Jump to content

Reboots - Yay or Nay? / Okay or No Way?


Snake-Pit

Recommended Posts

Erm... Saw Ghostbusters (2016) last night, saw Terminator Genisys (2015) online in 2015; before those however, I'm reminded of reboots personally that are older than the term 'Reboot'; citing The Nutty Professor (1996) and (another one starring Eddie Murphy) Doctor Dolittle (1998); - Down to Earth was a (2001) was a remake of Heaven Can Wait (1978), I'm not sure if that counts as a 'reboot' though.

I'm not really opposed against them but it seems; That the 1980s are back, again.

 

Also, I personally liked;

latest?cb=20100324233116

and

sa1302.jpg

The best for TMNT era renditions. Versions since that golden era of TMNT have been more or less sacrilege :P .. To me.

 

.. In fact; I think that cartoon was so popular, it gave way to those movies; pictured there are Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III (1993) and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (the cartoon show that spanned 1987 - 1996)...

Edited by Snake-Pit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me personally they are the plankton of cinema.  I mean have em if you want em but they really are the lowest.  If, at its best, cinema is an art form then reboots are the lowest because they are not so much an artistic endeavour as a business desicion.  Now I'm not stupid, i understand that cinema, hollywood cinema, it's about profit, you've got to turn over profit to be viable but hollywood is at its best when it balances the two, making money which is essential and also making a piece that actually says something/does something/offers something to the medium.

If you really looked into how these films are made, if you were really privvy to the details of what goes on in the creation of these things, if you had a decent idea how little respect the people that make this shit have for the audience it'd really open your eyes.  It's about surveys and focus groups and judging cultural trends and then exploiting them.  Now, again, a lot of cinema is about that but the sheer tawdryness of the way they go about it, MASSIVE desicions are made in terms of plot, structure, whats in these movies, based on 'will this bump up sales based on appealing to such and such market', it's just deeply insulting, they treat the audience like rats hitting the feeder button for pellets. 

Take this fuckin' new Ghostbusters bollocks for a start, there is something so cynical about it...and yet all these people get on one side or the other, as if it's a feminism debate or something when really it's just about exploiting a gap in the market that has been assessed by a bunch of number crunchers 'chick reboots are in this summer'...hooray for feminism.  It is just SO tiresome.

There have been cynical eras in cinema, some of my favourites were very cynical, like the studio system but at the same time the studio system, though the structure, the monolith, the money men behind it were cynical the artists were anything but, they were men and women who fought within those constraints to give you some fucking outstanding cinema, these days it appears the 'artists' and money men are all in cahoots and there is an agreement there to forgo...well, just about anything in the name of further profitability. 

Much like the music industry it has become a sort of machinery that is run by people who have no interest in the job they work in, these bean counters couldn't give a flying rats tail for cinema and its really quite tragic.  Now don't get me wrong, i believe in everything existing if there's someone out there to watch it but i do think that there should be a counter-balance, an alternative, a contingent whoose focus is on cinema and the advancement of. 

If you really think about it, forgetting special effects for a moment, what advancements have there been in the medium?  I mean in the way films are constructed.  Literally from the inception of cinema right up until the 1980s there was HUGE advancement in cinema...it seems after that that all you get is sort of the artsy niche stuff and the rest has just stagnated, purely because there are no actual filmmakers out there really, pure filmmakers I mean.  Digitalisation, special effects, CGI, this stuff is all great stuff but it is nothing to do with the actual nuts and bolts of cinema and this whole reboot thing is just symptomatic of a total and complete lack of ideas in the medium anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either the 1980s were so good; or, people who grew up then are now old enough to have more spending power so studios sitting on these rights to these 1980s franchises have them in their crosshairs to sell to; or - People have lost the ability to produce anything original anymore if not: All of the above.

Long live the 1980s (I post, in this Guns N' Roses fan forum I'm an actively posting member of).

Edited by Snake-Pit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has never been original films. Everything is basically a rehash of stories that have been around for thousands of years. Romeo and Juliet is a retelling of Tristan and Iseut. Stories are written and retold in different ways.

 

But yeah, I am going to vote Nay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

There has never been original films. Everything is basically a rehash of stories that have been around for thousands of years. Romeo and Juliet is a retelling of Tristan and Iseut. Stories are written and retold in different ways.

 

But yeah, I am going to vote Nay.

We come along way from Rome and Juliet and Tristan and Isolde and a Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles, or a Ghostbusters reboot!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I think it depends on what is being rebooted. If it is a franchise that could use some work or if the creator wants to do more with the franchise's universe, then I wouldn't mind a reboot. If it is something whose premise can't work for today's world or has no reason to be rebooted, then I see no point. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there are three kinds of reboots.

There's the traditional Hollywood "remake," which is really just a complete re-doing of the same plot. The best remakes take the original plot but elevate it with a bunch of cool new thematic elements (like Scarface), and the worst remakes don't do anything at all (like Psycho 1998).

then there's "reboot" in the sense of starting a story over from the beginning but taking it in a new direction. Sometimes this is done for the right reasons (Batman Begins) and sometimes it's done just to make some money (The Amazing Spider-Man).

lastly, there's the sequel-boot. Yah know, the remake that pretends to be a sequel. Sometimes, the original plot beats are mixed with enough new thematic ideas to make it feel fresh (Creed), and sometimes they aren't (Jurassic World).

so there are good and bad examples of all three kinds of reboots. It all depends on context (what kind of reboot is being done for what source material and why). But honestly, I agree with the majority that all three kinds of reboots are getting really fucking old now. Hollywood needs to take it down a damn notch. 

Edited by rocknroll41
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...