Reboots -- are you sick of them?

[alchemist]

Soon, the Amazing Spider-Man will be upon us. Here's a synopsis...

The Amazing Spider-Man is the story of Peter Parker (Garfield), an outcast high schooler who was abandoned by his parents as a boy, leaving him to be raised by his Uncle Ben (Sheen) and Aunt May (Field). Like most teenagers, Peter is trying to figure out who he is and how he got to be the person he is today. As Peter discovers a mysterious briefcase that belonged to his father, he begins a quest to understand his parents' disappearance - leading him directly to Oscorp and the lab of Dr. Curt Connors (Ifans), his father's former partner. As Spider-Man is set on a collision course with Connors' alter-ego, The Lizard, Peter will make life-altering choices to use his powers and shape his destiny to become a hero.

But wait a minute. In 2002, we saw Spider-Man's origins in Spider-Man (the movie). Do we need a different mythology so soon after the "original"?

As for Batman, I've lost track of the number of Jokers he's defeated by now.

Then there was Star Trek but I could nearly forgive that. Many more versions have passed since Kirk was a young man.

But are there going to be more? When series get tired, will they just rip up the history and start again? The reboots may be good, even be better than the original, but it smells of lack of imagination and makes me feel like it's being taken for granted that I'll buy into an alternate version of an old story.

 

[Boneman]

Two studio executives sit opposite each other. One looks the other in the eye. "What made money before?" "Spiderman." "Great! let's do it again, only alter the story a bit - those dumbasses in the cinema won't notice..."

 

[Jo Zebedee]

we need new blood and ideas and remodelling of the norms.

Ps, I won't go to see it, on the basis my £5 will only encourage them to do it again. Except in the kids club when I get in for free and hence cost them to suck me in...

 

[dragomort]

I'm not sick of reboots per se, I'm simply sick of the massive amounts of hollowness and/or shallowness and/or laziness in almost every form of popular media nowadays (to be fair, this may be due to more of it out there in general while only the most obnoxious seems to get the marketing $$$.... or me becoming bitter and old ). If you're going to make something, whether a reboot or original, just do something with it that makes it worthy of being made in the first place and it's all good. Reboots simply have a bit of the baggage of nostalgia that comes as a counterpoint to the added default interest in the material. If you can't manage to respect and deal with that baggage in whatever form while simultaneously creating something that stands on its own then you probably shouldn't be touching it in the first place, imo.

For the most part they've unfortunately been used as lazy cash grabs and the like, but so have many other 'original' films. The root problem in those cases for me isn't that something is being remade, but rather the way they're being made. Get past that obvious issue and whether it's a reboot/remake/entirely new is irrelevant.

 

[Metryq]

I think we really need another Tarzan movie! </sarc>

The recycling junkies make money not only on the remake/reboot/reimagining, but on the original movie as well. People run to the stores to buy a DVD of the original so that they can compare the two. Then they discuss the movies on a Web forum with lots of ads for the next remake/reboot/regurgitation.

 

[Shane Enochs]

I'm coming from the other side of the argument here. I like reboots as long as it's about the story and not so much about how many special effects they can cram into it. For instance, I preferred the Edward Norton Hulk to all of the others.

 

[THX-1138]

I say keep em' coming. I like different spins on the same story.

 

[biodroid]

Most of the time the reboots are quite good, Star Trek was very good. I can't wait to see the reboot of Total Recall, apparently they expanded the story and they claim it will better than the Arnie version. The new Batman movies are brilliant. I see a new Superman movie is being made and is up for release next year, done by the Nolan brothers I think.

 

[Moonbat]

Most reboots have been ok, if not better, it is remakes that irk me, especially when they are hollywood remakes of foreign language films within a year or two of the original coming out.

As Nolan's Batman trilogy will be finihsing this year, and they have been (and probably will be) very sucessful in terms of money, how long before they reboot it again?

 

[Boneman]

Any minute now, I reckon...

One film I'd like to see rebooted is 'Brother John' - a Sidney Poitier film that was incredible in 1971, and I could see Denzel Washington actually improving the original. Who do I write to, to suggest it?

 

[Muphry]

Well, yes. And no. Some reboots are actually great (Star Trek, Nolan's Batman, The Incredible Hulk...) but the fact that there seems to be a lack of originality in Hollywood bothers me. Last I heard, there were talks about rebooting Twilight, which is just so wrong in so many aspects.

Concerning a Batman reboot, I think they've been talking about it. One a little less dark than Nolan's Batman. The idea is to do the same thing The Avengers did, but with Justice League.

 

[Foxbat]

There's a serious lack of originality in big budget movie making right now and it's being camouflaged by all these reboots/remakes.

It's a case of the Emperor's new clothes. Somebody has to tell Hollywood that it's strutting about naked as the day that it was born.

 

[THX-1138]

I will never tire of Batman.

Most reboots have been ok, if not better, it is remakes that irk me, especially when they are hollywood remakes of foreign language films within a year or two of the original coming out.

I take it you didn't like Girl with the Dragon Tattoo?

 

[Boneman]

I will never tire of Batman.

I take it you didn't like Girl with the Dragon Tattoo?

Point in question... the original was ten times better than the remake! Even with being dubbed...

 

[Moonbat]

Absolutely, The remake of Dragon Tattoo seemed so pointless, it was even filmed in much the same place (the bridge across to the island was the same) but instead of being a bit realistic in that those people living in Sweden actually spoke Swedish, they just made them Swedish but speaking English and some with a Swedish (attempted) accent.

I really think that Dragon Tattoo along with Let the right one/me in were pointless remakes that brought nothing more to the film and were only made because some people are too lazy to read whilst watching a film. Even though the remakes were good films in their own right, they weren't as good as the originals and being done so soon after were a slight on the film in its original language. It actually quite annoys me!!! Arrrgggh!

 

[Mouse]

What about the remake of Death at a Funeral then? The original film was British, the remake American. Not even different languages!! And only a couple of years apart. Yeah, I still get worked up about that one.

Anyway, yeah, I am bored of reboots. Just think of something new, damnit!

 

[J-Sun]

I voted a long time ago (when it was a blissful 4-0-0) against reboots but didn't post. But now it occurs to me to note that we might be mixing things: a reboot should be a franchise whose continuity is jettisoned (fwiw, Wikipedia agrees) and is different from a remake which may alter things but basically tries to be "the same thing" but adapted in time or space or whatever. And, even in remakes, my impression of, say, the The Day the Earth Stood Still (haven't seen the more recent one) would be closer to a "reboot" than many of the remakes discussed. Basically just using a "valuable" title on a different item.

Another thing that occurs to me is the definition of "reboot" in relation to media. We don't call a book-into-movie a reboot or remake or anything like that. But, looking over my movie collection, I do see the Addams Family and the two Burton Batman movies. The Addams Family TV show came from a cartoon and I'd say the movie came more from the show and somehow tv-to-movie does seem near to a remake/reboot. And Burton's Batman is slightly more complicated, with the Batman TV show coming from a comic book but having almost nothing to do with it, and the Burton stuff coming more from the comics than the show. On the other hand, once you have the Burton movies, I suspect Nolan's are just running the meat through the grinder once more.

There's a whole hierarchy of creativity fail, though. Adaptations are least objectionable and that's good because almost everything is. Sequels are probably the next least objectionable. But prequels are usually dumb. And reboots are worst of all. I think remakes slot into that hierarchy on an individual basis, depending on need and quality. (And I might be forgetting a category or two of "unoriginal movie".) Not to say that you can't have horrible original movies or brilliant reboots (at least in theory) but the principle of exhaustion and the hill to climb to be good is there.

But people who dislike these things can't blame Hollywood (or your nearest movie-making locus) for making them. At the moment, the poll says over half the population either wants or is open to the idea and even "no"s like me will get as close as a Burton Batman and probably every one of the "no"s has an exception to the rule and it all adds up to zillions of dollars.

 

[Gordian Knot]

As one of the first posters pointed out, it is pure laziness coupled with fear that makes remakes the order of the day. A studio has a proven product. They also have a new script that sounds promising. 9 times out of 10 they will go with the former. Stick with what works; don't take chances.

That being said the new Spider-Man looks very interesting. I was initially aghast that they were reimagining this character already. But from what I have seen in previews, it does look to be fresh and it does look like it could be very good. For Spider-Man at least, I will give it a chance.

 

[Culhwch]

I don't mind re-boots, so long as they are done well, Batman Begins and the Norton Hulk being two examples of such.

There's been a lot of derision about re-boots and remakes in this thread, but I think that they can present a gifted filmaker with a great opportunity, if they can do something good and different with the material. Look at Nolan and Batman Begins. Prior to that film he was a young filmaker on the rise, but the success he had there (he essentially redefined the genre, although I'd argue the gritty take on comic book adaptations was first done earlier by Norrington and Goyer with Blade) allowed him to take it even further with The Dark Knight (an inferior film, but still better than most contemporary movies) which ultimately gave him the ability to write his own checks, with the result being Inception - truly creative and original film.

The unfortunate thing is that so far Nolan has been the only one to have done this. The nature of the industry is that it's built on copycat-ing, so when Batman Begins hit it big the push was on for everything to be reimagined throughthat same 'dark and gritty' filter, and maybe that stifled creativity a bit. Although The Avengers wasn't technically a remake or reboot, the cash it raked in will probably allow Joss Whedon to take the Nolan route to more creative, original films (if he so desires). Of course, now the studios will want every new film to emulate The Avengers in tone...

Oh, and I think this version of Spider-Man looks superior to Raimi's so I'll be heading along to see it!

 

[TomS]

My first thought is to leave a good many years between. Get a fresh audience with the inevitable new set of valued desires. Not like that will ever happen. Some movies are supposedly untouchable. I don't believe that but I'm the odd mad out on that.