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

[roach]

I cant imagine anyone playing JJJ buy JK Simmons

 

[Chris Wallace]

I agree with your views on Superman.

 

[Dr.Dude]

But they do retcon.

I dont want to make excuses for Spiderman, because its a dumb idea, but I'll make excuses for rebooting in general. When used properly it can be very effective.

I actually agree but only, I think, if the story is so torn apart that it really can't be brought back to where it was before in any logical way. Batman is very much the best case of this, because there really was no way to turn that around and still continue in the same direction; a dark, serious Batman can't be the same character who cracked jokes with Mr. Freeze. It also helps that Batman Begins wasn't retelling the same story--we'd never really seen Batman's beginning, at least not in the film world.

That doesn't really mean that I think reboots are a good idea in general. It's just that as you imply, they can work on certain occasions.

Also, since you did mention Deadpool, I would agree that's kind of a special case, if only because that Deadpool in the Wolverine movie had so little in common with the comic book version, that it really isn't even the same character. It's different than if, say, they decided to do a retake on Wolverin's origin - as much as I was disappointed by the movie, redoing it now would be pretty ridiculous.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I'm sure other film genres have gotten past a mistake without having to start everything over.

 

[The Question]

The way I see it is, there may be no reason to reboot, but there's no reason not to either. Not every super hero movie about the same character has to be a sequel in terms of continuity. Like, take Daredevil. All in all, a decent movie with some flaws. The next Daredevil movie does not have to be a sequel to it. There's no law dictating that it being a sequel is the natural way to go. What if someone wants to tell a Daredevil story that wouldn't work as a sequel to the first one? What if they don't want to go to the trouble of fitting it into the schedules of the cast from the first one and just hire new guys who bring interpretations of the characters that fit the new story better? Like, the movies already aren't a part of the comic continuity. There's no particular reason why they should be in continuity with each other. I mean, yeah, it's kind of nice that Iron Man 1-3 are continuations of each other. And it's even really nice that all the upcoming Marvel movies share a cannon. But I also really like that The Incredible Hulk wasn't linked to the first Hulk. It turned out to be a better movie that portrayed many of the same themes with more subtlety. And I really like that the next Spider-Man film is going to be set in high school and potentially have more humor and a more old school Spider-Man feel. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

 

[Dr.Dude]

I'm sure other film genres have gotten past a mistake without having to start everything over.

I don't think they're even rebooting some of these franchises because of mistakes, is what's more frustrating about it. It's more just that they're lazy about the idea of doing the legwork involved in moving the story forward. Instead, they're just trying to rewind the clock to when the whole thing was easier. It's also a ticket grab, figuring that it's easier to market something "All-new, all-different" even if in reality it's just the equivalent of that one old t-shirt that you stained, threw into the laundry and it came out clean.

For instance, I mean...the Spider-Man series, again, was in no way hindered from forward progression. Even if you recast everyone and changed the tone, it was still possible to continue doing classic Spider-Man stories. The same is true for most of the other superhero franchises out there, I think.

 

[Chris Wallace]

If it becomes everyone's answer to everything, then there's a problem. Nobody will care about making good movies or good series because if they screw up, they can start over. Fans won't even care about the upcoming movie; they'll be thinking "So who's gonna be the NEXT director?"

 

[The Question]

I don't see that being a problem, really. I mean, on the creative side, I doubt anyone who's given a chance to make their mark on a classic character they love isn't going to be lazy about it unless they're just not very good at their jobs.

And about Spider-Man, I'm excited about the reboot. I'd like to see a new take on Spider-Man that has a different narrative style from the first three films.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I will always prefer continuity over revamp.

 

[The Question]

I will always prefer continuity over revamp.

So do I, for the most part. But I think it's less important in movies. Especially if there's a significant gap between two movies and getting the same writers, director, and cast would be difficult, as is the case with Daredevil and Spider-Man.

 

[E-Man]

I will always prefer continuity over revamp.

Me too. I hate how continuity gets cast aside at times. You're basically telling the audience that the storiesdon't really mean much.

 

[Chris Wallace]

You're basically telling the audience that the stories don't really mean much.

That says it all. Like "You wasted your money the last 5 years. Now come and see the NEW movie."

 

[The Question]

Me too. I hate how continuity gets cast aside at times. You're basically telling the audience that the storiesdon't really mean much.

I don't see that. The stories are perfectly valid. Some people just want to tell different ones, or different versions. I mean, there are so many different versions of most heroes' early years that it hardly makes a difference.

 

[Chris Wallace]

So do I, for the most part. But I think it's less important in movies. Especially if there's a significant gap between two movies and getting the same writers, director, and cast would be difficult, as is the case with Daredevil and Spider-Man.

That's not what happened. Daredevil wasn't well-received, so no sequel went into development. Raimi & CO. wanted to come back but we all know what happened there. And even IF that were the case it doesn't necessitate a reboot.

 

[The Question]

That's not what happened. Daredevil wasn't well-received, so no sequel went into development. Raimi & CO. wanted to come back but we all know what happened there. And even IF that were the case it doesn't necessitate a reboot.

Yeah, but it doesn't make one a terrible idea. I'm actually not that familiar with what happened with Sam Raimi. I just figured there was disagreement between him and the executives so they parted ways. And also that Tobey didn't want to do it. I definitely read that Tobey didn't want to do it.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Without Sam. Tobey didn't want to do it without Sam. But reboots DO nullify the story, that's the point. What you saw before never happened. This is what we're going with now.

 

[The Question]

Without Sam. Tobey didn't want to do it without Sam. But reboots DO nullify the story, that's the point. What you saw before never happened. This is what we're going with now.

But what we saw did happen. I can go down to blockbuster right now and rent Spiderman 1-3. Those movies exist, their existence is a matter of public record, they are easily accessible and can be watched as many times as you like from now until judgement day. It's not that those movies didn't happen, it's that there's a new movie that doesn't share a continuity and shares characters. It's like with the TV Shows. Spectacular Spider-Man doesn't mean that Spider-Man The Animated Series didn't happen. It means that they made a new show with slightly different ideas. Ones I personally like better, but that's besides the point.

 

[cerealkiller182]

I'm sure other film genres have gotten past a mistake without having to start everything over.

Yet the film industry has continued to be remake crazy. These arn't isolated events. I feel like we should stop treating the comic book adaptation genre like it is accomplishing something that isnt industry standard

 

[Chris Wallace]

Oh, no. I am well aware that all the horror franchises are getting rebooted, many of my childhood faves are getting trampled by the likes of Tim Burton, & movies I'd never even heard of in the first place are getting remade. But the difference is, fans aren't begging for those to happen.

 

[cerealkiller182]

But what we saw did happen. I can go down to blockbuster right now and rent Spiderman 1-3. Those movies exist, their existence is a matter of public record, they are easily accessible and can be watched as many times as you like from now until judgement day. It's not that those movies didn't happen, it's that there's a new movie that doesn't share a continuity and shares characters. It's like with the TV Shows. Spectacular Spider-Man doesn't mean that Spider-Man The Animated Series didn't happen. It means that they made a new show with slightly different ideas. Ones I personally like better, but that's besides the point.

Exactly.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Oh, no. I am well aware that all the horror franchises are getting rebooted, many of my childhood faves are getting trampled by the likes of Tim Burton, & movies I'd never even heard of in the first place are getting remade. But the difference is, fans aren't begging for those to happen.

Prove it!

Prove to me that there isnt a single fan out their that was begging to see something along the lines of Burton's Alice in Wonderland. You are on a comic book forum and that just happens to be the topic. Again this isnt an isolated event, its just reality. I also think "trampled" is both harsh and unjust, especially since it hasnt been released yet. You can't expect to be pleased with the way that every franchise is going to play out. Im certainly not happy Geoff Johns is consulting Flash. To attack an entire creative avenue (like say rebooting) seems completely irrational. You can really only complain about specfic productions.

 

[Chris Wallace]

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.

 

[cerealkiller182]

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.

What version of Willy Wonka are you comparing Burtons to?

 

[Mace Dolex]

I don't mind a reboot to a franchise if it's last movie was a total bomb (ex: Batman & Robin).

But in the case of Spider-Man 3 the movie itself retained the same core cast it was only it's useless attempt at integrating Venom to an already packed script that made it unwatchable, but that still doesn't stand to reason for rebooting the entire series when it was still successful.

With James Bond that's different since people come to expect a new actor every 10 years or so.

Punisher as a live action franchise simply doesn't work when there's been a million revenge type flicks and Fantastic Four is simply boring as a comic, cartoon or movie.

 

[cerealkiller182]

With James Bond that's different since people come to expect a new actor every 10 years or so.

BUt at some point there was the first time. Spiderman is not a movie character, he is a comic character adapted to a movie. Tobey Maguire is not the end-all, be-all. He can be replaced. And replacement while keeping continuity is the fairest thing to do, when Tobey and Sam drop out over creative difference.