Let's Retire the Reboot

Let's Retire the Reboot

Hollywood is rebooting brand-new franchises. Why don't they take a crack at something that hasn't yet been made?

Read Full Article

Mark Ruffalo isn't playing another rebooted version of the Hulk. He's supposed to be the same as the one from 2008s Incredible Hulk, its just a different actor.
A better comparison would have been the Eric Bana and Edward Norton Hulks

Pallindromemordnillap:
Mark Ruffalo isn't playing another rebooted version of the Hulk. He's supposed to be the same as the one from 2008s Incredible Hulk, its just a different actor.
A better comparison would have been the Eric Bana and Edward Norton Hulks

Agreed. Plus it isn't like they are rebooting the Hulk franchise with another movie they are just using the character in an avengers movie.

Where did you hear that Dr Strange and Wonder Woman are coming out? I know that Wonder Woman is looking to become a TV series in 2012/2013 but not a movie. Dr. Strange is in the same limbo as Ant-man and runways, endless preproduction.

I think that both Marvel and DC are already working on having new ideas, You look at what marvel has done in the last five years: Iron Man, Thor, Green Lantern, and the Avengers have had or will have their first movies. As well as quality reboots of Batman, Hulk and soon Captain America. They will continue to make new products as they go through their character rosters. Joe Q of Marvel has said that they have had round table discussions on every character they can think of and how they can use them for movies and TV.

I think the reboot problem really is coming from the studios that own the rights to certain characters and the comic companies are not willing to sell them any more. So what the studios do is reboot Spider-man, X-men and the Fantastic four trying to squeeze out more profit on what they have.

I can understand the desire to reboot Superman after the last film, he is the most recognisable comic character in the world so they want to make him work. Generally, DC have been terrible at getting their characters to the cinema. Superman spent years in pre-production Hell before the last film, God knows what's happening with Wonder Woman from one year to the next and the Flash has been going at a snail's pace. I still find it hard to believe that Green Lantern is coming out next year.

Ben Gepfrey:

I think that both Marvel and DC are already working on having new ideas, You look at what marvel has done in the last five years: Iron Man, Thor, Green Lantern, and the Avengers have had or will have their first movies. As well as quality reboots of Batman, Hulk and soon Captain America. They will continue to make new products as they go through their character rosters. Joe Q of Marvel has said that they have had round table discussions on every character they can think of and how they can use them for movies and TV.

If I've misunderstood you, then I apologise, but Green Lantern and Batman are both DC characters, not Marvel.

ELFQUEST!

I have wanted to see that in film for more than 2 decades. I don't care if they do it LoTR style live action or Animated, but i would love to see it come to life.

It stands as both an epic fantasy story about exploration, discovery, and war; and at the same time is a very personal story about Love, hate, loss, and what home means. With the kind of rich and developed characters that continued to grow and evolve over time it could easily be turned into a multi film saga 'ala LoTR or the Harry Potter films.

Funny. Every time I've imagined a Bone movie, I cringe because I always think of it with 3D CGI. But after reading this, I realized that a Bone movie, done like Persepolis, with a lot of the original artwork and good voice actors, could be really good.

Although Hollywood will probably make it suck.

Except that in the comic, Tony Stark was a playboy alcoholic. it was one of Marvels first tip toes across the comics code. /rant
as for murdering reboots, I am all for it.some things I would not mind seeing rebooted, because of how badly they jacked it up the first time around.

Zatanna! She is, in my humble opinion, the most underrated comic book character ever. Make the movie and make sure you cast somebody with a lot of charisma, not just who looks good.

DC lagging beings? Hello BATMAN! The critically acclaimed franchise, you know the one that has makes megabux but isn't just a cash in? And Richard Donner's Superman basically started the whole damn genre.

But yeah yer right the whole reboot thing is really overdone.

And though I know it is blasphemy Star Wars could REALLY use a Lucas-free reboot but I doubt that could happen before he was dead.

Then again, her powers are limited to magic. Little, if anything, is beyond the scope of Zee's powers. Make anything happen by commanding it backwards? Okay. Can't speak? Well, just cast a spell in your own blood. Crap, Batman's memory needs to be erased? Why the hell not?

I think that this in a nutshell is the character's greatest weakness and why she isn't suited to making a movie. When a character can do anything, when they have no real limitations, they quickly become boring in all but the most capable hands (and no offense, but I don't see a character like Zatanna in the hands of A-list directors and writers, and even they'd have an uphill battle.)

The very fact that Zatanna so frequently ends up as a deus ex machina for more restrained characters highlights why I don't want to see her as a lead.

"Reboot" has become the writer's panacea for "lack of ideas". I'm tired of it too.

Come to think of it, you know what could use a reboot? Reboot.

Now that would be a CGI experience worth seeing. (Even if only to laugh at.)

I thought this was going to be about actual original content, rather than just film adaptations of existing stuff.

And I really have to wonder about the 2013 Aquaman. Giant Entourage-based IMDB troll, I think.

Am I the only person in the world that liked Superman Returns??

You know why Hollywood keeps rebooting these franchises? Because they keep screwing up and wanting to start over. The new Spider-Man film is being made because Spiderman 3 was a disaster that couldn't be followed up. The recent Hulk movie was made because the previous one was a disaster that couldn't be followed up. And so on.

If anything, I'd see this as proof that Hollywood can't be trusted not to make train wrecks out of comic book franchises and shouldn't be allowed to touch them anymore. Especially the ones like Bone that form self-contained stories and can't just be rebooted if they turn out badly.

Not that I wouldn't want to see a traditionally-animated Bone movie. I mean, if there's anyone out there who'd be willing to put together a 2D animation studio at this point, that's automatically a point in their favor as far as trusting them to do it right.

As for a Marvel Franchise, I have two words made of win and gold:

Luke Cage.

Hell, ANY of the Marvel Knights. But most especially Luke Cage.

No, the real reason why any movie franchise is rebooted can come down to one word. Actually, a symbol- $. They know the original made money. They can redo the whole damn thing without having to hope a new idea won't flop. People already know and are interested in Batman, Spiderman, the Hulk and Superman. So, they'll do reboots in hopes of finding one that will make them Mega $$$$.

But the problem is that the people are jaded from too many reboots. Reboot fatigue has set in. Keep in mind, your ideas for original movies using the characters you've recommended are great. But too many of them are not iconic characters. I mean, very few people, outside of comics, have heard of any of them, and that means you are starting to sell your movie to a niche crowd to begin with. Personally, I hold out for Patsy Walker, who started out as a model in 50's girl comics, ended up marrying a millionaire industrialist, divorced him, found out he was doing wrong from the Avengers and put on a costume formerly owned by a hero named the Cat, and became a superheroine.

She ended up getting real powers of her own, joined the Defenders and ended up the bride of Daimon Hellstrom. But that whole story is entirely too scattered to make a single movie out of.

Catwoman could work as a reboot, but only if we burn every damn copy of that Hellaciously bad Halle Berry flick with the same name. I'd like to see her done by someone like Roxanne Dawson, but younger. A more 50's style Selina Kyle as a true cat burglar. Meeee-ow.

If everyone is giving their recommendations for a fresh comic book movie, I would like to recommend two Garth Ennis series for consideration.

Firstly, Preacher. It will generate enormous amounts of controversy, which is free publicity. Also, it would be full of fighting and fucking, and guess what sells?

Secondly, Hitman. Not as much controversy, but still full of fighting and fucking. Also, there is X-Ray vision from a guy with no morals regarding taking a peek.

Frank Miller's Ronin would also be a great movie if given proper justice... Or perhaps the movie format would be too confined, and it requires some sort of miniseries?

There's tons of material and possible franchises in both the DC and the Marvel universes.
More importantly, there's loads of lesser known characters that doesn't need some 100+ million special effects extravaganza.

Prime example (from comicsalliance.com's Chris Sims):
DC's Wild Dog. He fought terrorists in Iowa.

omega247:
Am I the only person in the world that liked Superman Returns??

I think so.

I think part of why there's so much rebooting going on right now is that it's cheaper. I know at least Disney has a freeze on purchasing new intellectual properties, hence why we're seeing things like Return to Witch Mountain and Tron Legacy getting carted out.

But I do hope the trend ends soon.

I heard that a while back, Nickelodeon was going to make a Bone movie, but with child actors on the voices and a soundtrack of Britney Spears and whatnot. Very, very fortunately, it never got off the ground; if you're going to do a Bone movie, do it well. It's a fantastic, epic saga, and any film version needs to do it justice. (Apologies if I come off sounding like a brain-dead fanboy, which I am not.)

One word expresses both my distaste and awe of the treatment of comics in film: Transmetropolitan.

If they ever make it into a movie, that's when I'll know people don't care anymore and just want cheap thrills rather than fully formed concepts. It's also when I'll know the studio system has started actively trying to piss people off just to make a quick buck.

I found out this morning that "Timecrimes" is getting remade. Why would they want to remake that!? It's not as if they can make it better.

Even "Let Me In" (with absolutley no changes to the original film) wasn't better in any way.

bojac6:
Zatanna! She is, in my humble opinion, the most underrated comic book character ever. Make the movie and make sure you cast somebody with a lot of charisma, not just who looks good.

Zatanna movie starring Anne Hathaway. Do it Hollywood

Optimystic:

bojac6:
Zatanna! She is, in my humble opinion, the most underrated comic book character ever. Make the movie and make sure you cast somebody with a lot of charisma, not just who looks good.

Zatanna movie starring Anne Hathaway. Do it Hollywood

You, sir, are a visionary. You are also an evil, evil man. Planting that idea in my head, full in the knowledge of how unlikely that movie is to be made. Knowing that I will spend the rest of my life disappointed in everything, because this movie does not exist. But I can hope.

Marketers trump creative license.
No matter how profitable something might seem, it will always have to be carved up and beaten with the Generic Stick until it's fit for more audiences.

If that means removing distinctive character traits and writing cliche plot lines, then so be it.
Of course, there have been a few truly great examples of how to do a comic justice in film-form. But those are still outweighed by the generic market-pandering drivel.
I do believe Marvel's current strategy is to out-maneuver DC in movies before the next Batman film takes over again.

Jaded Scribe:
I think part of why there's so much rebooting going on right now is that it's cheaper. I know at least Disney has a freeze on purchasing new intellectual properties, hence why we're seeing things like Return to Witch Mountain and Tron Legacy getting carted out.

That doesn't even make sense, Disney already owns a shitload of decent IPs, why the fuck do they faff about with remakes and bloody funfair rides?
Marvel is a Disney subsidiary ffs! They could crank out dozens of movies based on comic book characters year each without spending a dime on licenses.

ciancon:
I found out this morning that "Timecrimes" is getting remade. Why would they want to remake that!? It's not as if they can make it better.

Even "Let Me In" (with absolutley no changes to the original film) wasn't better in any way.

Swedish films have been popular in Hoolywood lately, with "Let Me in" and the Millenium-trilogy being recent examples. Hell, the decision to remake "Snabba Cash" ("Easy Money") came before the film even was finished running on Swedish cinemas.

Guest_Star:

Jaded Scribe:
I think part of why there's so much rebooting going on right now is that it's cheaper. I know at least Disney has a freeze on purchasing new intellectual properties, hence why we're seeing things like Return to Witch Mountain and Tron Legacy getting carted out.

That doesn't even make sense, Disney already owns a shitload of decent IPs, why the fuck do they faff about with remakes and bloody funfair rides?
Marvel is a Disney subsidiary ffs! They could crank out dozens of movies based on comic book characters year each without spending a dime on licenses.

I believe Marvel retains a lot of control over what gets made and what doesn't, and when/where/how.

And I don't know if you've noticed this, but:

Iron Man 3: 2011
Fantastic 4: 2005 & 2007
Spider Man: 2002, 2004, 2007 (Already being rebooted)
The Hulk: 2003, 2008
Daredevil: 2003
The Avengers: 2012

etc, etc, etc.

They are already milking their Marvel franchises as hard as they can.

Jaded Scribe:
I believe Marvel retains a lot of control over what gets made and what doesn't, and when/where/how.

And I don't know if you've noticed this, but:

Iron Man 3: 2011
Fantastic 4: 2005 & 2007
Spider Man: 2002, 2004, 2007 (Already being rebooted)
The Hulk: 2003, 2008
Daredevil: 2003
The Avengers: 2012

etc, etc, etc.

They are already milking their Marvel franchises as hard as they can.

They are milking it all right. So are DC with their golden boys.
But the problem is that they are unwilling to take chances with the lesser known IPs. Thus the remakes, reboots and serials regurgitating the most popular story arcs from the best known comics.

Marvel controls something like a couple of thousand characters. Granted, most of these are minor villains getting their ass handed to them by the Wolverine or something like that, but should be at least a few lesser known ones that would be more interesting to watch than yet another angsty teen bitten by radioactive arachnides.

Actually they did do a Doctor Strange movie, Stan Lee was a consultant too!:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strange_(1978_film)

Apologies for any trauma that causes.

-

At any rate, I tend to think they need to stop trying to reboot franchises myself. I say this not just in the context of movies, but in relation to comic books, TV shows, and similar things. It seems that people have gotten it into their heads that somehow there is money to be made by totally changing a popular, and long-running character or series, in hopes that by setting the reboot with an origin happening "right now" they can increase the fanbase. The point that it's the long history of these characters that is part of the appeal, and it's that mythology that causes them to have as many fans as they do. Sadly, the guys who are calling the shots for some of my favorite properties simply do not get it, and are always chasing the big pile of money they COULD have that might be just over the horizon, rather than being content with what they have, and the money they are making.

Truthfully I think the obsession with origin stories is one of the big problems here, I think that movie producers greatly underestimate the exposure super heroes in paticular actually have. While it sold well, I think that the "Batman" franchise actually would have benefitted from glossing over the whole origin of the character and picking up with the character simply being established. This kind of thing also removes the problem of having to relay an origin story that was set involving events decades ago, with the somewhat timeless nature of comic storytelling preserving the characters. I see the upcoming "Green Lantern" as being an example of this, because honestly in trying to make the character "more relatable" they are destorying the entire point that the guy is supposed to be an icon, not some schmoe. From what I've seen, the way Ryan Renalds plays the role is nothig like The Green Lantern should be.

"Superman Returns" was a travesty because someone decided that Superman should be a modern meterosexual "sensitive guy" with "relationship issues". Superman is supposed to be a bloody paragon, an ideal nobody could ever hope to live up to, but serves to inspire. He's bloody SUPERMAN, a point the guys doing the movie missed entirely.

At any rate, I agree that they should leave the rebooting alone, and let the characters speak for themselves. I really don't think many people are going to be lost seeing "The Green Lantern" if it's not an origin story or whatever.

-

One other thing in case anyone read this far:

Super Heroes are supposed to have their weaknesses. Superman is perfect, but has a physical weakness in the form of Kryptonite. Other characters in comics suffer from other weaknesses and this can include things like Lechery, Alcoholism, Spousal Abuse, and similar things.

Typically heroes with "too much money" are defined that way because they are "science heroes". Simply put some dude who can build a battlesuit capable of outperforming most weapon systems produced by bona-fide aliens, is probably going to be smart enough to have made money off of that genius. Not to mention getting the financing to build all of these toys. The guy being rich either in a self made, or inherited fashion, explains how they could have done all of this stuff. It's a stereotypical bit of reasoning, but it works.

Oddly both Doctor Strange and Wonder Woman have arrogance (in their own way) as their major weakness. It ties into Doctor Strange's origins (and he's always grappling with it to some extent). Wonder Woman pretty much throws down when challenged to just about anything, even if it's stupid. Batman's "solution" to Wonder Woman in the "Tower Of Babel" storyline was to exploit that. Written correctly both of them would kind of be jerks.

The Green Arrow, at least nowadays, is pretty much detached from reality. He's like a less mature-title oriented version of the Watchmen's Rorschach. As they put it in "Obsidian Age" he's a liberal conspiricy theorist with an axe to grind. He has a reason for thinking like he does, but at the same time he's detached from reality. This is one of the reasons why he was on Batman's "B League" team that got called in when Batman realized that the League (including him) was going to die. The B League basically including a lot of guys that weren't suited for the Justice League, but Batman figured were crazy, powerful, and/or talented enough to have a chance against anything nasty enough to kill him. Truthfully I'm not entirely sure how a character that delusional would translate to the big screen, the version they used for "Smallville" was a bit more audience friendly and less likely to offend anyone.... of course I'm more of a Marvel Fan, so I can't say what the character is like now, but at the time the guy pretty much wasn't Justice League material for being off his rocker even if he generally does the right thing (and pretty effectively).

Zatanna is a character I've always liked (along with other magic characters like Doctor Strange), a movie about her could be interesting, but as much as I hate to admit it, I think she works best in a supporting role. In general she hasn't been able to consistantly hold down her own title, and I think a lot of that has to do with the simple fact that she's so bloody powerful when written correctly that it's a chore to present challenges unless some way is contreived for her to not be able to use her powers (or for some reason she's greatly powered down). Underused, frequently badly written, but when pulled out of the hat and done right she's a great character to toss into a storyline for a given purpose. Originally her weakness was having to speak her spells backwards (though above and beyond the blood, this doesn't seem to be strictly required anymore) if you could act before she spoke, or somehow silence her, she could be beaten. Nowadays that's not all that probable. I put her up there with "Black Alice" as a fun character that's just a real chore for a writer due to what they can do. At least with Superman it can be argued that stories being more about him finding ways to overcome Kryptonite rather than doing his thing have been around for almost as long as he has and become part of his schtick (it gets disgustingly old, but in this case it seems more like it's kept around due to it's classic nature)

Ah well, enough rambling. :)

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here