Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Really fed up with reboots


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 25-07-2014, 19:22
mialicious
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 2,958
The Ape movies are requels then, like terminator salvation..im now going to copywright the term requel© you heard it here first!
mialicious is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 25-07-2014, 19:48
Danger Close
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Manchester
Posts: 2,283
Whoa! I think you should do some research before posting.

Firstly, 2009 was the first time the Star Trek movies had been rebooted. Considering ST: MO aired in 1979, I'd say one reboot in the space of 30 years isn't that bad. Plus, as others have pointed out, it's technically not a reboot as Spock Prime remembers the old universe.

Secondly, Apes is a prequel, not a reboot. Just they may overwrite some of the later movies, but the plan is for the third one to lead into the original.

Thirdly, Star Wars is not a reboot of any shape or form (the clue's in the name, Episode VII)

Finally, there do tend to be new and original movies, they just don't seem to gain much traction or they're just plain rubbish (Transcended & Elysium come to mind)

That being said, 2 of the best films I saw in 2012 were originals. Django Unchained and Looper.
Isn't Django Unchained part of the Django franchise in some way. At least I thought so. That's why Franco Nero (originally played Django) was cast in it as a nod to the old movies.
Danger Close is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2014, 20:21
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,227
Isn't Django Unchained part of the Django franchise in some way. At least I thought so. That's why Franco Nero (originally played Django) was cast in it as a nod to the old movies.
Not officially, but Tarantino has loosely invented a connection...

Django Freeman (from DU) is Django's great grandchild or something...
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2014, 15:08
Matt D
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 11,306
Regarding Star Trek:


I don't see how Spock Prime being present and having memories of the Prime Universe means it's not a reboot.

The first new film re-started the franchise, with new actors playing the original characters and having new adventures based on the old, all in a new continuity >>> reboot.


Also... Depending upon which time travel rules you accept (Star Trek was rather inconsistent), it could also be argued that the events of Star Trek 2009 erase *everything* that happened before, except for Star Trek Enterprise, regardless of Spock Prime's memories.

e.g. Time travel as per First Contact does not create a separate & parallel timeline/universe but instead creates a replacement timeline.
Matt D is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2014, 15:31
RebelScum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 9,179
Regarding Star Trek:

I don't see how Spock Prime being present and having memories of the Prime Universe means it's not a reboot.

The first new film re-started the franchise, with new actors playing the original characters and having new adventures based on the old, all in a new continuity >>> reboot.
The creation of the new timeline is a direct consequence of events which occurred in the original timeline. It's part of an ongoing narrative. Old Spock's presence in the new timeline is merely a reminder of that. But generally, it is regarded by the mainstream audience as a reboot, so feel free to think of it as that if you like. It's more of a spin off than a reboot.

Also... Depending upon which time travel rules you accept (Star Trek was rather inconsistent), it could also be argued that the events of Star Trek 2009 erase *everything* that happened before, except for Star Trek Enterprise, regardless of Spock Prime's memories.

e.g. Time travel as per First Contact does not create a separate & parallel timeline/universe but instead creates a replacement timeline.
This is Star Trek. It's not about which rule you accept. Star Trek uses them all. The rules each temporal event follows is determined by the particular properties of whatever mechanism is used for that event. i.e. one temporal disturbance in one area of space may of follow one set of rules, and another one may follow another set of rules. It's convenient, and inconsistent, but that's Star Trek. IDIC. As far as this particular event, it's been confirmed a new timeline has been created which runs parallel to the Primeline. Just another Mirror Universe essentially.
RebelScum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2014, 15:49
Takae
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,301
Isn't Django Unchained part of the Django franchise in some way. At least I thought so. That's why Franco Nero (originally played Django) was cast in it as a nod to the old movies.
Yes and no. Tarantino said writer-director Sergio Corbucci and his films including Django were the inspiration of his film. Quelle surprise.
Takae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2014, 23:34
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 3,992
There are statistically more original films released each year than ever before. Yes, there are more reboots and remakes but that's a given seeing as there are more films.
You may want to consider what gets watched along with what gets made though.

What is your definition of 'more creativity and completely new'? Which recent film would you give as a good example?
Under the Skin, Waltz with Bashir, Persepolis, Another Earth, Her, District 9, Drive....let's have more of these types of movies.

Frozen isn't completely new. It's based on the Hans Christian Anderson story The Snow Queen. Great film, but not entirely original.
It's not a reboot of another movie though.

Has anyone involved in the new series actually stated that the 1968 film is part of the canon? Or is it just your interpretation?

Even if the new series does incorporate the 1968 film, the fact remains that it reboots the origin story from the last three films in the original series. This would place it alongside Halloween: H20 and Superman Returns as a film which deliberately overwrites the less successful entries in the series. I call this "Reboot to last stable configuration."
None of the 'Apes' movies will ever make the impact of the first one.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2014, 13:52
yaristaman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 653
Has anyone involved in the new series actually stated that the 1968 film is part of the canon? Or is it just your interpretation?

Even if the new series does incorporate the 1968 film, the fact remains that it reboots the origin story from the last three films in the original series. This would place it alongside Halloween: H20 and Superman Returns as a film which deliberately overwrites the less successful entries in the series. I call this "Reboot to last stable configuration."
Slightly off topic - Actually H20 was supposed to have a scene included that referenced the events of Halloween 4-6 but it was left on the cutting room floor.
yaristaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2014, 13:53
yaristaman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 653
You may want to consider what gets watched along with what gets made though.



Under the Skin, Waltz with Bashir, Persepolis, Another Earth, Her, District 9, Drive....let's have more of these types of movies.



It's not a reboot of another movie though.



None of the 'Apes' movies will ever make the impact of the first one.
Personally, I find the more recent ones better than the original
yaristaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2014, 13:55
yaristaman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 653
[quote=Fowl Fax;73902383]Planet of the Apes 2001 was a reboot and Rise of the Planet of the Apes is another reboot.

There are 3 different Planet of the Ape universes that are totally different to one another, they all inevitably lead to apes taking over but in their own different way.

Some may argue that Planet of the Apes 2001 was a remake or a re-imagined version of the original 1968 movie.[/QUOTE]

It was more an adaptation of the same book rather than a remake of the 1968 film
yaristaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2014, 19:46
revolver44
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Armenia, City In The Sky
Posts: 18,639
Reboots are ok if they warrant their existence, say for example if the originals are badly dated. But to reboot Mad Max is just, well, "mad".
revolver44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2014, 13:49
be more pacific
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,206
Reboots are ok if they warrant their existence, say for example if the originals are badly dated. But to reboot Mad Max is just, well, "mad".
Mad Max isn't being rebooted. Fury Road is the fourth film in the series, following on from Beyond Thunderdome.

In some cases, reboots are a legal necessity if a studio wants to retain the rights to a property. For example, Sony had to put out a new Spider-Man film or else the rights would have reverted to Marvel/Disney.
be more pacific is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2014, 16:03
revolver44
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Armenia, City In The Sky
Posts: 18,639
Mad Max isn't being rebooted. Fury Road is the fourth film in the series, following on from Beyond Thunderdome.

In some cases, reboots are a legal necessity if a studio wants to retain the rights to a property. For example, Sony had to put out a new Spider-Man film or else the rights would have reverted to Marvel/Disney.
I hear what you're saying but let's be honest here, if there's no Mel it ain't "number four"
revolver44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2014, 17:06
Takae
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,301
I hear what you're saying but let's be honest here, if there's no Mel it ain't "number four"
Won't matter because many from the younger generation don't know him. My kids only know him as 'the crazy old man'. They didn't recognise 'the crazy old man' in Mad Max and Gallipoli, which I still find bizarre. I thought he looked distinctive enough to be recognisable at any age but clearly, I was wrong.

With this in mind, I think they will accept Hardy and this continuation of the series with ease.
Takae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2014, 18:28
Tal'shiar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,635
I'm getting so fed up and annoyed with all these reboots. Star Trek, Planet of the Apes, Star Wars, Mad Max. Why ruin a good series

Mad Max: Fury Road should continue with the story after Beyond Thunderdome.
Star Trek reboots were a big **** you to the trekkies, but otherwise they made some good money.

Planet of the Rise of the Fall of the Reboot of the Remaster of the 3D Remake have all been pretty meh, but again made a fair few pennies and were very cheap to make and easy.

Star Wars isnt being remade, its carrying on. 4,5,6 were considered the best (jedi was wank inmo, empire is best), then 1,2,3 was a massive, arse breaking **** you to the human race. I often wonder if that agonisingly shit fight scene at the end of the 3rd with bland vader and bland trainspotter was a big **** you for never accepting Jar Jar.

Money is a good factor, its easy to simply copy an idea that is already their and say its a "homage", than to come up with something yourself. Its actually never really changed and its nothing new, the only difference is back in the 90s backwards they never even bothered to secure the naming rights so it would just be a rip off with a somewhat similar name.

Their must be about 200 "remakes" of Friday the 13th that came out in the 80s and early 90s and none had any official linking to the original but they were clearly copies. Think its just easier now to secure the rights.
Tal'shiar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2014, 22:28
revolver44
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Armenia, City In The Sky
Posts: 18,639
Won't matter because many from the younger generation don't know him. My kids only know him as 'the crazy old man'. They didn't recognise 'the crazy old man' in Mad Max and Gallipoli, which I still find bizarre. I thought he looked distinctive enough to be recognisable at any age but clearly, I was wrong.

With this in mind, I think they will accept Hardy and this continuation of the series with ease.
Shame he couldn't just make a cameo at least. Hand over the baton so to speak. Who is Tom Hardy's character meant to be anyway? If it's not a re-boot why is it called Mad MAX when "Max" isn't in it? Or is Hardy just another guy who happens to be called Max & is a suicidal, hard driving drifter?
revolver44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2014, 22:33
Johnny Clay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,910
Star Trek reboots were a big **** you to the trekkies, but otherwise they made some good money.
They hardly set the world alight. Neither reached $500m, and a lot was expected of Into Darkness.

If Paramount want Trek as a true, top-tier franchise they'll have to do better.
Johnny Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2014, 22:42
be more pacific
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,206
Shame he couldn't just make a cameo at least. Hand over the baton so to speak. Who is Tom Hardy's character meant to be anyway? If it's not a re-boot why is it called Mad MAX when "Max" isn't in it? Or is Hardy just another guy who happens to be called Max & is a suicidal, hard driving drifter?
Tom Hardy is playing Mad Max Rockatansky.

Are you somehow unfamiliar with the practice of recasting a part with a new actor? It's almost as old as the acting profession itself.

To be fair, I'd much rather watch Tom Hardy. Mel's "crazy guy" routine just seems a bit disturbing now that we know he's a racist misogynist who actually goes "nuts" in real life on a regular basis.
be more pacific is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-07-2014, 11:48
revolver44
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Armenia, City In The Sky
Posts: 18,639
Tom Hardy is playing Mad Max Rockatansky.

Are you somehow unfamiliar with the practice of recasting a part with a new actor? It's almost as old as the acting profession itself.

To be fair, I'd much rather watch Tom Hardy. Mel's "crazy guy" routine just seems a bit disturbing now that we know he's a racist misogynist who actually goes "nuts" in real life on a regular basis.
It still doesn't make any sense as a sequel. In the original trilogy by the time we get to Thunderdome Max is middle aged and greying. There's no petrol left in the country which is why he's riding a truck pulled by camels in the opening shots. Suddenly we see a trailer for part four where Max has become a 30 something again and people are driving cars left right and centre. So let's be honest here, it's a reboot.
And yes, I am familiar with the recasting of parts with new actors, thanks.
revolver44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-07-2014, 13:10
mialicious
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 2,958
It still doesn't make any sense as a sequel. In the original trilogy by the time we get to Thunderdome Max is middle aged and greying. There's no petrol left in the country which is why he's riding a truck pulled by camels in the opening shots. Suddenly we see a trailer for part four where Max has become a 30 something again and people are driving cars left right and centre. So let's be honest here, it's a reboot.
And yes, I am familiar with the recasting of parts with new actors, thanks.
Its set after the road warrior.
IMO a Reboot means they are going back to the start and updating what has gone before like retelling his origin again, that dosnt appear to be happening.
mialicious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-07-2014, 14:00
tombigbee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 3,488
Some reboots I do find unnecessary. Spiderman immediately jumps to mind. I watched The Amazing Spiderman thinking was this really bringing anything new to the table.

On the other hand, we get reboots like Nolan's Batman trilogy which are some of the best films ever made IMHO so it's swings and roundabouts.

If they reboot a film a few years from the original then it does seem pointless. If it's twenty/thirty years later then they could benefit from advances in technology and a fresh perspective.
tombigbee is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 31-07-2014, 14:17
NPW
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 63
I have no problem with reboots as such, books have been rehashing the same 7/8 stories in different formats for centuries. My issue is that a 'reboot' is identical to the orginal (spiderman/amazing spiderman springs to mind). remake a film, modernise it..great but if TPTB choose to do that they need to add something, do soemthing to make it better, to make t different.


i have really enjoyed the x-men reboot, i like the star trek films but they go down the vein of repetition and blantant copying i will switch off.
NPW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-07-2014, 16:51
Danger Close
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Manchester
Posts: 2,283
I have no problem with reboots as such, books have been rehashing the same 7/8 stories in different formats for centuries. My issue is that a 'reboot' is identical to the orginal (spiderman/amazing spiderman springs to mind). remake a film, modernise it..great but if TPTB choose to do that they need to add something, do soemthing to make it better, to make t different.


i have really enjoyed the x-men reboot, i like the star trek films but they go down the vein of repetition and blantant copying i will switch off.
I assume you're talking about First Class. Not a reboot. A prequel.
Danger Close is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-07-2014, 18:32
be more pacific
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,206
I assume you're talking about First Class. Not a reboot. A prequel.
Although a lot of people assumed (incorrectly) that First Class was a reboot due to the amount of continuity errors with the other films.

I haven't seen Days of Future Past yet. Are any of the inconsistencies cleared-up with a timey-wimey explanation?
be more pacific is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-07-2014, 18:36
Matt D
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 11,306
Nope - DOFP does not fix the continuity problems introduced by First Class, and actually introduces more of its own.

I think the only parts of the original trilogy (and side films) that can still be considered canon are those not contradicted by FC/DOFP.



Personally, I consider those two X-Men films to be reboots due to all the continuity changes plus the new/young cast.
Matt D is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:28.