Disappointed that Abrams' Star Trek wasn't a "total" reboot?
- Thread starter finnobrit
- Start date
No. I HATE reboots.
Reboots suck and just popular cause no one's original or knows how to write stuff for pre existing stuff.
Example: Addams Family, I love the old tv series, but I am not too thrilled about the 2 1990's films and the series they made about 10 years ago. They just did not have that quality the original had.
Instead of reboots, make an all new series and stories, not remaking existing stuff.
Plus reboots pretty much tell the original and current fans to go piss off.
Reboots suck and just popular cause no one's original or knows how to write stuff for pre existing stuff.
Example: Addams Family, I love the old tv series, but I am not too thrilled about the 2 1990's films and the series they made about 10 years ago. They just did not have that quality the original had.
Instead of reboots, make an all new series and stories, not remaking existing stuff.
Plus reboots pretty much tell the original and current fans to go piss off.
I've never felt that way, not with "Superman: The Movie", nor the 1989 "Batman" (what, no Adam West cameo?), nor "Batman Begins".
Haven't seen the new "V" yet, but I'm intrigued to catch it.
Because they thought doing it this way was considerably more awesome.
IMHO, they were entirely right. Unquestionably, however, doing it this way absolutely created the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people -- which is a good way to measure "good creative decision" (and also "total box office projection").
Agreed.
Well there comes a time when either you say goodbye to Sherlock Homes, King Arthur, James Bond, Peter Parker, Bruce Wayne and Captain Kirk, or you recast and retell.
Bond cant live forever. He dies at some point. Then you make a decision. Should we recast with younger and start afresh, in which case you have the opportunity to reboot and retell or leave the character alone forever and say he died and thats it.
Of course it will be the former. The character will be racast. But rather than just restage the same plays and movies with the same scripts and the same stories, why not think anew and reimagine the character somewhat? I dont see the problem with that. You can say that they should keep the same continuity even while making new stories within it. Thats fair enough, but I dont see any issue with rebooting the continuity as well.
Bond cant live forever. He dies at some point. Then you make a decision. Should we recast with younger and start afresh, in which case you have the opportunity to reboot and retell or leave the character alone forever and say he died and thats it.
Of course it will be the former. The character will be racast. But rather than just restage the same plays and movies with the same scripts and the same stories, why not think anew and reimagine the character somewhat? I dont see the problem with that. You can say that they should keep the same continuity even while making new stories within it. Thats fair enough, but I dont see any issue with rebooting the continuity as well.
Why would James Bond ever die? After forty years of Mr. Bond entirely failing to age (and indeed apparently aging backwards), I'm surprised he's the example you pick. It's a bit like suggesting that The Doctor will someday have to be -- gasp! -- recast. Quoth the fandom, "Um... yeah?"
If you "reimagine" a character -- the fundamental unit of drama, the source of all conflict -- then aren't you actually imagining a new character and just slapping an old established name on it?
If you "reimagine" a character -- the fundamental unit of drama, the source of all conflict -- then aren't you actually imagining a new character and just slapping an old established name on it?
So your own opinion depends on how well a movie does at the box office?
Thats the point though. The difference with Bond and Kirk is that people are used to Bond being recast. Indeed, characters throughout literature are generally recast and thats never seen as unusual.
The Doctor is a special case as they just built in "regenerations". A great idea as it allows not only new actors but even new takes on the Doctor while keeping with the basic continuity. But with Bond, Batman and Spider Man, they dont even bother with that. They just say its the same guy all along, and you have to pretend his face and age havent magically changed. Even if the origin story is being retold they set it modernly instead of decades ago.
Not necessarily. It depends on how much you change it. Too substantial a change, and at some point you are not talking about the same character anymore. But altering their origins somewhat, tweeking their personality a little or setting it in a different time isnt a problem.
Similar threads
