say, "Well maybe they shouldn't of stuck to the comics that much after all. Next time, don't take everything from the comics."

 

[cerealkiller182]

There are so many reasons why I want reboots and such none of which have anything to do with "Nolan-esque" style outside of the ability to actually fashion a really good film from a comic property rather than a throwaway popcorn film marketed around the comic and the reputation of early and more recent comic films. Spoilers ensue

X-Men:
X3 ruined it. Wolverine Origins looks good and will probably be good but it is also the only way to continue the series for me. Cyclops is dead, Jean is dead and was never that great as the Pheonix, Pr. X is dead and some new body, Mystique was depowered, etc. Wolverine was the only passable thing and even he wasnt that great in 3. Now that Marvel has their own studio, Id like to see rights revert and done well.

Spiderman:
Spidey 3 has the same story as X3 despite me not even like Spidey 2. I still think Spidey is fixable though

Blade Trinity:
A huge dissapointment even though it tends to be fun in a few moments. It scared away the leading man of a modestly succesful franchise. They got the characterization of Hannibal King mostly wrong (if not completely wrong).

Daredevil and Fantastic Four were jokes. Superman Returns was a joke, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was a joke. And they all have the possibility to be better.

The worse thing that these movies didnt have was the correct "tone and characterization" the most important thing to cross over and the only thing I mean when I say "stay true to the comics" Obvioulsy the stories wont play out like carbon copies. Iron Man in the Middle East instead of Vietnamm, Punisher in the Gulf War, these are passable. But when you take all the Pheonix imagery and implications made in the first 2 X-Men films and disregard it, when you take Superman, extrovert celebrity superhero and make him an introvert "Saviour" wannabe, when you take Daredevil, a dark and gritty urban character and make him cheesy and outlandish. Then you seriously screwed up. A Bad movie is a bad movie, but a terrible adaptation can always be saved,

 

[[A]]

The stalking

Yeah--that was so wrong--I couldn't believe while I was watching it.. what if Lois was in the bathroom, huh?

 

[Doctor Jones]

We don't need reboots with mediocre CM films. Just excellent sequels.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Edit.

 

[GL1]

Or who can ge that deep with it's themes and morals. Spider-Man is friendly to all ages. He's the lighter guy. He should stay that way. Whoever says otherwise is an idiot.

Well then I'm an idiot. I'm with you up until this point. There is no reason, that I'm aware of that a lighter film cannot be deep. This idea that the only way we can make something moving is by making it gritty is silly to me. Spider-Man, while light, can be enjoyable to kids and still speak to heavy stuff for adults. It isn't about the tone, it's about the contrasts. Yes, many storytellers have experience making those contrasts in dark settings, so its easy to conceive of, but I wouldn't call Star Wars (Orig Tril) "Dark and Gritty" but the things that they touched on, and they could have gone further, were deep. I don't think that should be discounted.

As for the topic, I realize that there are things that don't need to be rebooted, like the X-Men franchise, or the Fantastic Four franchise, or the Superman franchise... but to be blunt, I want them rebooted anyway. I don't like what they did with my favorite characters, and the universes that they've created hold no interest for me. None. They don't need to reboot those franchises, but they do for me to want to watch them.

 

[[A]]

We don't need reboots with mediocre CM films. Just excellent sequels.

What is a "CM film"..?

 

[cerealkiller182]

Well then I'm an idiot. I'm with you up until this point. There is no reason, that I'm aware of that a lighter film cannot be deep. This idea that the only way we can make something moving is by making it gritty is silly to me. Spider-Man, while light, can be enjoyable to kids and still speak to heavy stuff for adults. It isn't about the tone, it's about the contrasts. Yes, many storytellers have experience making those contrasts in dark settings, so its easy to conceive of, but I wouldn't call Star Wars (Orig Tril) "Dark and Gritty" but the things that they touched on, and they could have gone further, were deep. I don't think that should be discounted.

As for the topic, I realize that there are things that don't need to be rebooted, like the X-Men franchise, or the Fantastic Four franchise, or the Superman franchise... but to be blunt, I want them rebooted anyway. I don't like what they did with my favorite characters, and the universes that they've created hold no interest for me. None. They don't need to reboot those franchises, but they do for me to want to watch them.

agreed on all accounts

 

[Chris Wallace]

I hate reboots, they're just bollocks. Since when did a bad sequel mean you have restart from scratch all over again and piss all over everything that was good about a franchise?

If they had rebooted Die Hard after 2, we wouldn't have Die Hard With a Vengeance, if they rebooted Indy after Temple of Doom we wouldn't have Last Crusade, as well as Mission Impossible.

And I wonder how many people would be pushing for a "Star Wars" reboot.

 

[Matt Murdock]

I'm really kind of on the fence where Supes is concerned. So many things were wrong & I really don't want them acknowledged in a future film:
The kid
The stalking
Richard
THe kryptonite island
The 5-year sabbatical to look for a planet THAT BLEW UP
The 40's atmosphere
The suit
And they would have to really ramp up the action. At the same time, I don't want to see Krypton explode again. I think something like Doomsday would be the shot in the arm that the franchise needs.

Easily my favorite aspect out of the few that I liked.