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

[Kahran Ramsus]

Its easier if you think of James Bond as a codename just like everyone else. "James" dies and they promote another agent to James Bond.

Then how do you explain that they were all married to a countess named Tracy who was killed by Blofeld on their wedding day and how he remembers past assignments (as shown in films like On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Die Another Day) from when he was played by a different actor. Also how at least both Connery and Brosnan were orphans who had his parents die in a mountain climbing accident.

The only Bond that could possibly be a different character is Craig. Not counting the unofficial original two Casino Royales and Never Say Never Again.

The idea that they were different characters taking up the mantle of 007 was one from the Casino Royale parody from the 60s. It isn't possible for the main series from Dr. No to Die Another Day.

 

[roach]

cover story

 

[some guy]

Then how do you explain that they were all married to a countess named Tracy who was killed by Blofeld on their wedding day and how he remembers past assignments (as shown in films like On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Die Another Day) from when he was played by a different actor. Also how at least both Connery and Brosnan were orphans who had his parents die in a mountain climbing accident.

The only Bond that could possibly be a different character is Craig. Not counting the unofficial original two Casino Royales and Never Say Never Again.

But then, wouldn't it be too much of a coincidence that the new Bond (Craig) acquires the exact same model car that the previous one had, or that he accidentally discovers the same drink that the last Bond liked?

 

[E-Man]

Hahaha Some Guy is the coolest name ever.

 

[some guy]

Thanks. I wanted to use another name, but it had too many letters.

 

[some guy]

After hearing about the recent developments on the Superman reboot, I've realized that I haven't been as bothered about the DC reboots as I have been about the Marvel ones (or, to be precise, Spider-Man's). Maybe it's because I've gotten used to DC comics' multiple earths concept that I'm more open to continuity changes in the films. Or maybe the success of the Batman reboots have made me more inclined to trust DC with their movies. Besides, they only seem to draw the reboot card when its absolutely necessary. I'm really more concerned about how good the actual film could be, but I like what I've heard so far.

I've been thinking, though, should the Schumacher Batmans be considered as reboots? If you think about it, they had a lot of continuity discrepancies from the Burton films.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

IMO, they're light reboots. They do mention the burton films; I.E : "do I need skintight leather and a vynil whip?"

 

[redfirebird2008]

I've been thinking, though, should the Schumacher Batmans be considered as reboots? If you think about it, they had a lot of continuity discrepancies from the Burton films.

If you set aside the cast and a few throwaway lines (such as the reference to Vicki Vale), Batman Returns doesn't have much continuity with Batman '89. The entire Burton/Schumacher franchise is lacking in continuity but I actually think it worked very well with Batman Returns. Once the Joker is dead, it kinda makes sense to start all over with new villains and a new story. BR is a great sequel despite the lack of continuity. I don't know if I would consider the Schumacher movies a reboot because they have similar continuity issues (except the lack of Keaton and Burton of course).

 

[roach]

actually Burton executive produced BF

 

[Chris Wallace]

True, plus I don't think you can consider films with the same supporting actors a reboot.

 

[some guy]

The more obvious differences are superficial, like Dent going from black to white and the differences in the origin flashbacks. But my real beef is with the portrayal of Alfred. In the Burton films, he seemed to be a reluctant partner in crimefighting. But in the Schumacher films, he was practically encouraging other people into becoming vigilantes. Even his own niece!

 

[E-Man]

The more obvious differences are superficial, like Dent going from black to white and the differences in the origin flashbacks. But my real beef is with the portrayal of Alfred. In the Burton films, he seemed to be a reluctant partner in crimefighting. But in the Schumacher films, he was practically encouraging other people into becoming vigilantes. Even his own niece!

I just chalk that up to bad writing. He is played by the same actor, so it makes sense that it's the same continuity. The only difference is that he wasn't written well. It's no different from a new writer in comics ruining a character's personality. One month Dr. Mid-Nite could be a silent genius that never rushes into a fight. One month and a new writer later he's Wolverine without claws.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Or Spider-Man being so cautious in guarding his secret but then letting Tony Stark talk him into going public. Inconsistent writing can happen anywhere, and sometimes it leads to the "need" for a reboot or retcon.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Spiderman obviously spent a lot of time (at least in comic terms) on the decision and put a lot of trust into Tony, who was manipulating him to a degree. I think Spiderman revealing his identity was appropriate and well-timed.

 

[redfirebird2008]

actually Burton executive produced BF

Surely you would not insinuate that he had the same level of influence on Batman Forever that he had over Batman and Batman Returns?! I was clearly referring to him as director.

 

[FaT_tONle]

So now we got Superman, Spidey, maybe FF/DD, coming up following Batman/Hulk reboots... just had to think about it for a second and take it all in. It is getting pretty ridiculous. I am one of the bigger fanboys, and I have to admit, it's growing a bit thin even on me.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Spiderman obviously spent a lot of time (at least in comic terms) on the decision and put a lot of trust into Tony, who was manipulating him to a degree. I think Spiderman revealing his identity was appropriate and well-timed.

I thought it was an extremely bad idea. And truly STUPID on his part. What the hell could Tony have said that could make him forget about the torture that Venom inflicted? Gwen Stacy? Harry's meltdown? The Clone Saga? The fact that EVERY time an enemy learned the name & face behind the mask, catastrophe resulted?

 

[griffolyon12]

You haven't really disagreed with me. I said "maybe a reboot is in order. Maybe. Maybe they can save it with some minor tweaking." The reason why it annoys me is that so many fans/posters have just come to painting all franchises with this brush of "just start over" because one or 2 things were done that they don't like.
And you make it sound like this "reboot" mentality hasn't infected comics. That's probably where all this madness originated from anyway.

I think everything is said, right then and there as to why I hate these so-called reboots.

 

[roach]

Surely you would not insinuate that he had the same level of influence on Batman Forever that he had over Batman and Batman Returns?! I was clearly referring to him as director.

no it was just a carrot they gave to him after WB removed him off the batfilms after parental groups protested the dark nature of BR

 

[Chris Wallace]

The way he made it sound, they didn't so much remove him as encourage him not to come back.

 

[Chris Wallace]

When all the subscriptions got deleted the orignal thread got buried and now I can't find it. So I'm starting a new one. I am even MORE sick of all this talk about reboots & recasts, especially in the wake of Iron Man 2. I felt Cheadle-who I generally think is an awesome actor-was not a good fit & lacked Howard's swagger. Add to this the completely pointless Spider-Man reboot. Successful franchise, even if the 3rd installment was ill-received. They make plans to move forward & then suddenly change their minds & jump on the reboot bandwagon, but with the same writer. WTF?

 

[dude stannis]

Basically if you can make a kick ass and successful sequel to Rocky V, Star Trek: The Final Frontier and Universal Soldier: The Return then there's no excuse for anyone.

 

[Chris Wallace]

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

 

[The Overlord]

When all the subscriptions got deleted the orignal thread got buried and now I can't find it. So I'm starting a new one. I am even MORE sick of all this talk about reboots & recasts, especially in the wake of Iron Man 2. I felt Cheadle-who I generally think is an awesome actor-was not a good fit & lacked Howard's swagger. Add to this the completely pointless Spider-Man reboot. Successful franchise, even if the 3rd installment was ill-received. They make plans to move forward & then suddenly change their minds & jump on the reboot bandwagon, but with the same writer. WTF?

Terrance Howard asked for too much money and Marvel studios didn't want to pay him that amount money.

If an actor, who is not the main star asked for too much money, why shouldn't the studios recast him or her?

That has nothing to do reboots, sometimes actors and studios get into fights or the actor is not available for the sequel or in the case of Katie Holmes the actress had baggage that made unpopular with the public, so was it a big deal that she was replaced in Dark Knight? Also when Kitty Pryde was replaced with differnet actresses, did that really affect the character?

Also considering I never like Kristen Dunst as MJ or Ben Affleck as DD and didn't think any of the cast FF movies did a good job, why should they not be replaced? Heck even iof the Spidey movies hadn't been rebooted, I would have wanted Dunst replaced. So if repalcing Terrance Howard with Don Cheadle means we get rid of these actors as well, I can easily live with that.

These recastings have nothing to do with a reboot and frankly its not realistic to think they can retain all the same actors, all the time.

 

[some guy]

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.