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

[Chris Wallace]

http://www.superherohype.com/news/punishernews.php?id=7886
What better proof is there that reboots are NOT always the way to go?

 

[I Am The Knight]

http://www.superherohype.com/news/punishernews.php?id=7886
What better proof is there that reboots are NOT always the way to go?

I can post BB's box office numbers, too. Who really cares about The Punisher anyway? Probably not even the studio, it was set to bomb.

 

[Chris Wallace]

It does appear that the studio set it up for failure, true. And again, I am not condemning reboots across the board. I said they are not always the way to go. And if the reboot is less successful than its predecessor, then the proof is in the pudding.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I honestly wasn't bothered by anything they did with FF.

Really? Well, I will say that I didn't think the movies were horrible, but I just didn't like how they handled a lot of things. The first movie felt really rushed to me, and I really wasn't a fan of how they handled Doom. I would have liked a more traditional, and slightly darker approach (for his character, not necessarily the whole movie.)

And Galactus....well yeah, he wasn't even a villain. I thought the Surfer (in terms of looks and characterization) was okay.

See, I realize that F4 was supposed to be more family oriented, but I don't think that means that they need to dumb it down. I felt like I was watching an elongated sitcom. We've seen that family movies can be intelligent from films like Wall-E, Beauty and the Beast, or The Incredibles. I just thought F4 could have been much better handled, and after the two below average movies they've had, I would say they wouldn't suffer from a reboot (handled rightly of course.) I just think it could be hard to try and continue within the same realm and try and fix what the past movies did wrong.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Well, as I'm not a big fan of the FF comics, I'd say the movies delivered pretty much what I expected. And I don't think that the Disney movies you mentioned were in any way better or more mature than FF. But to each his own.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Well, as I'm not a big fan of the FF comics, I'd say the movies delivered pretty much what I expected. And I don't think that the Disney movies you mentioned were in any way better or more mature than FF. But to each his own.

Well, the movies I posted as example were obviously meant to be g-rated movies, however I was using them because I wanted to make the point that they still stayed fairly intelligent for the kind of movie they were.

I don't think F4 did this at it's respective level. It felt a bit dumbed down to me.

However, back to your topic, on the whole I'd say many movies today don't really need a reboot. Punisher for example. I don't think this movie needed, or will need, a reboot. Pretty much everyone gets the idea of the Punisher, just continue on. You don't even have to reference the past movie, but we don't need another Origin story.

Same for the Hulk. Even though I liked The Hulk better then Hulk, after seeing it I kind of wondered why they felt the need to reboot, because it easily could have taken place after Hulk. Now, I understand that they needed to fit the super-solider plot in there to tie in with Avengers, but if they really want to make a reboot, they I felt like they should have distanced the style even more from Ang's hulk.

Now, you might think I'm crazy for saying this, but one of the few marvel properties that I wouldn't mind (but don't think it necessarily needs) getting a reboot is Spider-man. I haven't been a big fan of Raimi's SM movies since SM2, and I would really like to seen a new reign take over. Now, I suppose we don't necessarly need a reboot, because his origin was done well enough, but I want to see a movie where Peter is actually witty as Spider-man, and Spider-man and Peter Parker are two seperate personas, and a Spunky MJ.

Really though, the biggest reason I want SM rebooted, (well besides my qualms with how Raimi handled the character) is to see the death of Gwen Stacy done right on screen.

 

[Sawyer]

http://www.superherohype.com/news/punishernews.php?id=7886
What better proof is there that reboots are NOT always the way to go?

I think thats mostly due to the fact that The Punisher sucks than it is the reboot...

 

[cerealkiller182]

It does appear that the studio set it up for failure, true. And again, I am not condemning reboots across the board. I said they are not always the way to go. And if the reboot is less successful than its predecessor, then the proof is in the pudding.

I dont think thats a lot of proof. Jane's Punisher had so much room for improvement (although I did like it and wanted to see Jane return) so its obviously not the best it could be. The fact that the reboot looked awful nad was less successful speaks more toward the quality of the film, not the fact that it is a reboot.

 

[Sawyer]

Either way, I'm sure it will be a very, very long time until we see The Punisher on the big screen again. No one will be stupid enough to lay a finger on it after all three films, under three different directors with three different leading men, have under-performed to the point of oblivion.

 

[cerealkiller182]

i feel it going the DTV route for some reason

 

[Chris Wallace]

They did that once before.

Although I think by all rights they could've called this movie anything. This is PINO.
I think Hollywood's gonna give up on Frank Castle altogether after this.

 

[Octoberist]

Frank Castle is dead. for the time being, or perhaps, forever.

 

[I Am The Knight]

PWZ was severely underexposed. And, who really cares about The Punisher, anyway? Not many people apparently. Just like in 2004, except worse.

As for the movie itself, it's supposedly not very good but I'll reserve judgment on that as I've not seen it.

 

[LexCorp]

I have no problems with the idea of reboots or remakes.

I do not attached my self wholeheartedly to just one movie about a character I know. I like to gather all interpretations and make the best of what has been done with the characters/story.

 

[Chris Wallace]

The problem is, it's become too many fans' response to everything. "Oh, I didn't like this, this & this about the movie. They should scrap everything & start over!" What happens if fans don't like the next Nolan Batman movie? Are they gonna push for a reboot of that? Are we gonna clamor for reboots of reboots?

 

[cerealkiller182]

I think you are blowing things completely out of proportion.

Considering the 2 movies that have actually been rebooted not counting Batman or Superman since there was so much time in between series, Punisher and AngHulk are 2 movies I wouldnt have mind seeing continue, and I think there are more than enough fans that would have given those a second shot.

People are still pulling for more Spiderman and X-Men within the continuity of their original series (and both have plans to continue). Norton's Hulk was kind of a let down but no one is preaching reboot, and people are still excited for the Avengers movie. People have pretty much accepted that Blade is done. The Superman boards are over-flowing with Routh supporters who want a sequel instead of a reboot. Some people are actually considering that it would be better for Nolan to not return and have Batman end on TDK (a high note).

There are only a few franchises that are dying in need of a reboot in my own opinion and seemingly by a majority of these threads: Daredevil and Fantastic Four are most importantly. Things that were completely bastardized like say Constantine or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen could make for great and/or interesting cinema if given the original material a chance. I suspect Ghost Rider will never be a good flick. I find it hard to believe that a flaming skull head could gather much attention other than straight up laughing from the general audience.

 

[Chris Wallace]

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

 

[Doctor Jones]

I agree with Chris. People assume if they reboot, they want a Nolan doing it or something. Just because it worked for Batman doesn't mean it will work for everyone. B&R SUCKED. That needed a reboot. Not it's being thrown around like slang. The expect it to be on the same level as Nolan's films wher eit will just all improve on what happened before. Reboot's could be worse. But I thought TIH was alot better than Lee's film.

 

[cerealkiller182]

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

Why not? It is a recent comic movie that has mixed reviews and I'm sure theres a few people who have already made mention of a reboot. Even without TIH there is still the majority of comic movies that arn't necessarily perfect being talked about reboots

I still think this is a GROSS overreaction. Seriously, theres like 2 comic movies that have a majority support for a reboot actively being talked about. Daredevil and Fantastic Four. Thats hardly a lot.

 

[marcvader]

Is a followup movie with a different cast n crew and short recap of the hero's origin during the opening credits then jumping straight in to action and a new story, a reboot? If it is, give me a Daredevil reboot please.

 

[cerealkiller182]

A reboot should be defined as a remake made partly to restart a possible movie series with a more appropriate story elements. But like most things it rarely turns out this way.

 

[Chris Wallace]

"Appropriate" is a subjective term.

 

[cerealkiller182]

"Appropriate" is a subjective term.

appropriate as in closer to the comic. You take away the atmosphere and tone of the comic its not the same. Details can change, but when the overall feeling changes it rarely works out. Taking a gritty comic like Daredevil and make it horribly cartoony and hammy ruins the movie. The unfortunate thing is that every deleted scene pretty much had the tone just about right.

I dont really think you can call it subjective when there is source material

 

[Chris Wallace]

appropriate as in closer to the comic. You take away the atmosphere and tone of the comic its not the same. Details can change, but when the overall feeling changes it rarely works out. Taking a gritty comic like Daredevil and make it horribly cartoony and hammy ruins the movie. The unfortunate thing is that every deleted scene pretty much had the tone just about right.

I dont really think you can call it subjective when there is source material

But you said story elements. Explain then, why a storyline in which the Waynes were killed coming out of a movie theater, Bruce was trained by Ra's Al Ghul, the equipment was all made by Lucius Fox & the Joker just likes to paint his face has proven to be more popular than the previous incarnation.
And regardless of what you say, many fans have developed a "throw out the baby with the bathwater" mentality toward these film franchises.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I've given your last comment some further thought, & I disagree even more strongly that "appropriate", & "closer to the comic" are interchangeable. I'll use Blade as an example, since he seems to be the newest candidate for a revamp. I do not want to see a Blade that's along the lines of what Wolfman & Colan created. He'd be bland & boring. A normal guy in a leather jacket tossing wooden knives at vampires doesn't make for interesting cinema, IMO. Then there's the numerous demands I've come across for a dead-on comics-based origin for the Hulk (despite your claims that nobody's pushing for another reboot.) It wouldn't fly. I've come acros many posts which lead me to believe that a lot of fans want the movies to follow the comics to the letter. Do you know how many nuclear explosions would have to happen for Marvel films to be 100% faithful? 3 by my count, among the movies that have thus far been made. (Hulk, Ock, Sandman) It can't be done. We have to let go of some of our preconceived notions & just enjoy the movies for what they are-interpretations of existing material, not direct adaptations.