What is the next form of unoriginality? or how to reboot the unrebootable.

I enjoy the hit it gives me when people like minded in the regard of this topic reply to my threads so here I go again. Oh boy.
I'll try to keep this vague and short so this can go anywhere.

Do you think reboots should respect the original?

Do you think reboots should ever follow the same storyline of the original or should they do more than just a theme change?

Can there be a new type of movie beyond: Original, Sequel, Prequel, Remake?

And for some fun: How would you go about rebooting what should never be rebooted?
I've personally thought about back to the future where it is either a half reboot half sequel or you work from the ground up and create whole new physics dimensions and rules to time travel so a new story could be developed based on those conundrums.

last night someone on Reddit asked when people thought Harry Potter would be rebooted, and I just don't see it happening. Regardless of the differences between the films and the books I just think they've been done about as well as they will ever be, and as a fan I would hate to see it happen anytime soon.

If the original sucked then reboot ok.
If the original is a popular classic then not ok.

harrisonp said:

last night someone on Reddit asked when people thought Harry Potter would be rebooted, and I just don't see it happening. Regardless of the differences between the films and the books I just think they've been done about as well as they will ever be, and as a fan I would hate to see it happen anytime soon.

Click to expand...

I don't know that i'd call it reboot, but I think Harry Potter would be even better served as a TV series. So much (that was good) was left out of the books that I think you could do it just as well, if not better, on TV to expand all the storylines as they were intended.

Changes in the movies were not done out director's whim or desire, but to get it down to a palpable running length. Starting with book 4, so much got left out and changed for the sake of runtime. No way should they do a series of movies again. But i'd be all over a TV version.

But outside of that, i think dascoyne has the perfect rule of thumb.

How many different ways can people whine about "reboots."

We've been retelling and reimagining stories since the beginning of storytelling. Hollywood's been remaking everything since practically day one.... this isn't new.

For example, the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz starring Judy Garland was preceded by the book (1900) and three other films (1910, 1925 and 1933).

IMO, any reboot needs 2 things: a) the "spirit" of the original, and b) to be able to connect with a modern/foreign market audience. It doesn't have to be the exact same story, but it should strive not to alienate fans of the original. If the reboot is ambiguous on if its a reboot or not, my preference is that it strive to clarify that, rather than be half reboot half continuation *coughHawaii5-Ocough*

Yes, there are some things that don't need a reboot. But there are also a number of things that, if you look back at it now, is incredibly dated, and hard for modern audiences to get into. A good reboot would take that same basic concept, keep the spirit of the original, and modernize it so that a modern audience could enjoy it. Or adapt it for an audience foreign to the original, for a remake of a foreign film/series.

While I personally feel that movies reboot better than TV series (original format only, movies rebooted into TV series seem to work okay), my best example of reboot done right AND wrong are a TV series: Sailormoon.

Sailormoon does have the distinction of being adapted from a source, which always muddies the water on if something is a reboot or just a re-adaptation. In this specific case, we're talking about a source manga, an anime adapted from the source manga, a live action reboot (modernization) of the source manga's first arc, and a re-adaptation of the source manga. But we'll run with it for these purposes.

The original manga and anime of Sailormoon are both incredibly dated. Arcades aren't the big thing they were back when it was first made, 20 years ago. The characters have mini disc players, which a) never really caught on outside of Japan, and b) aren't a thing anymore. The art style is also very "90s."

The tokusatsu Pretty Guardian Sailormoon came about 10 years later. The secret base was now a karaoke parlor, to adjust to the times. CD players replaced mini disc players. There were a lot of changes to the storyline (and one character), and while the feel was much different (PGSM is way darker than anything else in the franchise), IMO, at least, it still captured the "spirit" of the original manga (the anime was much more light-hearted and whimsical than the manga was). I can see why fans of the original anime didn't care for it much, but I think a lot of manga fans accepted it. Focus was placed on developing the characters on both sides, and while there were some... interesting... changes, the changes to the storyline accounted for it.

And then we have Sailormoon Crystal, the most recent outing. Crystal is extremely polarizing in the fanbase. Either you accept it and love it as a "proper" adaptation of the manga, or you loathe it because, quite frankly, it's not very good (I seem to be one of the few in the middle: I see it's flaws, but can at least enjoy it. Also, it got a lot better towards the end, and I'm cautiously optimistic for the next arc). Yes, it follows the source much closer than any other version (to the point of recreating scenes panel-by-panel, line-by-line), but the biggest flaw it had (other than the extremely off-key animation) was that it lacked the "heart" of any of the other versions. The manga, yes, was short and to the point, but you could feel the emotions that the mangaka put into it. The anime, on the other hand, stretched it out to give the characters more development. The tokusatsu took the middle road, giving the characters development that served to drive the plot (interestingly enough, the toku is longer than the first arc of the anime, even though it feels shorter, to me at least). Crystal had none of that. It seemed to have a checklist "this scene, check; next scene, check", and didn't go further (until later in the series).

Of these three, both the original anime and PGSM fit the first criteria, for keeping the "spirit" of the original manga. The original anime had no modernizing to do, since it came out at the same time, but both PGSM and Crystal did fit the criteria for modernizing, with PGSM and it's karaoke parlor, and Crystal adding in laptops (and, yet, still had mini discs and arcades). Both PGSM and Crystal, though, had problems with not alienating the original fanbase (in the former, mainly the original anime's fanbase, with the latter, everyone).

I think the Silence of the Lambs films could be rebooted with Mads & the Hannibal cast

J

Thought it was worth adding that I'm a fan of "reboots" that are actually just sequels/spiritual successors set in continuity with the originals, especially when the first outing was good. I love how Tron Legacy followed in real time and I wish more movies that aimed to leverage old IPs into new franchises would do the same.

IMO it totally depends on the situation. What franchise, what timing, what climate of public opinion, etc.


I'm sorry to give such a noncommital vote in a debate but this is really what I think.

All the possibilities probably have at least a couple of examples of it working out well, and a couple other examples of it being a terrible move.

Generally it's a bad idea for me because they usually choose something that was successful the first time already had it's day, minimizing financial risk and really adding nothing of value, or worse hijacking the story and making it into something it was not.

Now if there are written source materials..... Logan's Run for instance where the book was very different in many ways and your goal is to get a more accurate transfer from the written source material because now we can do the FX that they could not back then, things start to make sense.
I've yet to see a proper War of the Worlds. There was some crappy low budget attempt that tried but it was horrible.
And it could be either a period piece or modern. The story can work both ways.

Or "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"
I could support that film, because it's not Blade Runner is it? It's very different in many ways from the film and
there is a ton of material there to explore the film barely touched or did not include.


If your picking up story later, I'm not sure I call that a "reboot". Are we too quick to call things "reboots' when they are truly a sequel?
I agreet hat Tron Legacy was not a reboot.


Are there even proper definitions of what a "reboot" is?

Remakes? I assume a one shot? The recent Poltergiest?

Reboot? JJ Trek that ignored TOS canon and intent was to make more than one film and try to reestablish a franchise on screen.

Should we consider the source material?
Logan's Run was a book first. Then came a film. Now we hear about a potential new film.
Is that "reboot"?

If a book has a film made, is that film now the standard? Any film after based on that book is a reboot?

So what rules of definition here?

I tend to think of reboots like I said above, a jumpstart to an aging franchise, and in my own personal (but incorrect) interpretation it also exists within continuity to the original(s). So IMO The Force Awakens is a "reboot" of the Star Wars franchise, even if the last film only came out 10 years ago ( SW not the greatest example because of mass appeal). I mentioned Harry Potter earlier, and I think Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them will "reboot" the popularity of the "Potterverse" while not actually being a remake.

I see reboot applied to superhero films pretty often, with Spiderman and Batman typically coming up the most, so I guess those are more fitting of the typical Reboot definition, which I guess means a property that has been made, been successful, but the stories have been told and the universe they were painted in is aging a bit and requires some updating. I bet it's so common due to the fact that it happens in the comic source material constantly.

Everything else to me is a Remake, especially films that get released with the same title as the originals. Like all the new Disney Live action films are remakes in my definition. While it may potentially "reboot" their respective popularity I still see it as being distinctly different from my Harry Potter example.

When a movie is truly a stinker and a new director/etc is taking a run at the property I think it should be more "Re-do" than "Reboot", but that has a slight negative connotation that I bet they would like to avoid.

What's the time span though before something is aging?
Geez Hulk movies were coming at us triple speed there for a while. Spidey film franchise rebooted in no time at all.
A few years and something is old already. LOL


Edit
Or yeah, maybe comic genre gets a pass?

Lots of gray areas.

CessnaDriver I think the Burton and Raimi films have aged considerable when put up against the recent superhero boom, but on their own I think they mostly stand up.

Hulk has been pretty weird, not only distinguishing between Ang Lee's Hulk but also the inclusion of "The Incredible Hulk" into the MCU as well as the recasting that followed for the Avengers

And then there is the King of the Monsters.
King of Sequels, many reboots embedded within those...
Godzilla.
Though geez, look at Dracula, how many takes on that?
Oof.

Some things I don't even blink thinking reboot! burn the witch!

JD said:

How many different ways can people whine about "reboots."

We've been retelling and reimagining stories since the beginning of storytelling. Hollywood's been remaking everything since practically day one.... this isn't new.

For example, the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz starring Judy Garland was preceded by the book (1900) and three other films (1910, 1925 and 1933).

Click to expand...

That's a bit different as the process changed dramatically between 10-33. There wasn't really a technological shift until what? the 70's? However, the biggest distinguishing thing for Oz would be once there was a good one, no one touched it really. They tried sequels but never redoing the original. Oz though, IS, at the iconic level. And I don't know how many are old enough to remember, but it used to run yearly on CBS (i think) in the spring and it was a really big deal. They did it up until Turner bought it and moved it to TCM and they put it out on DVD. However, that version was ingrained into people for decades. Skiffy did their version, but it was a TV thing and not intended to be on the same level or take on the classic one.

And yeah, people have done remakes. But they typically went after less successful fare and tried to do it better. They weren't doing what they do today and saying 'what made money 25 years ago? Lets redo that, it'll make money today too. The only reason Ghostbusters is back, for example, has nothing to do with the director or cast, but it's Sony looking for a 'franchise' to capitalize on. A new 'take' isn't needed, nor wanted by the public really. The original crew has been pushing a sequel for ages and i think finally just have given up.

You want to redo something, that's great - just don't redo only successful things. Try and improve on what came before - and NOT with Fx. Do it with writing, directing, and acting and people will respond.

I'm not sure if anything qualifies, hence why I ask...but have they every remade anything successful that did as good or better than the original?

No. It's not a big difference. It's a debatable difference... some could (rightfully) argue there's a big difference between now and the 70s, 80s or even the 90s. Technology and approaches to storytelling can be reckoned to have changed dramatically since now and then.

I think it's sad how people whine and cry about certain reboots. I mean... Ghostbusters was two movies with (some) success with the last movie coming 26 years ago. Yes, there was some arguable success with an animated series -- but, I feel that was a reach.

I might agree that not every movie may warrant a reboot or relaunch even. The issue I have is the incessant whining and crybabying I hear from fanboys I hear about this. I understand being cautious about some thing's - even I am have concerns about some things that I consider sacred.

Ya know -- Star Wars. I have some very strong feelings about this Star Wars relaunch - but, I'm damned for expressing very carefully worded opinions about that relaunch. It's crazy how we have selective memories about some properties.

There are plenty of reboots deemed superior to the original. I don't want to list them because I'm afraid I might be wrong. I reckon reboots should be used for original story telling. Rather than the usual modernization of a story already told I'd rather not only a new story but new laws and characters to play with, even if it means it isn't strictly a reboot. If I were in charge of remaking a film I'd watch the original repeatedly and strip it down to, not it's best bits, but the parts that could potentially create great questions or complication that has not been done before. Otherwise I feel we might as well just make exactly the same movie with the same people and sets and just replace certain parts that brought down consensus with opposites. It's an awful idea but at least it'd make something better than what's prior and get us to care less.
it'd be quite cool if Reboots could be more like analysis of philosophical ramifications untouched rather than what we usually get.

...look at the recent Planet of the Apes films,.....I can't wait till perhaps the fourth film when time travelling Taylor arrives and we connect to the first PotA



J

JD said:

I think it's sad how people whine and cry about certain reboots. I mean....

Click to expand...

You may have a point, but I pretty much just stop caring about the rest of the point being made when someone does this.

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they are whining. If we're talking about a movie, and what we know of it leads me to think it's going to suck, I will say that I think it will suck. If that hurts your feelings, then movie forums may not be the place for you.

edit: the Ghostbusters movie (Fantastic Four as well) are prime examples. It's OK to be excited about them. GB may end up being life changingly good, I don't know. But it sounds like a turd so far, and in a thread that is basically about the question "will this be a turd or not" expressing the opinion that it will isn't a whine. It's participating in the topic at hand.


also: like it or not, reboots have a strike against. You're asking people to trust your creativity in taking over someone elses creation. It's not impossible and it has been done well. many times. But it IS a higher mountain to climb and when you try it, you have to accept that burden.

AJTaliesen said:

You may have a point, but I pretty much just stop caring about the rest of the point being made when someone does this.

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they are whining. If we're talking about a movie, and what we know of it leads me to think it's going to suck, I will say that I think it will suck. If that hurts your feelings, then movie forums may not be the place for you.

Click to expand...

I don't not disagree with you. However, I feel this really isn't the case here - this really isn't a case of one opinion vs. another opinion (at least it isn't.... in my opinion, lol).

There comes a point when people rant and rave about the same thing over and over again, where it stops becoming a rational argument and it becomes whining (I'm guilty of this, too). I also feel that I provided sufficient info to back up claims that I've made here. Again, reboots, relaunches and the like aren't new - this has happened since the early days of Hollywood (see my Wizard of Oz points). This thread seems to imply that this is something new... it isn't.

Again, your mileage may vary.

edit: the Ghostbusters movie (Fantastic Four as well) are prime examples. It's OK to be excited about them. GB may end up being life changingly good, I don't know. But it sounds like a turd so far, and in a thread that is basically about the question "will this be a turd or not" expressing the opinion that it will isn't a whine. It's participating in the topic at hand.

Click to expand...

Hey - I've been against that FF movie from early on. Not because it was a reboot... but, because every little bit of info that leaked out about sounded terrible. We have threads about about those properties and there is obviously a ton of passion for those (I'm really not sure anyone loved those Chris Evans/Jessica Alba FF flicks that much - but, Ghostbusters - yes) and others.

It's funny how we pick and choose what's okay to reboot. I welcome the inevitable next FF reboot - I don't think any of what we've seen has come close to capturing the magic that the FF is for me. Ghostbusters? I get that a lot of people have a lot of love for those movies and characters - but, the original is over 30 years old (the sequel over 25)... when do folks get over this? There's a whole generation that passed. (Personally, I don't like anything I've heard about the new Ghostbusters - but, it being a reboot isn't really of them).

also: like it or not, reboots have a strike against. You're asking people to trust your creativity in taking over someone elses creation. It's not impossible and it has been done well. many times. But it IS a higher mountain to climb and when you try it, you have to accept that burden.

Click to expand...

I disagree. We pick and choose what is okay and not okay to reboot - that's what makes this incessant whining worse. You're also ignoring that so much of what does make the big screen is already an adaption of something else --- FF has been around for over 50 years.

Of the top 10 grossing movies of 2015 (so far) only one is an original effort.

#1 Jurassic World
#2 Avengers AoU
#3 Inside Out <---- this one!
#4 Furious 7
#5 Minions
#6 Cinderella
#7 Mission Impossible RN
#8 Pitch Perfect 2
#9 Ant-Man
#10 Home (based on a book)

I think this shows a majority of people are okay with reboots, relaunches, adaptations and sequels (these are all reboots or relaunches to some extent). It also shows that people are comfortable with seeing other takes on others creations. It's not a higher mountain to climb... people want what they want.

Fanboys hold thing's up to higher level - I get that. But, there comes a time when you feel enough is enough.