Reboot equals rehash?

KenSwee

So we have a new Spiderman, even though the previous one is only a few years old and was apparently a huge success.
Same for The Hulk (3 attempts!! two failures)
And now Superman.

Now I know how I feel about these re-hashes. I don't like them. It's almost like an EU referendum: keep issuing it until it works, in some kind of way.
But enough about me. Don't try to convince me they are good ideas, I've made my mind up so don't shout me over my opinion or tell me I'm an idiot.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't mind old movies being remade and I even like sequels and long lost second parts like the recent revisit to the Tron world, predators and Terminator. But I'm a firm believer that certain movies should never be remade and if some are to be made, then there should be at least two decades or so before they go back to the movie in question.

But what I'd like to know is why do others seem to get so excited about these so called reboots? What is so exciting about something that was in the cinemas only a number of years ago?

And who is pushing these? The directors? The movie companies? These movie are cop outs; so easy to put together now that CGI is everywhere and with no problems with an already stone solid script.
Is the world of new scripts and screenplays so barren that we have to go back to exactly the same story only after a few years a la Spiderman? I hate it when the new director tries to justify these movies with terms like "finding the real spirit of the character" or "looking at the movies from a darker side"

It's all b******t in my opinion but I'd like hear from the fans of theses marketing movies and what motivates them to get excited.

Galvasean

KenSwee wrote: »

But what I'd like to know is why do others seem to get so excited about these so called reboots? What is so exciting about something that was in the cinemas only a number of years ago?

KenSwee wrote: »

I'd like hear from the fans of theses marketing movies and what motivates them to get excited.

KenSwee wrote: »

Don't try to convince me they are good ideas, I've made my mind up

Why ask for people's opinions if you've already made your mind up?

krudler

Apparently the Green Lantern sequel is going to be "darker and grittier" why is that the go to idea for sequels that people dont want to see? people saying Superman should be dark, ehhh, no? he's Superman ffs. same as Spiderman, I'm glad the new movie is getting good reviews for being genuinely funny, Spidey should be a wisecracking smartass with some issues not a constant whingebag ala the Raimi movies "oh noess I cant has the girl who's slept with everyone I know in school" dude you're fcuking SPIDER-MAN!

Boo Radley

KenSwee wrote: »

But what I'd like to know is why do others seem to get so excited about these so called reboots? What is so exciting about something that was in the cinemas only a number of years ago?

With regard this above question I'll use Spiderman and Batman as my examples.

I never liked the Raimi Spiderman nor who they cast for the lead. It did nothing for me and when I heard they were dropping a direct sequel in favour of a reboot I was pretty delighted and I'm looking forward to watching something that approximates what I expect from a Spiderman film.

Batman. If they didn't reboot then we'd never have had Batman Begins nor the re-imagined Joker. I loved both Batman films and again think a reboot was exactly the correct thing to do.

I get what you're saying about money maybe being the main motivator behind making reboots etc. but it doesn't bother me. If it's not as good as the original, so what? Big deal, the original still exists and is untainted in any shape or form and if you let an entirely different version effect your view of the original, well, that's a bit of a shame.

If on the other-hand we get Batman Begins or what looks like a nice reworking of Spiderman (preliminarily at this stage) then all the better. I don't see it as a problem. The only conceivable problem might be that by rebooting a film that one less original concept gets the backing it may deserve. Mind you, original does not always equate to quality either.

KenSwee

Because I'm curious to find out what is the motivation. It's almost a new genre.
How it has become so popular, particularly with super heroes.
How the films are given the green light despite low or high box office receipts?

Not liking them is my personal opinion but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be discussed.

johnny_ultimate

KenSwee wrote: »

And who is pushing these? The directors? The movie companies? These movie are cop outs; so easy to put together now that CGI is everywhere and with no problems with an already stone solid script.
Is the world of new scripts and screenplays so barren that we have to go back to exactly the same story only after a few years a la Spiderman? I hate it when the new director tries to justify these movies with terms like "finding the real spirit of the character" or "looking at the movies from a darker side"
.

Audience are to blame just as much as the studios, frankly. Mainstream cinema has become risk adverse, and when you look at the films that make most money it's not surprising that Hollywood keeps going back to the same franchises when audiences keep showing up. I agree the Spiderman one seems a bit on the ridiculous side, but then again distancing themselves from Spiderman 3 is no harm.

Hollywood is basically in a constant state of panic trying to find the next big blockbusters. Most of the 'good' superheroes have been used and abused (and you can bet the individual Avengers are going to be bled dry over the next five years - one could argue some of them have been already). Harry Potter is done (which is surely terrifying for Warner Bros.). They're getting two films out of the Hobbit, which is quite ridiculous for a rather lean novel. Even the Hunger Games and Twilight have a limited amount of material to work with, so are brief relief at best. Desperate attempts at kickstarting many new franchises - everything from Percy Jackson to His Dark Materials - have not found the success they needed. So it's not surprising the studios fall back on the same old reliables.

Try and name a high profile franchise with significant mainstream appeal that hasn't been adapted yet. One struggles pretty quickly. They're adapting board games FFS!

And no, the world of new scripts and screenplays is far from barren - the complete opposite, if anything. It's just ol' focus-grouped Hollywood is increasingly not the place to find them. The rare talent like Christopher Nolan are, sadly, exceptions.

KenSwee

Boo Radley wrote: »

Batman. If they didn't reboot then we'd never have had Batman Begins nor the re-imagined Joker. I loved both Batman films and again think a reboot was exactly the correct thing to do.

I have to agree with you that the recent Batman was brilliant. It was also totally ruined by the time Clooney got into his nipple suit. It was also a good few years ago and I've no problem with that but something made three or four years ago, then I think it's a huge risk for the film company to take.
Is it that these films have such a huge following that they are almost guaranteed a box office success even if it's rubbish?

Good example on Rami: I never considered his Spiderman a winger but now that you mentioned it, I have to agree.

Boo Radley

KenSwee wrote: »

Is it that these films have such a huge following that they are almost guaranteed a box office success even if it's rubbish?.

I'd imagine that is part of it but I'd guess that sometimes the money makers can see which way the wind is blowing and, for example, after Spiderman 3 it was pretty clear that something had to be changed to address a god damn mess of a film. The same can be said for the parodies that were pre-Begins Batman films (Batman and Batman Returns not included).

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Audience are to blame just as much as the studios, frankly. Mainstream cinema has become risk adverse, and when you look at the films that make most money it's not surprising that Hollywood keeps going back to the same franchises when audiences keep showing up. I agree the Spiderman one seems a bit on the ridiculous side, but then again distancing themselves from Spiderman 3 is no harm.

Hollywood is basically in a constant state of panic trying to find the next big blockbusters. Most of the 'good' superheroes have been used and abused (and you can bet the individual Avengers are going to be bled dry over the next five years - one could argue some of them have been already). Harry Potter is done (which is surely terrifying for Warner Bros.). They're getting two films out of the Hobbit, which is quite ridiculous for a rather lean novel. Even the Hunger Games and Twilight have a limited amount of material to work with, so are brief relief at best. Desperate attempts at kickstarting many new franchises - everything from Percy Jackson to His Dark Materials - have not found the success they needed. So it's not surprising the studios fall back on the same old reliables.

Try and name a high profile franchise with significant mainstream appeal that hasn't been adapted yet. One struggles pretty quickly. They're adapting board games FFS!

And no, the world of new scripts and screenplays is far from barren - the complete opposite, if anything. It's just ol' focus-grouped Hollywood is increasingly not the place to find them. The rare talent like Christopher Nolan are, sadly, exceptions.

you should watch Jamie Kennedys documentary Heckler on netflix (the US one) it talks about this exact thing, now I'm not a fan of Eli Roth but I 100% agree when him saying in an interview that focus groups are the death of modern cinema, because some fat soccer mom from Nebraska who has zero vested interest in a comic character shouldnt be asked their opinion on some big comic blockbuster, nor should that opinion hold any sway for the movies release. They interview a guy who has actual score cards from a test screening of some movie and its stuff like "I didnt know when to laugh, comedy shows on tv have the audience laugh so you know when to" and "there were too many jokes" (in a comedy movie) the general public by and large are idiots.

I love blockbuster cinema, I genuinely do, when its done right its one of the little joys in my life, but hollywood just keeps churning out abosolute sh1te and not taking a chance on some new franchise that isnt based on some existing thing. like one of the biggest franchies of recent years, the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, was a risk, it was based on a well known theme park ride sure,but it was a risk, and it was a well made popcorn movie that made like a trillion dollars at the box office over the three movies (not actual figure) even though they got progressively worse because they were rushed into production to make money.

Galvasean

krudler wrote: »

you should watch Jamie Kennedys documentary Heckler on netflix (the US one) it talks about this exact thing, now I'm not a fan of Eli Roth but I 100% agree when him saying in an interview that focus groups are the death of modern cinema, because some fat soccer mom from Nebraska who has zero vested interest in a comic character shouldnt be asked their opinion on some big comic blockbuster, nor should that opinion hold any sway for the movies release. They interview a guy who has actual score cards from a test screening of some movie and its stuff like "I didnt know when to laugh, comedy shows on tv have the audience laugh so you know when to" and "there were too many jokes" (in a comedy movie) the general public by and large are idiots.

Apparently a staggering % of test screening audiences wanted the ending of Gladiator changed

so that Maximus wouldn't die

. Luckily their input was ignored. Another well known example was the Simpsons movie where President Wolfcastle's name was changed to Schwarzenegger because random blobs they picked up at the mall did not recognise the character.

Mellor

KenSwee wrote: »

So we have a new Spiderman, even though the previous one is only a few years old and was apparently a huge success.
Same for The Hulk (3 attempts!! two failures)
And now Superman.

Comic book movies are the most often rebooted, and rightly so. The comic themselves go through so many reboot storylines over the years that there are so many different versions to the history/universe.

Superheros and similar are ageless. It's better to have a story arc spanning a few films then a new unconnected arc rather than a 8 or so movies spanning 20 years, all supposedly connected. It gets too messy imo.

KenSwee wrote: »

I have to agree with you that the recent Batman was brilliant. It was also totally ruined by the time Clooney got into his nipple suit. It was also a good few years ago and I've no problem with that but something made three or four years ago, then I think it's a huge risk for the film company to take.

It was 8 years later. Hardly a very long time. The reason nobody has a problem with it is because it was brilliant. Which is where the argument falls apart.

norrie rugger

KenSwee wrote: »

Because I'm curious to find out what is the motivation. It's almost a new genre.
How it has become so popular, particularly with super heroes.
How the films are given the green light despite low or high box office receipts?

Not liking them is my personal opinion but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be discussed.

Superheroes go through complete reboots even within their own comics.
Every time that you create a superhero film you are going to miss out on several possible personalities/storylines, that can be utilised in a reimagining