Reboots?

D

Dave Vicks

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
1,688
Did anyone like these Reboots?

Fahrenheit 451

The Day the Earth Stood Still.
 
I haven't seen Fahrenheit 451, but I didn't think that The Day the Earth Stood still was a bad movie, but it was insignificant compare to the original. I wished that they hadn't tried to make an action movie out of it.

I'm a bit ambivalent toward reboots. On the one hand, they introduce a new audience to a potentially great movie and on the other, they can ruin a great movie. I hated the recent Star Wars reboot, but I am looking forward to seeing what they do with The Last Starfighter.
 
I'm pretty much with Rodders on this.
It seems that too often a reboot is a cash making opportunity and that is where the creativity stopped.
I watched the recent Hellboy reboot and forgot I was watching a reboot, it was so similar in tone and visual. They should have just called it Hellboy 3 and be done with it.
Robocop is another film that springs to mind as a "why did they bother" film. For me it lost a lot of the charm of the original film and only gave us better visuals [and they were nothing special by today's standards]. I liked the SFX in the original. Miniatures, painted mattes and real explosions, and you could barely see the wires most of the time.
 
Not really a fan of reboots, mainly, I think, due to the Star Trek ones. Being a big fan of TOS, I hated what they did to it, especially their insistence on bad science, personal relationships and unbelievable command decisions.
I can see why you would remake a film with a proven success at the box office, but I think you run a very real risk of doing this rather than being adventurous with a new situation/plot/characters based film. And how many rebooted superhero films do you need? (I'm thinking of the Batman/Spiderman franchises here...)
 
I quite enjoyed the ST reboots, BSG was very well done, as was Planet of the Apes, (not the Mark Wahlberg one).

Without sounding like a neanderthal, one of the issues with recent reboots is an agenda to try and unnecessarily diversify. For example, Ghostbusters with a new female cast. Each of the leads are great actors but why redo a much loved movie just to show a female cast? (I have to confess that I haven't seen this version, but everything I read says that it is terrible.)

I'd like to see a reboot of some classic movies, such as Logan's Run or Silent Running.
 
Last edited:
The all-female Ghostbusters isn't a bad film. It is just unnecessary. All the set pieces are good. The special effects excellent [even better on bluray when they stretch out of the letter box and feel like that are really coming for you]. But it doesn't have the kick or liveliness of the first one. I think that if it wasn't tied to the associations of the franchise, it would have been more warmly accepted.
 
Some reboots are good, some not so good. There are also those which are that good that many assume to be the 'original' when in fact there was an earlier version.

But they are never made with the sole purpose of improving upon the original, it's always about making money.
 
I could really go for a reboot of 80s swords'n'sorcery romp The Beastmaster. I must have been extra impressionable when that came out because for what is - let's be honest - a fairly shonky film, an awful lot of it seems to have stuck in my mind. I think it is that sort of thing, that era, along with Krull, Red Sonja, Flash Gordon (the film), and of course stuff like Star Wars that made me love SFF. When I watched The Witcher, I had all those same feelings. It was like televisual summer.

Just realised there's followup, a TV series, the whole bit.
 
CupofJoe said:
The all-female Ghostbusters isn't a bad film. It is just unnecessary. All the set pieces are good. The special effects excellent [even better on bluray when they stretch out of the letter box and feel like that are really coming for you]. But it doesn't have the kick or liveliness of the first one. I think that if it wasn't tied to the associations of the franchise, it would have been more warmly accepted.
Click to expand...

The best thing about the original was that it was incredibly funny. The reboot simply isn't.
 
Rodders said:
I quite enjoyed the ST reboots, BSG was very well done, as was Planet of the Apes, (not the Mark Wahlberg one).

Without sounding like a neanderthal, one of the issues with recent reboots is an agenda to try and unnecessarily diversify. For example, Ghostbusters with a new female cast. Each of the leads are great actors but why redo a much loved movie just to show a female cast? (I have to confess that I haven't seen this version, but everything I read says that it is terrible.)

I'd like to see a reboot of some classic movies, such as Logan's Run or Silent Running.
Click to expand...

Yes, the reboot of BSG was far superior to the original. Some great actors and great effects tied to an interesting storyline. The ST reboots are not as good as the original movies, as they tend to focus more on the action than the characterisation (which is what made the original so great). But the way they created an alternate timeline was very well done, and made for some interesting twists from familiar scenarios.
 
The recent The Day the Earth Stood Still didn't impress me that much, but Klaatu's relationship with the kid was pretty poignant. The first version worked better, I think, because it was a way of spitting on the red-baiting of that era, and had more clout due to Russian-American political tension.
 
Could someone explain the difference between 'Reboot' and 'Remake'? :unsure:

Because from where I sit there is no difference, other than a marketing term to make it sound like there's something special with the new film, although what that 'something special' is is somewhat indefinable.

To me, a reboot is simply turning it off then on again. :)
 
M. Robert Gibson said:
Could someone explain the difference between 'Reboot' and 'Remake'? :unsure:

Because from where I sit there is no difference, other than a marketing term to make it sound like there's something special with the new film, although what that 'something special' is is somewhat indefinable.

To me, a reboot is simply turning it off then on again. :)
Click to expand...


My understanding is that a reboot tells a similar story with a twist, whereas a remake tells the original story - but - better. So I see the new Star Treks as reboots whereas Cape Fear was a remake.
 
Dave Vicks said:
Did anyone here like the Original THE THING?
Howard Hawkes version.
Click to expand...
Loved it! Far better and very different from any of the following films with the same name. The follow ons go for the horror and the original is a sly black comedy for me.
 
The original Thing is something that I have been meaning to watch for some time. I should pick up the book as well.
 
Well I didn't know that... There are two versions of the short story/novella Who Goes There? that was adapted into The Thing from Another World. In themselves, they are version of a novel Frozen Hell that was recently discovered and published last year...
 
I have not seen the reboot of Fahrenheit 451

The 2008 make of The Day Earth Stood Still was not a a great film at all.
 
The 1958 version of The Fly is a pretty good Science fiction film . The 1986 remake done by David Cronenberg is vastly superior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B What Do You Think of Reboots and Remakes ? General Film Discussion 96
S EA reboots Syndicate with Starbreeze Studios Game Discussions 0
alchemist Reboots -- are you sick of them? General Film Discussion 23

Similar threads


Back
Top