Reboots -- are you sick of them?

[Mouse]

What about the remake of Death at a Funeral then? The original film was British, the remake American. Not even different languages!! And only a couple of years apart. Yeah, I still get worked up about that one.

Anyway, yeah, I am bored of reboots. Just think of something new, damnit!

[J-Sun]

I voted a long time ago (when it was a blissful 4-0-0) against reboots but didn't post. But now it occurs to me to note that we might be mixing things: a reboot should be a franchise whose continuity is jettisoned (fwiw, Wikipedia agrees) and is different from a remake which may alter things but basically tries to be "the same thing" but adapted in time or space or whatever. And, even in remakes, my impression of, say, the The Day the Earth Stood Still (haven't seen the more recent one) would be closer to a "reboot" than many of the remakes discussed. Basically just using a "valuable" title on a different item.

Another thing that occurs to me is the definition of "reboot" in relation to media. We don't call a book-into-movie a reboot or remake or anything like that. But, looking over my movie collection, I do see the Addams Family and the two Burton Batman movies. The Addams Family TV show came from a cartoon and I'd say the movie came more from the show and somehow tv-to-movie does seem near to a remake/reboot. And Burton's Batman is slightly more complicated, with the Batman TV show coming from a comic book but having almost nothing to do with it, and the Burton stuff coming more from the comics than the show. On the other hand, once you have the Burton movies, I suspect Nolan's are just running the meat through the grinder once more.

There's a whole hierarchy of creativity fail, though. Adaptations are least objectionable and that's good because almost everything is. Sequels are probably the next least objectionable. But prequels are usually dumb. And reboots are worst of all. I think remakes slot into that hierarchy on an individual basis, depending on need and quality. (And I might be forgetting a category or two of "unoriginal movie".) Not to say that you can't have horrible original movies or brilliant reboots (at least in theory) but the principle of exhaustion and the hill to climb to be good is there.

But people who dislike these things can't blame Hollywood (or your nearest movie-making locus) for making them. At the moment, the poll says over half the population either wants or is open to the idea and even "no"s like me will get as close as a Burton Batman and probably every one of the "no"s has an exception to the rule and it all adds up to zillions of dollars.

[Gordian Knot]

As one of the first posters pointed out, it is pure laziness coupled with fear that makes remakes the order of the day. A studio has a proven product. They also have a new script that sounds promising. 9 times out of 10 they will go with the former. Stick with what works; don't take chances.

That being said the new Spider-Man looks very interesting. I was initially aghast that they were reimagining this character already. But from what I have seen in previews, it does look to be fresh and it does look like it could be very good. For Spider-Man at least, I will give it a chance.

[Culhwch]

I don't mind re-boots, so long as they are done well, Batman Begins and the Norton Hulk being two examples of such.

There's been a lot of derision about re-boots and remakes in this thread, but I think that they can present a gifted filmaker with a great opportunity, if they can do something good and different with the material. Look at Nolan and Batman Begins. Prior to that film he was a young filmaker on the rise, but the success he had there (he essentially redefined the genre, although I'd argue the gritty take on comic book adaptations was first done earlier by Norrington and Goyer with Blade) allowed him to take it even further with The Dark Knight (an inferior film, but still better than most contemporary movies) which ultimately gave him the ability to write his own checks, with the result being Inception - truly creative and original film.

The unfortunate thing is that so far Nolan has been the only one to have done this. The nature of the industry is that it's built on copycat-ing, so when Batman Begins hit it big the push was on for everything to be reimagined throughthat same 'dark and gritty' filter, and maybe that stifled creativity a bit. Although The Avengers wasn't technically a remake or reboot, the cash it raked in will probably allow Joss Whedon to take the Nolan route to more creative, original films (if he so desires). Of course, now the studios will want every new film to emulate The Avengers in tone...

Oh, and I think this version of Spider-Man looks superior to Raimi's so I'll be heading along to see it!

[TomS]

My first thought is to leave a good many years between. Get a fresh audience with the inevitable new set of valued desires. Not like that will ever happen. Some movies are supposedly untouchable. I don't believe that but I'm the odd mad out on that.

[Teresa Edgerton]

I often like old movies that are remakes of even older movies, but somehow they've lost the knack of that, trying too hard to make stories appealing to contemporary audiences (and no wonder when the original movie is less than 10 years old, and the changes are almost always gratutitous).

But I'll gladly watch any number of remakes of movies based on beloved classic novels, if they are good and reasonably faithful to the original book (my standard for "reasonably faithful" means they can interpret the plot and cut out a few things, but they better not go changing it).

[Cayal]

A good movie is a good movie. Remake, reboot or original.

[MemoryTale]

Some remakes are OK, if the original is starting to get a bit tired. But with that said, some older films are still as good today as they were then - no remake necessary. The same applies for if a film didn't make the best of itself be it for budgetry or other creative reasons.

Reboots I also don't mind A) if they're good movies and B) it's been a while since the original series ended. The Buton/Schumacker franchise ended in the 90's, so Batman Begins seemed fresh. Personally I can't be bothered with the Amazing Spiderman* since it's not that long sicne the Raimi movies. If Batman Begins Once Again comes out in a year or two, I shall not be watching it.*

*Unless it comes on telley or I get the DVD for my birthday or something like that.

[MaxHeadroom]

I really enjoyed the latest Star Trek Movie but was disappointed with Lockout. It wasn't until I was watching Lockout, that it all became a bit familiar, not that that's a bad thing, I love zombie movies.

Perhaps if they had said remake/based upon Escape from New York, I would have been a little more forgiving but they didn't (or I missed it), it was just a bad copy and paste job.