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

[Infinity9999x]

Okay so how would a sequel to the 2003 Hulk have been different from the movie we got instead, besides retaining the same actors from 2003?

That's one thing lots of people weren't very happy with with the newer Hulk. If you leave out that little origin flashback they do, it could easily have been a sequel to the 03' movie.

However, things would have no doubt been different, Ang had a different style, and who knows where he would have went with it. And it's likely that he would have made Hulk much more empowered then he was in this movie. This Hulk could only leap from building to building, while Ang's Hulk could leap miles, and fall out of the atmosphere and survive. So I'm guessing that the fight with the Abomination would have been much different. Though I liked the one we got quite a bit too.

 

[Chris Wallace]

To be fair, the new Hulk's leaping ability was never really put to the test in this film. And even apart from the origin, Ross' personality & the program that led to Blonsky becoming the Abomination make it hard for anyone well-versed in the first film to view TIH as a sequel. I often wonder if TIH would have done better had the studio made it abundantly clear that this wasn't a sequel. If you didn't like the first film, why come back for what you think will be more of the same?

 

[Chris Wallace]

Okay so how would a sequel to the 2003 Hulk have been different from the movie we got instead, besides retaining the same actors from 2003?

Ross being a human being instead of a *****e. Blonsky becoming the Abomination some other way, rather than being experimented on by the U.S. government using the same serum that caused the very problem they were dealing with, a different Bruce/Betty dynamic-if they used Betty at all.
There's a lot of ways that it could have been different, & none of the things that annoyed you so much about the 2003 movie would have evn had to be mentioned.
Let's look at it another way; let's just say that the whole aspect of "Batman Begins" didn't really work for you. Like Bruce receiving his training from Ra's Al Ghul, or Ra's, Scarecrow, Falcone & Joe Chill all being connected, or even the fact that a man who has purposely cultivated his image to mimic bats is actually chiropterphobic. (None of these things bothered me, I'm just using this as an example.) Well, not one of those elements-all of which were pivotal plot points-was in any way mentioned or touched on in "Dark Knight". Likewise, Blade II didn't contain one single solitary word or hint about La Magra. Nobody in X2 made any comments about Magneto's mutant machine or the whereabouts of Toad & Sabretooth. Noone in "Spider-Man 2" said anything about Peter's triple somersault in the school hallway. So there's no reason really why you have to be hindered by or even acknowledge the previous film's plot points in a sequel. You can just discard what you don't need & move on. It is doable.

 

[The Overlord]

Ross being a human being instead of a *****e. Blonsky becoming the Abomination some other way, rather than being experimented on by the U.S. government using the same serum that caused the very problem they were dealing with, a different Bruce/Betty dynamic-if they used Betty at all.
There's a lot of ways that it could have been different, & none of the things that annoyed you so much about the 2003 movie would have evn had to be mentioned.
Let's look at it another way; let's just say that the whole aspect of "Batman Begins" didn't really work for you. Like Bruce receiving his training from Ra's Al Ghul, or Ra's, Scarecrow, Falcone & Joe Chill all being connected, or even the fact that a man who has purposely cultivated his image to mimic bats is actually chiropterphobic. (None of these things bothered me, I'm just using this as an example.) Well, not one of those elements-all of which were pivotal plot points-was in any way mentioned or touched on in "Dark Knight". Likewise, Blade II didn't contain one single solitary word or hint about La Magra. Nobody in X2 made any comments about Magneto's mutant machine or the whereabouts of Toad & Sabretooth. Noone in "Spider-Man 2" said anything about Peter's triple somersault in the school hallway. So there's no reason really why you have to be hindered by or even acknowledge the previous film's plot points in a sequel. You can just discard what you don't need & move on. It is doable.

But who cares, seriously, I don't care that they didn't pick up any plot threads at all from the previous Hulk film, i don't care if the characterization is different from film to film, I don't care, is there good reason they should have carried those things on? If the film maker didn't feel the need to address anything in the previous film, which wasn't particularly popular in the first place, why should they have to?

If the first film isn't a success is there any reason to continue the elements from the first film?

 

[Chris Wallace]

You completely missed my point. Now I think you're just trying to be argumentative.

 

[Infinity9999x]

But who cares, seriously, I don't care that they didn't pick up any plot threads at all from the previous Hulk film, i don't care if the characterization is different from film to film, I don't care, is there good reason they should have carried those things on? If the film maker didn't feel the need to address anything in the previous film, which wasn't particularly popular in the first place, why should they have to?

If the first film isn't a success is there any reason to continue the elements from the first film?

You asked him how it would be different, and he gave you some reasons, and then you just ignore him. Then he goes on to make the point that you don't have to carry over elements from the first film in a sequel, and you just repeated that same argument.

Were you even reading what he said?

 

[Chris Wallace]

You asked him how it would be different, and he gave you some reasons, and then you just ignore him. Then he goes on to make the point that you don't have to carry over elements from the first film in a sequel, and you just repeated that same argument.

Were you even reading what he said?

I refer you to my previous post.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I refer you to my previous post.

Ah I see. Missed that one, well I'm probably harping on def ears anyway.

And I see your point about the leaping thing, though I'd be surprised if they bring back Hulk's super jump in the new movies, seeing as how it seems that they're going for a much more de-powered Hulk, not that I mind really. The one thing I would like to see emphasized more however is that he gets stronger as he gets angrier, they didn't really address that in the new movie.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Nobody likes the hero to be too powerful, I suppose. Even Spider-Man & Superman have showcased less strength in their films than we know them to have in the comics.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Nobody likes the hero to be too powerful, I suppose. Even Spider-Man & Superman have showcased less strength in their films than we know them to have in the comics.

Good point, when they get too powerful they just get boring.

Any who, back on topic. One series I do not want to see revamped for at least 10 to 15 years is X-men. X3 was nowhere near bead enough to warrant a reboot (and honestly, I don't really think it was that bad at all), and they still have a lot they can do with the characters. We don't need to reboot that series until the actors who played in it get too old to keep playing their roles, or all decide to call it quits.

 

[Matt Murdock]

Nobody likes the hero to be too powerful, I suppose. Even Spider-Man & Superman have showcased less strength in their films than we know them to have in the comics.

Like when Spider-Man stopped that elevated multi-cab subway train going at top speed. Or when Superman reversed time by flying so fast around the world.

 

[Chris Wallace]

More like when Spidey punched Ock numerous times without knocking him out, or when Supes struggled to stop the plane.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Spidey wasnt toned down, Ock was buffed up. Doc Ock got punched by Spiderman througha bank wall and hit a taxi hard enough for it to go on 2 wheels for a second and he just shook it off. Last I checked he was an old overweight scientist.

IMO Supes should have struggled with the plane. I dont want Supes moving planets with his pinky. Cause one day Superman may actually fight a rogues gallery and a few of them should be at or around his strength level.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Okay-I'll start with Supes.
The notion of him movig planets is absurd. I've thought so for years. When you think about it, he'd have to enter the planet's atmosphere in order to find a solid surface to touch. The way I see it, he'd more likely bore a hole through the planet's surface before he'd disrupt its orbit. His strength level has fluctuated (or rather the portrayal of his strength level has fluctuated) a lot over the years. Now I didn't like him struggling with the plane (especially when Reeve did the same thing effortlessly with one hand) but at the same time I don't want to see him lift an island of kryptonite into space, with a sliver of it embedded in his side. (And both in the same movie? WTF?) but I think the strength we saw in the 90's animated series was perfect.
As for Spidey-maybe the Ock fight was a bad example. But did he really come across like someone who could lift 10 tons in ANY part of ANY movie? I think not. He was strong, even superhumanly so, but his limitations were made abundantly clear in his fights with Venom, both Goblins, & Ock. Now the train-that was more a demonstration of brains & will than brawn. He struggled & strained every inch of the way, tried numerous methods to slow it down before finally, barely preventing the train from going over the edge, & then he blacked out from the effort. So it was clear he wasn't in Superman's class.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I've been thinking; since the whole "three-act then reboot" mentality stems mainly from fear that a fourth movie will be an abomination, & comic fans almost univerally hate every 3rd installment ever made...

how long before fanboys start pushing for a reboot after 2?

 

[bullets]

how long before fanboys start pushing for a reboot after 2?

fanboys are asking for a reboot after part one.

 

[Chris Wallace]

True.

 

[roach]

fanboys are asking for a reboot after part one.

after casting

 

[Project862006]

imo there are only a few that need reboots like ghost rider and daredevil x men should of continued i felt sm3 was worse and that is getting a sequel LOL

 

[Chris Wallace]

after casting

In some cases.

 

[E-Man]

Reboots only work when it's a long established franchise that can't stay cold. Bond obviously was going to get a reboot, Batman is too popular to stay down for long, and Star Trek's name is still big enough to have a hit movie. Some movies shouldn't get reboots unless they've flopped so hard that no one else would want to see them.

I have no idea why people want an X-Men reboot. The last movie was the most successful of the series, and it wasn't that bad of a movie. If anything the first two were overrated. They weren't bad movies, but people act like Ratner and Fox ruined the Mona Lisa or something. They can easily keep up where they left off, and they could focus on other mutants besides what we've got. Storm and Wolverine could make short appearances, and the story could shift focus to Beast, Iceman, Colossus, Kitty Pryde, and some new and popular mutants. The X-verse is too vast to just focus on the same damn mutants every time. The name of the X-Men is big enough, it's time to use that to expand the franchise a little bit. Fox is better off being able to sell any type of X movie, and they need to actually start doing that instead of sitting on the rest of the franchise instead of Wolverine. We could be talkingabout an X-Factor or Excalibur movie right now. And for the love of God leave Magneto out of this. Magneto is one of the greatest villains of all time, but I don't want to see his ass in evey movie. The X-Men have one of the best pools of villains in comics. Can't we see Apocalypse, Shadow King, Sentinels, Arcade, The Brood, The Hellfire Club, or Sauron and the Savage Land? I know they can use at least one of those people I listed.

 

[returntovoid]

^^In no way were the first two X-Men movies overrated, Bryan Singer may have not have made the perfect adaptation of X-Men but they were the best, so far. Heck, they were still a hell lot better than X3 and Wolverine.

In X3, they killed off Xavier and Cyclops, crammed down two plots into one movie that ran less than two hours.

In Wolverine, the main character was completely watered down, bad CGI and overall average movie.

Fans of the first two movies expected Wolverine to redeem the X-Men franchise but guess what??? Tom Rothman and Fox screwed it up again.

 

[E-Man]

Well I like all three pretty evenly. I hated that they killed off Professor X and Cyke, but Cyclops was pretty akin to a cardboard cutout in the first two movies. He didn't do much of anything at all, so it's not like they took much away from him. The Xavier "death" was terrible, and it shouldn't have happened. They messed up Phoenix, but they messed up some other things in the first two movies. If we're going to get pissed that Phoenix wasn't done like the comic, then we should have been pissed a long time ago that they changed up alot of things from the comic.

Plus there are some good things that The Last Stand gave us. The action scenes were much better than anything in the first two movies. Beat was IMO the best portrayed mutant in all the series, and the Phoenix plot line was done well. Since they probably didn't have the time to build up the Phoenix life force like in the comics, the secondary personality was a good choice. I just wished that they spent more time on other mutants like Colossus, Kitty, and Angel. X-Men: The Last Stand isn't perfect, but it's not terrible.

Wolverine wasn't a good movie though, so I agree with you on pretty much everything.

And yes Tom Rothman and Fox sucks.

 

[Project862006]

Hugh is just as much to blame he was a freaking producer an star of the film what wolverine showed me is that jackman is nothing with the wolverine character without Brian Singer.

 

[returntovoid]

They messed up Phoenix, but they messed up some other things in the first two movies.

Yes, he messed up some minor things in the first two X-Men movies but Bryan Singer's original plan for X3 was more faithful to the Phoenix saga aside from the fact that there was no Shi'ar, at least the Hellfire Club was added.

Here's what his original plan was.

Though Singer, Harris and Dougherty had yet to complete a script, the director has revealed that at the time of his departure they had partially completed a story treatment for the film which would have focused exclusively on Jean Grey's resurrection[6] with the new villain Emma Frost, a role intended for Sigourney Weaver.[7] Frost was an empath manipulating Jean's emotions in the treatment, and like the finished film Magneto desires to control her. Overwhelmed by her powers, Jean makes Cyclops kill her, but her spirit survives and becomes a god-like creature, which Dougherty compared to the star child in A Space Odyssey.[8]

The action scenes were much better than anything in the first two movies.

Yes, they were better than the ones in the first X-Men movie but X2 had way way better action sequences than in X3 due to memorability of scenes such as Wolverine killing Soldier's like a madman in the Mansion and Nightcrawler attacking guard in the White House.

Hugh is just as much to blame he was a freaking producer an star of the film what wolverine showed me is that jackman is nothing with the wolverine character without Brian Singer.

I couldn't agree more.