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

GL1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry there, dude. I should of explained more. But I do agree with you in the first paragraph. (In general) I'd like Spider-Man deep. I'm talking about the tone of it. You can't make him dark and gritty. He's Spider-Man. Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man. Can he be deep? Sure. That's what I'd like the most. But SM2 really showed that for me. There's things in TDK that can't be said for a Spider-Man film. You can't take something like that and put it into a Spider-Man film. All superheroes are different on their own levels. And all of them can't be like Batman. I don't think it can go that deep. I'd like to see that though. But I'm satisfied with SM2 and it's depth. I thought it was just enough for the character. Like you said, it appeals to kids but also reaches out to adults. SM2 is a great example of this. From first seeing the film when I was 12 to now 16 I am now appreciating more of SM2 and it's depth. And I'm sure I will even more once I get older.
 
Last edited:
I fully agree here.
I think we should tread lightly before this anti-reboot thread turns into a pro-reboot thread.
 
Doctor Jones said:
Sorry there, dude. I should of explained more. But I do agree with you in the first paragraph. (In general) I'd like Spider-Man deep. I'm talking about the tone of it. You can't make him dark and gritty. He's Spider-Man. Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man. Can he be deep? Sure. That's what I'd like the most. But SM2 really showed that for me. There's things in TDK that can't be said for a Spider-Man film. You can't take something like that and put it into a Spider-Man film. All superheroes are different on their own levels. And all of them can't be like Batman. I don't think it can go that deep. I'd like to see that though. But I'm satisfied with SM2 and it's depth. I thought it was just enough for the character. Like you said, it appeals to kids but also reaches out to adults. SM2 is a great example of this. From first seeing the film when I was 12 to now 16 I am now appreciating more of SM2 and it's depth. And I'm sure I will even more once I get older.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, I saw spider-man 2 when i was 15, now that im 19 and i just watched it, this film though it appeals to kids more has enough emotional debt to make it an extraordinary film. You really get connected with the character and his troubles and the villain has the right amount of screentime (just like the joker) not too much but just enough. Sure you can make specific comparisons between TDK and Spider-man 2 but as overall films they are completely different
 
June 28, 1972 I first saw the light of day. You do the math.
 
I used to tell my dad that a sure sign you're getting old is when the entertainers that you grew up on start dying off left & right. However, when I said this to him, John Ritter, Christopher Reeve, Alec Guinness, Mr. Rogers, Captain Kangaroo, Fred "Rerun" Berry, Luther Vandross, Isaac Hayes & Barry White were all still alive. It ceased to be funny after Reeve, I think.
And as I type this, I'm looking at Michelle Thomas in a rerun of Family Matters. Damn shame.
 
Chris Wallace said:
I used to tell my dad that a sure sign you're getting old is when the entertainers that you grew up on start dying off left & right. However, when I said this to him, John Ritter, Christopher Reeve, Alec Guinness, Mr. Rogers, Captain Kangaroo, Fred "Rerun" Berry, Luther Vandross, Isaac Hayes & Barry White were all still alive. It ceased to be funny after Reeve, I think.
And as I type this, I'm looking at Michelle Thomas in a rerun of Family Matters. Damn shame.
Click to expand...


yeah its a real shame, i just watched Lawerence of the Arabia the other day and Alec Guinness is pure cinematic gold in it. Theres a lot of entertainers that have left us but they honestly do live on in their films and songs.
 
I like that, luke. I guess we can never truly lose them. My kid likes to raise similar arguments about Aaliyah.
 
I guess I'm not so old.
Back on topic, I think a big contributing factor in all this "reboot" talk is the 3-act mentality. By this, I'm referring to the fear that any franchise that goes past 3 installments is doomed to wind up with something along the lines of "Batman & Robin" or "Superman IV". Now while clearly nobody wants that, it's not that the Batman & Superman franchises were taken too far; they were simply taken in the wrong direction. But fans are afraid that it's going to happen & that fear reaches the studios, & of course they don't want to risk pumping $200 mil into a movie that's doomed to failure b/c the fans have already made up their minds. So what do they do? They sign the key players to 3-picture deals, giving them the freedom to walk away if they feel like it. They then put pressure on the directors to wrap up the story. Leave no seriously dangling loose ends, kill off some of the major characters & oh, yeah-let's not forget to throw in that one villain that fans have been clamoring for since we may never get a chance to use them. And then what happens? The 3rd act invariably comes up short of at the very least, living up to the second act in most people's eyes. And the fans complain that the movie was overcrowded & the aforementioned fan-fave villain that they've been dying to see was misused. They then bash & complain relentlessly & want the director hung up by his entrails for the unspeakable crime of trying to give them what they wanted. It's a no-win situation. But it's clear to me that the 3-act mentality hurts franchises. We've seen this 3 out of 3 times thus far, of the trilogies launched since the debacle of '97.
blade_trinity.jpg

x-men-3.jpg

spider_man_3.jpg

Maybe if we can stop thinking "trilogy" so much, we can stop thinking "reboot."
 
Last edited:
Chris Wallace said:
June 28, 1972 I first saw the light of day. You do the math.
Click to expand...

Damn, you got to see Star Wars, and the first Batman film. Not including the first three Indy films. (Though I know you haven't seen any of those)

How was it in the summer of '89? That and '77 are the two years I'd like to travel back to. And '81
 
Chris Wallace said:
Maybe if we can stop thinking "trilogy" so much, we can stop thinking "reboot."
Click to expand...

I dont believe this at all. A lot of fans understand that most franchises dont have to stop at 3 movies and they dont understand why, but the studios **** can their 3rd movies constantly.

You can say they tie up loose ends in third pieces but they leave them open just as much as any of the others. Just cause there wasnt a cliffhangar doesnt mean there isnt room to continue.

Blade Trinity had the "vamp final solution" but Blade survived and Hannibal said he was still out their doing his thing.

X-Men 3 ended with Magneto actually still having his powers, a mutant becoming an elected official, and the mansion reopening. Plenty of space to continue.

Spiderman never had any loose ends really. Except for Harry's subplot throughout all 3 movies, they were each mostly self-contained.

Its more like the studios seem in such a rush to get the third ones out. Even more you hear about back to back sequels. They may have worked for LOTR but they were the downfall of Matrix and POTC.

Batman and Robin and Superman 4 were both horrid but you saw they were going that way in Batman Forever and Superman 3. BF obviously had a tone shift due to Shumacher and Supes 3 had Richard Pryor, nuff said (funny guy but completely out of place).

Spiderman and X-Men can still recover. SM4 is being discussed, but theres no talk about X-Men passed spin-offs that (while Wolvies looks good) dont seem to care about the continuity they have created.

Others cant be recovered. Studios have moved on, actors and filmmakers have moved on. Daredevil, Fantastic Four, and others could definitely use a reboot.

Marvel's doing their thing with first installments. We're hearing more about DCs first installment and that Superman could essentially go in either direction. Any possible reboots prolly wont be for awhile.

Bottom line: the reason for the all the reboot talk is not just "daily fanboy whining about crumby film series," but this new climate that the comic subgenre is experiencing. Not "how many can we make so that we can make some money" but "what stories could we portray really great on screen."
 
cerealkiller182 said:
I dont believe this at all. A lot of fans understand that most franchises dont have to stop at 3 movies and they dont understand why, but the studios **** can their 3rd movies constantly.

You can say they tie up loose ends in third pieces but they leave them open just as much as any of the others. Just cause there wasnt a cliffhangar doesnt mean there isnt room to continue.

Blade Trinity had the "vamp final solution" but Blade survived and Hannibal said he was still out their doing his thing.

X-Men 3 ended with Magneto actually still having his powers, a mutant becoming an elected official, and the mansion reopening. Plenty of space to continue.

Spiderman never had any loose ends really. Except for Harry's subplot throughout all 3 movies, they were each mostly self-contained.

Its more like the studios seem in such a rush to get the third ones out. Even more you hear about back to back sequels. They may have worked for LOTR but they were the downfall of Matrix and POTC.

Batman and Robin and Superman 4 were both horrid but you saw they were going that way in Batman Forever and Superman 3. BF obviously had a tone shift due to Shumacher and Supes 3 had Richard Pryor, nuff said (funny guy but completely out of place).

Spiderman and X-Men can still recover. SM4 is being discussed, but theres no talk about X-Men passed spin-offs that (while Wolvies looks good) dont seem to care about the continuity they have created.

Others cant be recovered. Studios have moved on, actors and filmmakers have moved on. Daredevil, Fantastic Four, and others could definitely use a reboot.

Marvel's doing their thing with first installments. We're hearing more about DCs first installment and that Superman could essentially go in either direction. Any possible reboots prolly wont be for awhile.

Bottom line: the reason for the all the reboot talk is not just "daily fanboy whining about crumby film series," but this new climate that the comic subgenre is experiencing. Not "how many can we make so that we can make some money" but "what stories could we portray really great on screen."
Click to expand...

Agreed here. It's the success of that film that makes the studio rub their mits together and rush together a third one. Because they know the second was more successful. And about LOTR, they were adapted from books so they were pretty much in a secure position. They already had material to work with.
 
cerealkiller182 said:
I dont believe this at all. A lot of fans understand that most franchises dont have to stop at 3 movies and they dont understand why, but the studios [screw up] their 3rd movies constantly.
Click to expand...
I don't think every third film dies a miserable death. Like it or not, "Spider-Man 3" was very successful financially (otherwise, they'd wouldn't be discussing part 4). I actually enjoyed "X3" for the most part, and while "At World's End" didn't do as well as "Dead Man's Chest", it still held its own against the competition.

Batman and Robin and Superman 4 were both horrid but you saw they were going that way in Batman Forever and Superman 3. BF obviously had a tone shift due to Shumacher and Supes 3 had Richard Pryor, nuff said (funny guy but completely out of place).
Click to expand...
My only complaints with "Batman & Robin" were George Clooney and Uma Thurman. I actually liked Arnold as Mr. Feeze, and Alicia made a good Batgirl in my opinion. I still enjoy "Batman Forever", but "Superman III" really does suck (I blame the Salkinds). As for "Superman IV", i think it probably would've worked if the production company hadn't slashed the budget by more than half. Recasting the role of Nuclear Man would've helped, too.

Others cant be recovered. Studios have moved on, actors and filmmakers have moved on. Daredevil, Fantastic Four, and others could definitely use a reboot.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't mind seeing a third Fantastic Four, so long as they recast Sue (Alba just didn't work in the second one). As for Daredevil, I like the idea of continuing with the "Guardian Devil" storyline, and a tone that closely matches the Director's Cut of the original film.
 
Last edited:
Moviefan2k4 said:
My only complaints with "Batman & Robin" were George Clooney and Uma Thurman. I actually liked Arnold as Mr. Feeze, and Alicia made a good Batgirl in my opinion.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the one thing about Arnold's Freeze I DID like was the moments where he's lamenting what has happened to his wife. Those moments were really the character's best in the film, IMHO, and it is a shame that Goldsman decided to backseat that in favor '60s-era pun-spouting and fuzzy slippers. I honestly think with a less juvenile script, Arnold might have made for a pretty decent Freeze - he still wouldn't have been my first choice, but I don't think he'd have fared as badly as what we got. As for Alicia, well, if she'd have been more a detective-type on the order of...oh, I dunno...Barbara GORDON, I might have been more tolerant of the whole "Alfred's niece who's secretly a college dropout" nonsense. That scene where she actually hacks into Alfred's Bat-computer hookup (or whatever it was; thankfully, I haven't seen the movie enough times to remember it fully)? That should have happened earlier in the film, IMO, and more frequently, I might add.

I still enjoy "Batman Forever", but "Superman III" really does suck (I blame the Salkinds).
Click to expand...

I blame WB. Ilya at least tried to keep the comics lore somewhat close to the vest - he was lobbying for Brainiac to be in "Superman III" even back then, but the suits shot him down. Twice, in fact; he tried to get Brainiac into "Supergirl", too. It's still pretty easy to blame the Salkinds for the direction the franchise ultimately took (retaining Lester was one mistake, IMO - it's a shame he didn't just hold out for all the money the Salkinds owed him; WB mandating the film to be a vehicle for Pryor after his Tonight Show appearance was another), but as I've learned more over the years about what went on behind the scenes I tend to cut'em more slack (mostly Ilya).

As for "Superman IV", i think it probably would've worked if the production company hadn't slashed the budget by more than half. Recasting the role of Nuclear Man would've helped, too.
Click to expand...

Well, that's Cannon for ya. As far as Nuclear Man goes...heck, all they had to do was keep the deleted "prototype" Nuclear Man and flip his story arc: have him start out handsome, he draws Superman's blood, starts taking on a deformed quasi-Superman-like appearance, and have Lenny call him "Bizarro" instead of "Freako". Granted, it wouldn't fix the budget issue, but at least it would have represented an attempt to acknowledge Superman lore beyond simply what was in the first two movies.
 
Last edited:
Moviefan2k4 said:
I don't think every third film dies a miserable death. Like it or not, "Spider-Man 3" was very successful financially (otherwise, they'd wouldn't be discussing part 4). I actually enjoyed "X3" for the most part, and while "At World's End" didn't do as well as "Dead Man's Chest", it still held its own against the competition.
Click to expand...

So was Ang Lee's Hulk and Superman Returns. They both made money. One has already been rebooted and the other is in discussion. Its not about finances, its about the quality of the story. The POTC filmmakers has said that the story wasnt exactly what they wanted. There was missing pieces and the story in general of the sequels seem so haphazard. The characters didnt seem consistent at all.

My only complaints with "Batman & Robin" were George Clooney and Uma Thurman. I actually liked Arnold as Mr. Feeze, and Alicia made a good Batgirl in my opinion. I still enjoy "Batman Forever", but "Superman III" really does suck (I blame the Salkinds). As for "Superman IV", i think it probably would've worked if the production company hadn't slashed the budget by more than half. Recasting the role of Nuclear Man would've helped, too.
Click to expand...

Arnolds Freeze was a joke. THe real Freeze is by far a better character with depth same with Batgirl.

I wouldn't mind seeing a third Fantastic Four, so long as they recast Sue (Alba just didn't work in the second one). As for Daredevil, I like the idea of continuing with the "Guardian Devil" storyline, and a tone that closely matches the Director's Cut of the original film.
Click to expand...

But they werent successful. Not minding sequels is different from really excited about sequels. Theres a new outlook on comic movies before these 2 franchises happened. They are much better off getting rebooted now than continuing franchises that are mediocre at best. Daredevil ill have to get recast anyway because Ben says "never again" and Alba wont go easy because shes the only one who seems excited about the prospect of a third movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chris Wallace
I re-watched "The Dark Knight" this weekend...
3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
9K
Infinity9999x
Infinity9999x
Rowsdower!
Is it harder to recast a character that is loved, or hated?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Jick
Jick
N
  • Locked
We all have to chill out about this...
Replies
5
Views
1K
The Original Bamfer
The Original Bamfer
A
Power Rangers Re-Imagined.
2 3 4
Replies
90
Views
13K
Lazarus87
L
godisawesome
THIS...Is your family.The new Foot Ninja thread
Replies
2
Views
839
spidergeek232
spidergeek232

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 5,580 (members: 25, guests: 5,555)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,406
Messages
22,098,334
Members
45,894
Latest member
Nhfd21

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"