Your Thoughts on "Reboots"

[MadVillainy]

What do you think of the new trend of restarting/reimaginng (rebooting) different franchises? I was curious because I have seen animosity towards the general idea on different places.

Personally most of the time, I like the idea of reboots . I think its great that you can start a franchise with a clean slate and get very good films. Incredible Hulk, Batman Begins, Star Trek (it was a sequel and reboot at the same time), Casino Royale

Also alot of franchises I think do need a clean slate like Daredevil, Superman, Fantastic Four, Planet of the Apes.

I also think that with SH franchises in particular after 3-4 films you should reboot. Get a new cast, new director, and new look for the series.

Also, If you get a new director imo you should reboot so the director doesnt have to be tied down to the past director's ideas/continuity

But sometimes as with everything ppl take reboots too far. Like do we really need a Cliffhanger reboot. And would Cliffhanger be a reboot or a remake. Next thing you know we'll get a reboot of the My Little Pony movie

Anyways most of the time I am happy to hear that something is getting rebooted.

 

[AEmovieguy]

I think the main problem is the lack of "boots."

 

[MadVillainy]

I think the main problem is the lack of "boots."

????????
DO you mean lack of franchises

 

[AEmovieguy]

????????
DO you mean lack of franchises

That was a quirky way of my saying, "I think the main problem is a lack of new material to outweigh the industry's current reliance on 'rebooting,' 'reimagining,' and 'remaking.'"

Originality should be the majority (or, at least, a quest for originality).

Edit: The sheer number of "reboots" and "remakes" as of late is what is to blame for their shunning. It makes it seem as though the industry isn't trying.

 

[mjdiddy1]

I think a movie 'franchise' should be rebooted after a trilogy or a quadrilogy because the original franchise gets other great directors ideas and avenues they could take with the characters. I mean as of late most of the films fall flat on the third which means new blood is needed to revive the franchise. And you can blame all the reboot deal on Nolan who did it just with his reboot. The Incredible Hulk was great reboot because Marvel got involved and did it right. So reboots can be good and are needed

 

[MadVillainy]

Another question how long until a movie series can be rebooted

 

[CelticPredator]

When the previous film sucked too hard.

Jason X
Freddy's Dead (FvJ doesnt count)
Die Another Day
Batman and Robin
Hulk (Not a bad movie persay...but a ****** hero flick)
AvP-R (Since it connects with all the films, it's a sequel. FvJ you could just ignore.)

 

[CelticPredator]

When the previous film sucked too hard.

Jason X
Freddy's Dead (FvJ doesnt count)
Die Another Day
Batman and Robin
Hulk (Not a bad movie persay...but a ****** hero flick)
AvP-R (Since it connects with all the films, it's a sequel. FvJ you could just ignore.)

 

[MadVillainy]

Not to turn this into a Batman thread but
Lets say Nolan and co. leave after BB3

How long until they can reboot that even if the third film is really good. Personally I still say they can reboot in 3-4 yrs. Time means no thing to me in this case

 

[CelticPredator]

Whenever they want. As long as its vastly different from the Nolan films. But not tredding into Shoemaker territory.

 

[marvelman2006]

shouldnt be done period. create something new. with terminator and star trek this year, there excuse was the timelines have changed due to interference through time travel, so now they can remake stories.
ikyn

 

[returntovoid]

Die Another Day
Batman and Robin

Those two movies were awful.

 

[Timstuff]

It all depends on what they're rebooting, and how well it's being done.

 

[returntovoid]

TLS and XOW were so disappointing that I think the X-Men films need to be rebooted with another studio.

 

[Bad Superman]

It depends on the franchise. Some are justified on doing rebooting others don't. As for "reimaginings" that's a whole different subject.

 

[returntovoid]

It all depends on what they're rebooting, and how well it's being done.

Agreed.

 

[Immortalfire]

I'm sick to death of em.

 

[Octoberist]

i think the problem is that certain franchises needed a serious reboot like Batman, which I think is the only reboot that started from scratch; the new James Bond and Star Trek doesn't neglect the past movies (same theme music, running gags, themes).

Rebooting movies like...Buffy, or even Cliffhanger is seriously a joke. Hollywood is all about making money I know, but don't treat people as if they're stupid.

 

[GhostPoet]

I think it depends on the franchise/movie.

Daredevil or Fantastic Four...YES...please reboot.

Buffy or Back to the Future...NO!

 

[Octoberist]

exactly, if you're gonna do a reboot, do it for the RIGHT reasons.

 

[Paradoxium]

Reboots are only effective if the foundation is completely changed and is necessary and effective.

The BatNolanverse for an example changes the foundation from Burton, thus it was justified. Even the crazy Aronofsky ideas is justified since it sets very different parameters.

Something like Casino Royale (James Bond) - while not a bad film - is not necessary. Since Bond has been interpreted very drastically in the past and most Bond films are not laced with much continuity anyways. Each new Bond could be treated as a new continuity to some degree. So with a few tweaks Casino Royale can work without being an origin film.

Rebooting a franchise in under 5 years, with the same executive regime is stupid. So rebooting Daredevil and Fantastic Four under Rothman will set the franchise back EVEN more. If I had to take a guess, 10+ years with a different executive regime is probably ideal; but that's me, nothing scientific or empirical about it. People still thought Batman Begins was a prequel to Burton's Batman, and it was 8 years later. Of course TDK more or less killed any notion of that.

So while successful reboots can yield great long term dividends, you also risk diminishing the value of the franchise as whole, until you won't see anymore of it in a LOOONG time. Best example? Punisher.

I don't know if you consider The Incredible Hulk a successful reboot. Why? Well why isn't there a sequel being pumped out as quickly as Ironman 2?

 

[Octoberist]

Incredible Hulk got lost in the mix. I don't even remember it. haha.

 

[Max J Power]

I've liked all the reboots I've seen so far, but it looks like they are becoming overused. I know that an economy like the one we're in right now exacerbates the blockbuster mentality, but there are too many reboots on top of too many sequels.

 

[Paradoxium]

Necessary and worked:

Burtonmacher verse -> Any new continuity = justified, too much continuity baggage. We get the Nolanverse now of course.

Unnecessary but worked to some degree:

Die another Day -> Casino Royale = unjustified. It's not that I think DAD did not suck and CR sucked, I think they could have made CR without it being an origin film with what was already created.

Questionable:

- Star Trek, one film, so far so good. But will find out if the second film wins the lottery again.
- Rob Zombie Halloween, sequel is in the works, see if it works. But I don't think many people liked it.
- The Incredible Hulk; nothing new out of this franchise, not familiar with it either.
- Terminator Salvation; not a full on reboot, but very close to one. Too early to say, but not looking good.

Unsuccessful:

- The Jack Ryan series, The Sum of all Fears failed.
- Burton of the Apes failed
- Superman Returns, many in the mainstream thought it would be a reboot to begin with, not a selective memory quasi sequel. One instance where a reboot could have helped but opted not to do it. Now it's trying to finally do what it should have done.
- Punisher, nuff said
- Street Fighter, nuff said

Will probably fail save for a miracle:

- Fox Rothman lead reboot of Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Predator and maybe Aliens

The reason so many blockbusters are sequels, remakes and reboots? Better security and lower risk. Some degree of proven clout is there. New original stories as new sources of revenues are gambles

 

[mjdiddy1]

Unnecessary but worked to some degree:

Die another Day -> Casino Royale = unjustified. It's not that I think DAD did not suck and CR sucked, I think they could have made CR without it being an origin film with what was already created.

You got to understand why Bond was rebooted. It was rebooted for a newer audience. I agree with you that they could have done it without doing an origin but they wanted the younger generation to get a feel of who Bond was and who they are wanting Bond to be now. And I guess that should be the motivation of reboot...not necessarily getting the characters right (although that is needed) but to get a broader audience. I don't want to just use Nolan as an example but he is like the 'god father' of the reboot. When he did Batman Begins, all I heard was(and these where people who wouldn't be caught dead watching a superhero movie) this movie is going to be awesome...Batman is fighting with swords, he's not going to wearing a mask. Nolan got the 'non-fans' interested.