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

[The Overlord]

I don't really mind recasts, as has been stated sometimes it's necesarry. The Spider-Man reboot though just strikes me as totally pointless.

They get rid of the director, the actors walk with him, and they just decide to start from scratch? It's not as if Raimi had the rights to the storyline. It just smacks of a bandwagon mentality to me. Batman did right with a reboot, the Hulk just had one, so they figure they should do the same, and it gives them the excuse to make the franchise palatable to the Twilight crowd.

Okay, maybe not so pointless, but the point seems so wrong.

A reboot is still needed in some cases, considering all the FF were garbage and I don't think the director or most the actors earned their keep with those movies, I don't see a problem rebooting that series.

The only problem is a reboot is pointless with Fox still having ther rights, because they ruined the franchise in the first place.

It seems like Fox is rebooting the Ff just to keep the rights, I still haven't seen any intentions on their part to make a good movie.

However sequles to those FF movies are not workable and I would easily support a reboot if it meant getting rid of corporate Dr. Doom and cloud Galactus.

Also I do think the Superman movies need a reboot, there was too much baggage from Superman Returns.

 

[some guy]

A reboot is still needed in some cases, considering all the FF were garbage and I don't think the director or most the actors earned their keep with those movies, I don't see a problem rebooting that series.

The only problem is a reboot is pointless with Fox still having ther rights, because they ruined the franchise in the first place.

It seems like Fox is rebooting the Ff just to keep the rights, I still haven't seen any intentions on their part to make a good movie.

However sequles to those FF movies are not workable and I would easily support a reboot if it meant getting rid of corporate Dr. Doom and cloud Galactus.

Also I do think the Superman movies need a reboot, there was too much baggage from Superman Returns.

I'm not usually down with reboots, but I gotta admit, I'm not too broken up with FF going that route.

I don't hate Superman Returns, but it wasn't really an ideal film to build a franchise on. To continue on with that storyline would've just gotten farther and farther from the popular concept of the character's mythos. A reboot would also be necessary in this case.

I have to give this to DC, it seems they only play the reboot card when it's absolutely necessary. As far as Marvel goes (Spidey in particular), the reboot is a panic button.

 

[Chris Wallace]

@ Overlord; I understood the reasons for recasting Rhodey. I am saying that the end result wasn't for the better. I used it to illustrate my point that change IS NOT ALWAYS for the better, whether it's roataing out one actor or starting everything over from scratch. And if you read the title to the thread, I put recast under the same umbrella as reboot because "fanboys'" attitude toward both seems pretty much the same.

 

[roach]

I have to give this to DC, it seems they only play the reboot card when it's absolutely necessary. As far as Marvel goes (Spidey in particular), the reboot is a panic button.

because WB always had the DC characters. Marvel isnt rebooting all the franchises they dont own...the studios are to keep the rights before they revert to Marvel. To be honest i am glad that some of the franchises arent at Marvel. I dont see Marvel having the kind of cash to juggle the Avenger movies, X-men and spinoffs and Spider-man and spinoffs and FF and spinoffs and GH and spinoffs and DD and spinoffs. I think that is the reason they were looking for smaller budget movies for Mk and Dr. Strange

 

[Chris Wallace]

I have to give this to DC, it seems they only play the reboot card when it's absolutely necessary. As far as Marvel goes (Spidey in particular), the reboot is a panic button.

I don't know that I agree there. The necessity of rebooting Hulk & Punisher is debatable. Neither met with resounding success the first time around, but when given new life the fans still weren't overjoyed. (I attribute this largely to the studios' failure to establish with the GA that therse weren't sequels.) Only Spider-Man can truly be considered a "panic move", IMO, having been scrapped after 3 successful films (even if people hated the third one). On the flip side, WB didn't truthfully reboot Superman after a 20-year hiatus, behind TWO consecutive flops, and if there was ever a reason to reboot that would be it. And the previous Batman series had truly been painted into a corner. And Batman has thus far been the only franchise that has been both successfully and needfully rebooted.

 

[Octoberist]

I think reboots should be the last resort for a franchise.

Otherwise, if the reboots were the norm, then we wouldn't have Star Trek 2: Wraith of Khan, after the disappointing first film.

 

[bullets]

The first option should be to explore sequels ideas to make the series fresh again.
If they are backed into a corner creatively then rebooting is the best way to go .
I've seen it work in both cases but doing it too suddenly can be a mistake. The Incredible Hulk should of been a big hit but alot of people thought it was the sequel to Hulk (2003) and that hurt the film. Also Spiderman4 could of been sucessful and Raimi may have learned from his mistakes and redeemed the series (other franchises have done this) . The Spider-man reboot is going to be a big test but for the sake of the character I hope it suceeds.

 

[dude stannis]

I didn't see the last installments of any of those, tbh.

Rocky Balboa made me cry. No reboot has accomplished this.

 

[roach]

Rocky Balboa was a true sequel to Rocky

 

[bullets]

Rocky Balboa was a true sequel to Rocky

I hope Stallone ends it on that note , such a great sequel.

 

[spider-neil]

I have to give this to DC, it seems they only play the reboot card when it's absolutely necessary.

*cough* new superman reboot *cough*

 

[some guy]

^^^Oh, when I mention the Superman reboot, I mean the one that's going to happen, not SR. I would consider that a loose sequel to the previous series, I don't think DC even officially referred to it as a reboot.

 

[Thundarr]

Reboots: I feel these should happen if a particular franchise has gone stale (Batman), doing a direct sequel isn't at all feasable (Superman), or the premise of the film has potential but it wasn't well executed and enough time had gone by that (hopefully) everyone would have forgotten about the earlier films (Punisher).

Recasts: I feel these should only take place if the characters and the actors portraying them no longer mesh. If the character is still a teenager in the script but the actor portraying him no longer looks young enough to portray him, for example.

Remakes: Similar to reboots, the remakes should be made only of movies that have gone stale. Preferably they will be made of much older movies that could use a bit of a touch up, and by writers, directors, and producers that will respect the source material so as not to piss off the fans of the original (ie: not Michael Bay). Red Sonja has needed a remake for years, and is now being remade. Hopefully it will have all the grit and brutal violence of Schwarzeneggar's Conan The Barbarian and none of the camp and bad attempts at humor from the original (not to mention much better acting). I might actually go see this, despite Rose McGowan being cast as Sonja (I hate her).

In the end, it's all about the motivation of the film makers, their respect for the source material, and the state the original film or franchise is in that determines whether or not a recast, reboot, or remake is warranted.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I mean the one that's going to happen, not SR. I would consider that a loose sequel to the previous series.

Doesn't everyone?

 

[roach]

^^^Oh, when I mention the Superman reboot, I mean the one that's going to happen, not SR. I would consider that a loose sequel to the previous series, I don't think DC even officially referred to it as a reboot.

I think with SR WB should have given them one more chance to tell their story...maybe do a Jar Jar Binks on the kid and add to the sequel things people wanted to see

 

[roach]

Reboots: I feel these should happen if a particular franchise has gone stale (Batman), doing a direct sequel isn't at all feasable (Superman), or the premise of the film has potential but it wasn't well executed and enough time had gone by that (hopefully) everyone would have forgotten about the earlier films (Punisher).
My take is if you are doing a brand new cast...like SR then it should have been a reboot

Recasts: I feel these should only take place if the characters and the actors portraying them no longer mesh. If the character is still a teenager in the script but the actor portraying him no longer looks young enough to portray him, for example.

Remakes: Similar to reboots, the remakes should be made only of movies that have gone stale. Preferably they will be made of much older movies that could use a bit of a touch up, and by writers, directors, and producers that will respect the source material so as not to piss off the fans of the original (ie: not Michael Bay). Red Sonja has needed a remake for years, and is now being remade. Hopefully it will have all the grit and brutal violence of Schwarzeneggar's Conan The Barbarian and none of the camp and bad attempts at humor from the original (not to mention much better acting). I might actually go see this, despite Rose McGowan being cast as Sonja (I hate her).

Lets face facts regardless of who the got Transformers was never going to be a faithful adaption of the cartoon. The movie-verse is just another take on it...much like Beast Wars and any of the other incarnations

In the end, it's all about the motivation of the film makers, their respect for the source material, and the state the original film or franchise is in that determines whether or not a recast, reboot, or remake is warranted.

or in the case of Spider-man 4 how much the producers get along with the director

 

[Chris Wallace]

because WB always had the DC characters. Marvel isnt rebooting all the franchises they dont own...the studios are to keep the rights before they revert to Marvel. To be honest i am glad that some of the franchises arent at Marvel. I dont see Marvel having the kind of cash to juggle the Avenger movies, X-men and spinoffs and Spider-man and spinoffs and FF and spinoffs and GH and spinoffs and DD and spinoffs. I think that is the reason they were looking for smaller budget movies for Mk and Dr. Strange

Additionally, we shouldn't say that Marvel & DC are doing this because they aren't calling the shots. The studio execs are. We can't credit DC for "The Dark Knight" any more than we can blame Marvel for "Blade Trinity". They make the comics, not the movies.

 

[roach]

Additionally, we shouldn't say that Marvel & DC are doing this because they aren't calling the shots. The studio execs are. We can't credit DC for "The Dark Knight" any more than we can blame Marvel for "Blade Trinity". They make the comics, not the movies.

well I was refering to Marvel Studios

 

[Chris Wallace]

I know, but you were responding to the statement that DC was only rebooting when necessary & Marvel was doing so willy-nilly. You actually made the distinction that it was WB & not DC. But it's not even Marvel Studios doing this. The Spider-Man reboot was entirely Sony's decision. If they couldn't see eye-to-eye with Raimi, they could have easily gone forward with another director. It's been done numerous times. They instead chose to start over from scratch-with the SAME WRITER-in hopes that fanboys would respond the way they did to TDK.

 

[roach]

i mentioned that

 

[Chris Wallace]

Reboots: I feel these should happen if a particular franchise has gone stale (Batman), doing a direct sequel isn't at all feasable (Superman), or the premise of the film has potential but it wasn't well executed and enough time had gone by that (hopefully) everyone would have forgotten about the earlier films (Punisher).

Recasts: I feel these should only take place if the characters and the actors portraying them no longer mesh. If the character is still a teenager in the script but the actor portraying him no longer looks young enough to portray him, for example.

Remakes: Similar to reboots, the remakes should be made only of movies that have gone stale. Preferably they will be made of much older movies that could use a bit of a touch up, and by writers, directors, and producers that will respect the source material so as not to piss off the fans of the original (ie: not Michael Bay). Red Sonja has needed a remake for years, and is now being remade. Hopefully it will have all the grit and brutal violence of Schwarzeneggar's Conan The Barbarian and none of the camp and bad attempts at humor from the original (not to mention much better acting). I might actually go see this, despite Rose McGowan being cast as Sonja (I hate her).

In the end, it's all about the motivation of the film makers, their respect for the source material, and the state the original film or franchise is in that determines whether or not a recast, reboot, or remake is warranted.

As far as your take on recasts, there's also the matter of the actor in question not wanting to come back or not getting along with the director. Sometimes they simply can't be avoided. Even if it's not for the better. And as long as they're not constantly rotating a la Batman or Kitty Pryde, I can deal with it. My problem is fanboys screaming constantly that this character should be recast because it wasn't the person who they had in mind, when there's no guarantee that the person they wanted A-was even considered for the role, B-was even interested in the role, or C-would have done any better than the person actually cast.

 

[Gunga Diner]

I think pre-quels are just as bad as reboots and remakes. They've got half the creativity and half the shame.

 

[Chris Wallace]

A prequel is fine as long as they don't contradict the existing storyline, which many of them do.

 

[roach]

which is why im my mind there are only 2 terminator movies

 

[Chris Wallace]

What did 3 contradict?
Salvation seemed to be built around the idea that the machines knew about Kyle, which was absurd. If they knew about him, why not just kill him instead of using him for bait?