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

[Dr.Dude]

That's exactly what they should be doing, if they have to replace the creative team of the last three movies - replacement while keeping continuity.

I mean, as much as I might be a fan of Raimi's movies, I'd be fine with seeing a new Peter, new MJ, new director, tone and so on. What I'm fiercely against is this idea of jumping back to the beginning, which basically invalidates the previous movies and just keeps things in a whirlpool, where the same basic time line is repeated again and again and again.

I think they should take the same approach for other comic franchises, as well - it's the same difference as when a new creative team takes over a comic book title. They might change the style, bring in new characters and so on but what they don't do is recycle the origin all over again.

 

[The Question]

That's exactly what they should be doing, if they have to replace the creative team of the last three movies - replacement while keeping continuity.

I mean, as much as I might be a fan of Raimi's movies, I'd be fine with seeing a new Peter, new MJ, new director, tone and so on. What I'm fiercely against is this idea of jumping back to the beginning, which basically invalidates the previous movies and just keeps things in a whirlpool, where the same basic time line is repeated again and again and again.

I think they should take the same approach for other comic franchises, as well - it's the same difference as when a new creative team takes over a comic book title. They might change the style, bring in new characters and so on but what they don't do is recycle the origin all over again.

From what I understand, the new Spider-Man film isn't going to recycle the origin. It's going to take place after it with maybe some flashbacks. It just won't share continuity with Sam Raimi's films.

Willy WOnka was trampled. That movie was a travesty. I'm not speculating on Alice & I actually liked POTA. But that was the example that came to mind.

I didn't think Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was that bad. I mean, I actually think the only good thing about the Gene Wilder film is Gene Wilder's performance. That just happens to be so good that the movie is worth watching. I thought Tim Burton's film was more mediocre than anything else.

And Alice should be right up your alley, because it is a sequel to Alice in Wonder Land and Through the Looking Glass.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

I heard even Dahl hated the original Willy Wonka

 

[Dr.Dude]

From what I understand, the new Spider-Man film isn't going to recycle the origin. It's going to take place after it with maybe some flashbacks. It just won't share continuity with Sam Raimi's films.

They've been pretty vague about it so far, which makes sense seeing as the project is really only in its beginning stages. Regardless, while that's slightly less repetitive, I still think the backward momentum of it is pointless. They could still take a totally new approach without rewinding the clock.

For instance - we've now seen 3 Spider-Man movies that for the most part (aside from Venom's inclusion), are written in the style of Stan Lee's 60's stories. Instead of just jumping back to the high school, we could instead have some movies based on some 80's style Roger Stern and/or J.M. DeMatties storylines, such as the Hobgoblin, Kraven's Last Hunt, Death of Jean DeWolff, etc., which would still be a huge stylistic change.

I didn't think Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was that bad. I mean, I actually think the only good thing about the Gene Wilder film is Gene Wilder's performance. That just happens to be so good that the movie is worth watching. I thought Tim Burton's film was more mediocre than anything else.

As a big fan of the original Dahl book, I actually thought the Burton movie started out almost perfectly...up until Johnny Depp's bizarre Wonka depiction came onto the screen. A Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie really does rise or fall based on its Willy Wonka; I agree that the main reason the old one is so fondly remembered is Gene Wilder. It's too bad, because Depp could've been great in that role but decided to do something weird with it instead.

 

[roach]

Johnny Depp bases all his characters on real people.....he based his WW on Michael Jackson

 

[Mario_Galaxy]

They've been pretty vague about it so far, which makes sense seeing as the project is really only in its beginning stages. Regardless, while that's slightly less repetitive, I still think the backward momentum of it is pointless. They could still take a totally new approach without rewinding the clock.

For instance - we've now seen 3 Spider-Man movies that for the most part (aside from Venom's inclusion), are written in the style of Stan Lee's 60's stories. Instead of just jumping back to the high school, we could instead have some movies based on some 80's style Roger Stern and/or J.M. DeMatties storylines, such as the Hobgoblin, Kraven's Last Hunt, Death of Jean DeWolff, etc., which would still be a huge stylistic change.

I'd love that tone, actually. SOme of Spidey's best stories IMO

 

[The Question]

They've been pretty vague about it so far, which makes sense seeing as the project is really only in its beginning stages. Regardless, while that's slightly less repetitive, I still think the backward momentum of it is pointless. They could still take a totally new approach without rewinding the clock.

For instance - we've now seen 3 Spider-Man movies that for the most part (aside from Venom's inclusion), are written in the style of Stan Lee's 60's stories. Instead of just jumping back to the high school, we could instead have some movies based on some 80's style Roger Stern and/or J.M. DeMatties storylines, such as the Hobgoblin, Kraven's Last Hunt, Death of Jean DeWolff, etc., which would still be a huge stylistic change.

The first three movies struck me as being more in the style of the 90s saturday morning cartoon show than anything else. Being truer to the original comics (having Gwen Stacy around, giving the characters their original motivations, having Spider-Man actually be something of a celebrity/media personality before he becomes a super hero) might be interesting. I mean, yes, there are a lot of stories you can tell with an established Spider-Man. But there are also a lot of stories you can tell with a young Spider-Man.

I mean, I'm not saying I hate continuity and cohesive narratives. I love them. But it's not as important for me that two movies made by two different sets of people share a continuity. It's nice if they can pull it off, but it's also fine if they decide not to.

 

[Chris Wallace]

What version of Willy Wonka are you comparing Burtons to?

I'm only aware of one other version-the one with Gene Wilder.

 

[Mace Dolex]

With the Spder-Man reboot I just hope Sony doesn't jump right away into including Venom and rehashing the previous villians, let's see some of Spidey's other villians.

 

[roach]

I'm only aware of one other version-the one with Gene Wilder.

The Gene Wilder one is called Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (It was changed to Willie Wonka because Quaker Oats had acquired a candy company and was looking for a new vehicle to promote its candy. They bought the rights and changed the name of the candy bar to Willie Wonka's Wonka Bar...also at the time the Vietnam war was going on and another name for the Vietcong was Charlie.")
The Burton one is called Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

 

[Chris Wallace]

Johnny Depp bases all his characters on real people.....he based his WW on Michael Jackson

From what I understood he denied that several times.

 

[Dr.Dude]

I'd love that tone, actually. SOme of Spidey's best stories IMO

Oh, I agree. Great story lines.

I mean, I'm not saying I hate continuity and cohesive narratives. I love them. But it's not as important for me that two movies made by two different sets of people share a continuity. It's nice if they can pull it off, but it's also fine if they decide not to.

Well, see, since for me it actually WOULD be important, it's obvious that our opinions on the subject are just entirely different.

However, what I will say is this; if they had decided to keep the same continuity but move in a new stylistic direction (as the 007 movies did until Casino Royale), they could have satisfied both the fans of the previous films as well as the people who were unhappy with them, all at the same time. As it is, they've left supporters of the original movies out in the cold.

Not that Sony cares about that, of course, since it's a business. But from a storytelling perspective, I honestly just can't help but see it as creative laziness and an unnecessary, reactionary response to other superhero franchises doing the same thing.

 

[Chris Wallace]

AND a failure to see the distinction between a necessary move & a marketing ploy.

 

[roach]

However, what I will say is this; if they had decided to keep the same continuity but move in a new stylistic direction (as the 007 movies did until Casino Royale), they could have satisfied both the fans of the previous films as well as the people who were unhappy with them, all at the same time. As it is, they've left supporters of the original movies out in the cold.

I see the 007 films like this...the name James Bond is a codename that several british agents have held. If Casino Royale is a reboot of Sean Connery's 007 they why do we have the same M from the last one.

 

[The Question]

I see the 007 films like this...the name James Bond is a codename that several british agents have held. If Casino Royale is a reboot of Sean Connery's 007 they why do we have the same M from the last one.

Because Judie Dench is awesome?

 

[roach]

yes she is

 

[some guy]

I see the 007 films like this...the name James Bond is a codename that several british agents have held. If Casino Royale is a reboot of Sean Connery's 007 they why do we have the same M from the last one.

The thing about the Bond films is that they have a history of different actors playing the same roles (Bond, Blofeld, Leiter) and the same actors appearing in different roles (various supporting characters). Leiter in particular used to drive me nuts because he'd be a young guy in one film, an old guy in the next, then middle aged, then younger, then middle aged again, and so forth. And now he's black. And they're all supposed to be the same person.

On the other hand, we have Dench playing M again. But is she supposed to be the same M? Kinda messes with your head, doesn't it?

I read somewhere before that EON doesn't really consider Casino Royale as a reboot. But it's hard to reconcile it with the previous films as a proper prequel considering that it's set in "present day." Unless, that is, we treat the Bond timeline in comic book terms.

What I mean is that when a comic book character's origin gets retold, it's never depicted as occuring in real time. Superman started out in the 30's, Spidey came out in the 60's, but their origins are always retold as though they happened only a few years ago. And usually, the past is depicted as not being much different from the present, such as in Superman:Birthright (back when it was supposed to be part of continuity).

Now, considering that a lot of the past pre-Craig Bond films involved science fiction technology, perhaps one could accept that those stories actually happened in 007's future. That is, if you get past the fact that the future looks a lot like the 60's and 70's.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Why should we have to adjust our movie-viewing mentality because some people hav eno regard for continuity?

 

[roach]

Its easier if you think of James Bond as a codename just like everyone else. "James" dies and they promote another agent to James Bond.

 

[The Question]

I think it's easier if you recognize that it has a relatively loose continuity.

 

[some guy]

I think it's easier if you recognize that it has a relatively loose continuity.

I'd rather think that, too. I'm the type who wishes that everything was in continuity (I used to try and connect Batman Begins with the previous movies, but its hard to do that now after TDK). It's much cooler watching Casino Royale and thinking "So that's how he got the Aston Martin! And now he's wearing his first tux! Wow!"

 

[Chris Wallace]

I used to try and connect Batman Begins with the previous movies, but its hard to do that now after TDK. [/I]

Hard? Try impossible. There was NEVER a connection between them. The previous films established Joker as the Waynes' killer, had GOrdon already serving as Commissioner when Batman first appears & Dent already serving as DA. And that's just for starters. You might as well try & connect "Moonwalker" to "Purple Rain".

 

[some guy]

Hard? Try impossible. There was NEVER a connection between them.

I know that, it's just this personal quirk of mine to try and connect stuff. I sorta re-edit scenes in my head, ignore parts that don't fit my "personal retcon," if you will. You know, like how the DC writers used to do things post-Crisis.

TIH is easy. Just delete the opening and its a sequel.

 

[Chris Wallace]

No. Ross has 2 completely different personalities in the 2 movies-hell, EVERYBODY does, & how do you justify the super soldier bit? Or is that a scene that you "mentally delete"?
We shouldn't have to "pretend" that we're getting sequels just because Hollywood has developed this "throw the babay out with the bathwater" mentality. (Although-I wouldn't necessarily want to connect the new Bat-films to the old.) It's not a "loose" continuity, it's NO continuity. Reboots destroy continuity & they destroy storytelling.

 

[some guy]

No. Ross has 2 completely different personalities in the 2 movies-hell, EVERYBODY does, & how do you justify the super soldier bit? Or is that a scene that you "mentally delete"?
We shouldn't have to "pretend" that we're getting sequels just because Hollywood has developed this "throw the babay out with the bathwater" mentality. (Although-I wouldn't necessarily want to connect the new Bat-films to the old.) It's not a "loose" continuity, it's NO continuity. Reboots destroy continuity & they destroy storytelling.

Not justifying anything, just the price I have to pay for this reboot insanity. I don't just delete stuff, I add stuff to fill some gaps as well, which, yeah, just isn't right because the movie should be telling me the story, not the other way around.

I agree with you, actually. It would be a load off my mind if they got their act together. I shouldn't have to use my imagination just because the filmmakers can't use theirs.