Replies

It makes one wonder... when Hollywood will discovery the fool's errand they journey down?

Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids... as wasting millions and millions on liberal agenda BS flicks is for Hollywood--

Gadzooks, didn't I just say that... on another thread?

Gee, Bendy... It must be déjà vu all over again!

Let us start over here:

Re: Gee, what reboot will Chris Pine star in next

Well, he sure as hell ain't playing me... in Futurama: The Re-bot Re-boot

No, I am... and it is about time for my comeback!

http://www.green-leads.com/Portals/53598/images//yogi-berra.jpg & http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/2455483/robby-the-robot-o.gif

>> When Hollywood uses the term reboot, it means that they have no real ideas, so what they do is buy the rights to the name of the main character and use it for some trite, clichéd screenplay. <<

Most "reboots" have been crap, though there are a few exceptions to the rule (Rise of the Planet of the Apes was better than any of the 70s sequels and miles better than Tim Burton's 2001 remake, and Casino Royale was a damn good Bond movie IN SPITE OF Daniel Craig cast as Bond. He didn't deserve a script that good. If Timothy Dalton had filmed it back in '87, it would have been the best Bond movie ever. Oh well.)

Sometimes a movie franchise becomes so convoluted and paints itself into a corner that a reboot is necessary. A great example is the 1984 Graystroke movie returning to Edgar Rice Burroughs's source material for inspiration after decades of campy "Me Tarzan, You Jane" movies. (I'm surprised it didn't lead to a series of new Tarzan movies that actually followed the book)

The real problem now is Hollywood's 21st century fetish for "Rebooting" franchises CONSTANTLY, whether the film series needs it or not. Nolan started this trend by reviving Batman after Batman & Robin had ruined the franchise, but now its gotten out of hand. They really nuked the fridge when they decided to "reboot" Spider-Man and tell us his "origin story" again after they had already done so only a decade earlier. That was a completely unnecessary rehash. Hollywood used to go DECADES before "rebooting" a film franchise (if you had a crappy sequel no one liked, you'd just ignore it and follow it up with a good sequel that went in a different direction). "Rebooting" is the lazy way out, and it erases years of character and story development in a franchise that gave them depth in the first place. The unfortunate thing is audiences seem to love Hollywood retelling the same story over and over again. X-Men has been wise enough to buck the trend and find ways to do new things with its franchise (which is great, Hugh Jackman was born to play Wolverine and I can't imagine any "retelling" with a new actor that would improve on it), but some people are whining that they need to "REBOOOOOOOOOOOOT!" X-Men. Do modern movie audiences all have ADHD or something?

The Hollywood buzzword that REALLY is a red flag that audiences should stay away in droves is "re-imagining". The godawful Pink Panther remake with Steve Martin was a "re-imagining". So was Burton's ill-advised 2001 remake of Planet of the Apes (which the 2011 film thankfully "rebooted"). "Re-imagining" seems to be a Hollywood code word for "we replaced anything that made the original good with fake CGI, toilet humor, and politically correct crap". I have heard the "re-imagining" of Battlestar Galatica is good, but I haven't seen either version of the series so I can't judge. If it is, then it would be the FIRST "re-imagining" in history that's a decent "new take" on a franchise.

>> I had hopes for Rainbow Six and Without Remorse as film adaptations >> decided I was happy with the books after seeing what happened when The Sum of All Fears was adapted for the big screen. <<

Ditto. I had already decided to skip seeing the new Jack Ryan movie in theaters when I found out it would not be based on any of Tom Clancy's books. That was a bad sign from the start. I may still see it on video, though if this "reboot" gets horrible reviews, forget it. What's really annoying is Hollywood's arrogance that all their "reboots" automatically deserve a sequel, whether they're good or not. Chris Pine signed a contract up front for three Jack Ryan movies. The only way Hollywood won't make these movies is if they lose money.

And yes, I might be one of the few people who remembers the last "reboot" with Ben Affleck replacing Harrison Ford. That movie failed (again, too much political correctness-- gotta replace the Muslim terrorists from the book with "North Koreans" so they wouldn't "offend" anyone). It's funny all the Man of Steel fanboys have "high hopes" for the "sequel" because Ben Affleck is playing Batman. Given his past track record, I'd be anything but optimistic. The Superman "reboot" was an godawful remake of Superman II, and ideally the "sequel" will be aborted before the film hits theaters. C'mon Hollywood, you love abortion, so how about aborting some of your constant stream of reboots, remakes, reimagingings, and sequels?