Reboots

[Cable]

Why is it that every time a new director takes over a Sci-Fi/Comic Book film they feel the need to "reboot" the films. I understand someone wanting to put their mark on a film but why start again? The JJ reboot of Star Trek is a perfect example. Phase II has shown us that you do not need to reboot the series to have a good product as long as you are imaginative, you can work within the strictures of the past, and create a good story.

The reason for this question is I was recently reading where a new director has taken on a new Fantastic Four film and that person will "reboot" the series. It seems to me that a good director could take a franchise either film or TV and continue it embracing what came before not wiping the slate clean. I personally think it is sheer laziness or unwillingness to actually know and understand the series you are recreating. 

Just my two cents. 

[qoSagh]

Even the 4th Spiderman film was like this, as was the "young" X-Men movie. I personally do not understand it and frankly hate that when this is done we spend to much screen time retelling the origin. JJ Trek is a good example. Even if the origin hadn't been changed, really are there that many people who don't know at least the basics of these characters by now?

At least they haven't turned them into comedies like what was done with The Brady Bunch and Starsky & Hutch or made beloved characters into corrupt criminals like S.W.A.T.

Yet there are fans of this kind of action, look at all the people that fall all over themselves about the new Battlestar Galactica, why could they not just write the story they wanted to, with new characters and a new ship name.  THere was no reason to make that series have any relation to the old one, other than someone wanting to "reboot" a franchise.

[eagle219406]

I know what you mean.  It bugs me sometimes too.  I never bothered to watch the 4th Spider-man movie, simply because I just felt it was too soon.  However.  There is one guy on "Fanfiction.net" who has made his own 4th, 5th and 6th movies connected to the first 3.  They are well written and he even had a list of actors he felt should play the parts.  There is an X-men one in there as well.  You should check it out.  HIs name is KiloWhiskeyOscar. 

[evil_genius_180]

You think that's bad?  Warner Brothers already has a Batman reboot in the works for a 2015 release, despite the enormous success of the Christopher Nolan trilogy.  I love the Nolan trilogy and I'll definitely be skipping the next Batman reboot.

A lot of times, I think it's a studio decision.  Remember, choosing a director is usually one of the later steps in the pre-development of something.  In most cases, by the time they choose a director, a script has already been written and approved and the film has some producers and financial backing.  So, somebody earlier in the process than the director has actually chosen to "reboot" something.  In the case of Star Trek, the franchise was practically dead in the water after Nemesis, the firing of Rick Berman and the cancellation of Enterprise.  At least, that's how the studio saw it.  Paramount literally went to JJ Abrams and told him to reboot the franchise to breathe new life into it.

In the case of the Fantastic Four, the first film didn't do well with critics or audiences, despite being a box office success.  Said financial success is likely what warranted a sequel, which wasn't received much better than the first film.  I like both films, but I also never really got into FF comics, so I didn't have any preconceptions when seeing them.  So, since neither movie was positively received despite doing well financially, it's probably Marvel and/or Disney deciding to reboot.

Though, you can't really judge comic movies like you can other movies because this is how comics are done.  Every decade or so, a comic company gets a new set of writers and artists and decides they want to reboot the series their way.  That's how you wind up with several lines for the same character.  Every now and then, DC condenses theirs.  They did it back in the '70s with the "Crisis on Infinite Earths" and again 2 years ago with their "New 52" thing they did.  I don't know if Marvel ever does things like this.

[eagle219406]

You think that's bad?  Warner Brothers already has a Batman reboot in the works for a 2015 release, despite the enormous success of the Christopher Nolan trilogy.  I love the Nolan trilogy and I'll definitely be skipping the next Batman reboot.

A lot of times, I think it's a studio decision.  Remember, choosing a director is usually one of the later steps in the pre-development of something.  In most cases, by the time they choose a director, a script has already been written and approved and the film has some producers and financial backing.  So, somebody earlier in the process than the director has actually chosen to "reboot" something.  In the case of Star Trek, the franchise was practically dead in the water after Nemesis, the firing of Rick Berman and the cancellation of Enterprise.  At least, that's how the studio saw it.  Paramount literally went to JJ Abrams and told him to reboot the franchise to breathe new life into it.

In the case of the Fantastic Four, the first film didn't do well with critics or audiences, despite being a box office success.  Said financial success is likely what warranted a sequel, which wasn't received much better than the first film.  I like both films, but I also never really got into FF comics, so I didn't have any preconceptions when seeing them.  So, since neither movie was positively received despite doing well financially, it's probably Marvel and/or Disney deciding to reboot.

Though, you can't really judge comic movies like you can other movies because this is how comics are done.  Every decade or so, a comic company gets a new set of writers and artists and decides they want to reboot the series their way.  That's how you wind up with several lines for the same character.  Every now and then, DC condenses theirs.  They did it back in the '70s with the "Crisis on Infinite Earths" and again 2 years ago with their "New 52" thing they did.  I don't know if Marvel ever does things like this.

Are you kidding me?  Are you aware of how many comic book movies are despised by fans, for no other reason than they are different from the comics that they read?  Although there are some changes that people aren't complaining about.  Like in at least 3 live action adapations of Superman I've seen, Jonathan Kent died of a heart attack.  I don't know about you, but in every comic I've read, he was alive and well. 

[evil_genius_180]

At no point did I say anything about comic movies being accurate to their comic roots.  I merely said that comic movies being rebooted is reminiscent of how comic books are done.  That's it.  That says nothing about how much "alike" the movies and their parent comics are.

And, in the original Superman comics, both of the Kents died:  http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Kal-L_%28Earth-Two%29  (2nd paragraph)  It really all depends on which comics you're reading.

[HalOfBorg]

People have a story to tell - they want to tell it their way, so they start from the beginning.

And saying "I liked THIS so I won't watch any more new movies" is just silly. What if they new ones are even BETTER? I LOVED Jack Nicholson's Joker  - but they managed to make an even BETTER one!

[qoSagh]

People have a story to tell - they want to tell it their way, so they start from the beginning.

Yes but in the case of a reboot, people have someone else's story to tell and still want to tell it their way. They also go back to the beginning and then go off on a tangent so that the beginning more often than not doesn't even look like the last beginning.

As for Comics not matching movies, remember Thor in Return of The Incredible Hulk?

[evil_genius_180]

And saying "I liked THIS so I won't watch any more new movies" is just silly. What if they new ones are even BETTER? I LOVED Jack Nicholson's Joker  - but they managed to make an even BETTER one!

It's not so much that I don't want to see it because I like the other so well.  What I want to know is why reboot Batman again so quickly after a successful series of films?  Why not let him rest a bit and do some other stuff?  Personally, I'd like to see some of the other superheroes on film.  The Flash, for example.  I've always liked him.  Wonder Woman would be cool.  Those movies have supposedly been in the works for years.  The only reason I can think of to redo Batman would be to tie him in more with the new Superman film coming out and maybe do some other hero films and lead up to a Justice League film, like Marvel did with The Avengers.  Now, that would be cool.

[Mirror]

I agree with many things you all say in here, but I would like to add something. In many cases the reboots are made to fit with a new generation of viewers, a younger generation who preffer more action, more special effects and more blood. Many of those viewers have heard of the old movies (or not) and they see them as something made in the past (the past is not cool for many). So they make reboots of old films and TV series like The Planet of the Apes (which I didn't like the new ending), Starsky & Hutch, Charlie's Angels and others (Star Trek among them). While the ones who remember and loved the old ones (I'm 40yo, by the way) are a public that go less to the cinema (family, work, no work+no money...) there many new people who can afford going to the cinema every weekend, and these reboots are made for them. I'm not defending that, money is money.

Now, reboots like Batman or Spiderman, with cool special effects, just better in the reboots, if the reason is to tie them with more advanced movies (already done or upcoming) I don't understand why they don't simply continue with new stories. They could still do that with better special effects, no need to reboot them.
If the reason is that the new director, or producers, or whoever think that they can just do it better, well, they could prove that with a new script, a new series.

[Anthony]

Marvel did do a full reset some years back.  New York would never be the same.  The Hulk always says, The madder Hulk gets, the Stronger Hulk gets.  Now the Hulk is JUST p**sed OFF!.  30 meg nuke registered from his punch.

[Cable]

I understand what many have said here but I still believe that reboots are an easy out. Some comments about improvements are correct. There are a few reboots where there was improvement over the old or bringing the new setup into the modern age. However, some reboots are simply the director/producer wanting their own stamp on something without actually investing time to see what was good about the old.

However, evil genius has a valid point that by the time the director/producer get involved in the movie the studio had already set the direction and the studio is looking to make money and thinks that if the original made money but the money has gone downhill with sequels why not trying to get back to the original. Also, I think that many movies are driven not necessarily by the quality of the movie but by the star power of the lead. So to the studio if you change the lead actor(s) you need to reintroduce the movie.  I believe that is a fallacy but as a studio executive who's next paycheck depends on how my movie does in the box office I would not want to take that chance.