Your Thoughts on "Reboots"

[Sawyer]

F4 and Daredevil need to be rebooted. Without Fox, if possible.

And the very idea of Buffy being rebooted without Joss Whedon is the single most ******ed thing I've ever heard. If that piece of crap Rothman is behind this, he needs to be stopped. By any means necessary.

 

[MadVillainy]

TS was not a reboot it was a flat out sequel/prequel
SR I dont know what to call it. Reboot maybe but then it was still set in the same continuity as Superman and Superman II

And I think that TIH and ST were very good reboots and I'm glad that they were pulled off well

 

[Paradoxium]

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.

That is the purpose of recasting Bond and changing up the tone and feel. Otherwise you can make this argument to reboot the franchise every 10 years or something. It lasted well past the 40 year mark for good reasons. Continuity baggage was never the issue as I said, its very loose and most films stood on their own.

 

[Immortalfire]

Superman Returns was not a reboot...it was set in the same timeline/continuity of the Richard Donner films. At least 2 of them..or 1, or 1 and a half of them. I don't think anyone really knows what the hell it is.

 

[Sawyer]

Superman Returns was not a reboot...it was set in the same timeline/continuity of the Richard Donner films. At least 2 of them..or 1, or 1 and a half of them. I don't think anyone really knows what the hell it is.

Which is why it failed.

 

[Paradoxium]

I should have classified SR as a franchise relaunch. It is a "somewhat reboot" because it only selectively remembers only parts of the previous films.

I think a lot of mainstreamers expected it to be a reboot, MORESO than Batman Begins, and it fails to do this very very very easy objective.

A better way of putting it.

WB had every intent of rebooting Superman. They gave it to Singer, and Singer happens to be one of the few people in Hollywood who did not understand what a reboot is, and made Superman Returns. It failed at being a reboot, and others can debate whether it was a good story or not.

 

[mjdiddy1]

Superman Returns was garbage created and imagined from a man's silly ego. He loved the first film and pieces of the second and made a piece of crap. Superman was deserving of a reboot and not a continuation. I wouldn't necessarily call Star Trek a prequel/sequel but it fits in there somewhere like a time travel sci-fi film. Abrahms did what Singer should have done.

 

[Electrix]

Studio's spend a lot of money on rights to characters and properties so they are going to use them, which is why we get reboots. It doesn't make good business sense to buy rights and then sit on them for years, which is why FF, Daredevil and other reboots are predictable, and why Spider-Man, X-Men, and others are continuing.

 

[mjdiddy1]

good point Electrix

 

[GhostPoet]

There are certain films that can't and shouldn't even be attempted with a reboot.
Goonies and Back to the Future just to name a couple. Not because I'm a huge fan of the films (well, partially), but because if they were done today, they wouldn't be able to capture the same feel.

Goonies, if redone would be much more toned down and a lot more kiddy-friendly.
Back to the Future..well, it wouldn't be in the 80's anymore, so there goes the feeling right there. Some movies which are so deeply intrenched in the 80's CAN'T be updated.

There's just a difference between a movie that was made IN the 80's...and one that is a product OF the 80's. If that makes any sense at all....

 

[Immortalfire]

Back to the Future..well, it wouldn't be in the 80's anymore, so there goes the feeling right there. Some movies which are so deeply intrenched in the 80's CAN'T be updated.

Also..1, because redo-ing BTTF would be a crime against humanity. And 2, Bob Gale has all but said as long as he has a breath to breathe, no one is touching Back To The Future. Rob Zemeckis pretty much said the same.

So yeah, I doubt we need to fear the adventures of Doc and Marty will ever be screwed with.

 

[Paradoxium]

One franchise I would like to see get a reboot is Resident Evil. Considering the movies has almost nothing to do with the source material. Maybe they should rename the franchise as "Biohazard".

I mean, I understand you need to take some liberties to have it fit cohesively as a narrative, but god damn wtf is this ****. They just made up a movie with some zombies, bought the rights to the title AFTER and renamed some characters and settings to reflect the game's "mythology".

 

[dude stannis]

Totally sick of reboots, how about trying to movie the fracking story forward for once. If a series has a bad sequel, then make a good one. These days if Star Trek: TMP had come out, we never would've gotten Wrath of Khan, we never would've gotten Die Hard: With a Vengeance or Indiana Jones the Last Crusade, we be constantly sitting through McClane Begins and Indiana Jones Royale.

 

[Immortalfire]

These days if Star Trek: TMP had come out, we never would've gotten Wrath of Khan

Most likely. Even more likely we wouldn't have gotten Star Trek VI after the travesty known as The Final Frontier.

 

[Sam Fisher]

It depends on the franchise. Star Trek and Batman needed it badly. Buffy, however, does not, especally not without the cast from the tv series. And some movies{like BTTF} should never be rebooted.

 

[Bill]

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

Why reboot it at all? Why not do elseworld type movies or one-shots or even take the character at or close to the end of their careers? The latter I would like to see more of, especially with Batman. There is a lot of potential to work with some of the franchises out there with rebooting them. If the original set of movies were done well, then take the stories into different directions within that universe before we move on and start all over again.

 

[MadVillainy]

But I'm saying
new director = new continuity

Its easier to set up a whole new one like Nolan did with BB or Abrams did with ST
then to try and continue the old one like Signer with SR

 

[dude stannis]

But I'm saying
new director = new continuity

Its easier to set up a whole new one like Nolan did with BB or Abrams did with ST
then to try and continue the old one like Signer with SR

It's also cheap and uncreative. If a series can bounce back from Star Trek V, a series can bounce back from anything.

 

[Sawyer]

Most likely. Even more likely we wouldn't have gotten Star Trek VI after the travesty known as The Final Frontier.

If only...

 

[[A]]

Your Thoughts on "Reboots"

I think they should happen every 20 years..

 

[Sawyer]

It's also cheap and uncreative. If a series can bounce back from Star Trek V, a series can bounce back from anything.

I kind of have to agree with this. Reboots arent always the way to go. Some movies should just never be made period (The Punisher... awful character). But I think some series should keep on going even if there are a few weak chapters. I'm sorry, but anyone that says the Spider-Man or X-Men film series' need to be rebooted just need to use their brain. X3, Wolverine and Spider-Man 3 werent nearly bad enough to warrant a complete do-over.

 

[enterthemadness]

Ummm...I don't care for reboots or remakes really. Lost In Space could use a sequel, but at this point a remake may actually be a better option.

I wanna see a sequel to the Hot Shots series with Sheen.

 

[BATZARRO WWD]

I feel there are places where reboots should ocurr, and places where they shouldn't.

DO:
Reboot continuity based franchises where going forward is almost impossible. Batman and Robin is a good example. If a series is tangled in it's story, or has gathered general apathy from the public, stop, wait a bit, then release. Superman Returns? Reboot please! The franchise was painted into a corner, in my opinion.

Do: Reboot if you want to take the franchise in a different direction. Even if you've only done one film, and it's a completely different direction, then a Reboot is acceptable. However, if you only have one film, don't rush out a reboot quick, like Punisher: War Zone. Wait until the interest rises.

Don't: Reboot a franchise with no continuity. Because that's not a reboot, just another chapter in a series. James Bond is a good examples. It wasn't untill Quantum of Solace that any serious attempts at following a plot from one film to the next popped up. In fact, Bond never even stayed with or mentioned any of the Bond Girls from one film to the next, did he?

Don't: Offer a reboot as the all cure panacea. Yes, Daredevil and Elektra wheren't exactly great, so now there's a reboot. Now, wake me when they confirm it doesn't suck again.


And those are my thought on reboots.

 

[returntovoid]

IMO, Not all films need to rebooted. But some films need to rebooted such as the X-Men films due to unfaithfulness to the source material, bad quality and studio interference in TLS and XOW.

 

[Sevket]

I want to watch a good reboot of Escape From New York. That is the best movie in my opinion