Jump to content

Remakes and reboots


Devon Malcolm

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Paid Members
Someone being vehemently anti-reboot and also a fan of DC Comics brings a smile to my face.

 

How, exactly, is rebooting or remaking a film more "cash-grabbing" than making a film that isn't tied to an existing one?

 

I've no problem with movie reboots, and big problems with the constant rebooting of comics. I'm a big Legion of Superheroes fan, but I can't read much of their recent stuff, as my attachment seems to be to characters who got largely cut adrift at least 20 years back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
How, exactly, is rebooting or remaking a film more "cash-grabbing" than making a film that isn't tied to an existing one?

 

Surely it's because you're reducing the risk by tapping into an existing audience or maybe having to spend less money on marketing/promotions as the 'franchise' is already in the public consciousness.

If you released a remake of 'The Terminator' you'd have to spend a lot less than on an original script that doesn't automatically resonate with a portion of your audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
How, exactly, is rebooting or remaking a film more "cash-grabbing" than making a film that isn't tied to an existing one?

 

Surely it's because you're reducing the risk by tapping into an existing audience or maybe having to spend less money on marketing/promotions as the 'franchise' is already in the public consciousness.

If you released a remake of 'The Terminator' you'd have to spend a lot less than on an original script that doesn't automatically resonate with a portion of your audience.

 

What he said.

 

Someone being vehemently anti-reboot and also a fan of DC Comics brings a smile to my face.

 

 

Fuck Pitcos, I'm not arguing with you again, I hate the DC reboot so much for the record, it's the 80s DC logo in my sig, fuck the new shit, Jim Lee is a hack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely it's because you're reducing the risk by tapping into an existing audience or maybe having to spend less money on marketing/promotions as the 'franchise' is already in the public consciousness.

If you released a remake of 'The Terminator' you'd have to spend a lot less than on an original script that doesn't automatically resonate with a portion of your audience.

 

Bingo. So perhaps the blame lies with the people who do the "THIS IS RAPING MY CHILDHOOD, BOYCOTT IT! Ooh look, leaked set pics" gimmick. If audiences routinely embraced "new" stuff over existing franchises, we'd see more "new" stuff. It's no different than casting recognisable stars in films. If you've got Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt, more of the marketing work is automatically done for you than if you'd cast Marc Bannerman or Kevin Sorbo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Again, I think people would be more receptive to the notion of remakes/reboots if there was a precedent for them being good rather than shit. The vast majority have been completely unnecessary but given people will still buy a ticket to either find out if it's shit, or because the existing audience is already the studios pretty much know it'll make some money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I think people would be more receptive to the notion of remakes/reboots if there was a precedent for them being good rather than shit. The vast majority have been completely unnecessary but given people will still buy a ticket to either find out if it's shit, or because the existing audience is already the studios pretty much know it'll make some money.

 

Yeah, but its not a new fad, films have always been remade since even the early days of film. So I cant get why its suddenly an issue now, and why its suddenly raping people's childhoods or memories or what not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I think people would be more receptive to the notion of remakes/reboots if there was a precedent for them being good rather than shit.

Surely people are receptive to the notion of remakes/reboots, or they'd be the opposite of "cash-grabbing" in the first place. Tears from people who fetishise their own childhoods are ultimately meaningless when greenlighting a film, especially when the people crying are going to be pre-booking their tickets anyway.

 

The vast majority have been completely unnecessary

What standards are you using for necessity? In most senses, no film is necessary. The most reasonable standard for a film's necessity is that a company needed a certain type of film in a certain release slot for a certain budget to appeal to a certain audience. There's no case to be made for why New Generic Teen Slasher Flick #569 was more necessary than a remake of Nightmare on Elm Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Yeah, but its not a new fad, films have always been remade since even the early days of film. So I cant get why its suddenly an issue now, and why its suddenly raping people's childhoods or memories or what not?

 

True. Maybe it just seems that it's much more prevelant now? Or that there's not much differentiating from the original to the remake? If you look at the original 'The Thing (From Another World)' & compare it to John Carpenters remake. Then compare Carpenters 'The Thing' to the recent reboot/prequel/whatever I'd wager there'd be far more setting apart the original remake than last years.

 

What standards are you using for necessity? In most senses, no film is necessary. The most reasonable standard for a film's necessity is that a company needed a certain type of film in a certain release slot for a certain budget to appeal to a certain audience. There's no case to be made for why New Generic Teen Slasher Flick #569 was more necessary than a remake of Nightmare on Elm Street.

 

Not necessary in the sense that it doesn't improve or expand on the original enough to justify remaking it. Why watch the new Elm St flick when you can watch the (vastly superior) original?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Yeah, but its not a new fad, films have always been remade since even the early days of film. So I cant get why its suddenly an issue now, and why its suddenly raping people's childhoods or memories or what not?

 

True. Maybe it just seems that it's much more prevelant now? Or that there's not much differentiating from the original to the remake?

 

It was fairly common in the early days but generally in terms of remaking films from the silent era to talkie versions - The Wizard Of Oz and Ben Hur are just two examples of that. I can't imagine a silent era version of The Wizard Of Oz! Here it is, actually:-

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se2149SPNJk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Wizard Of Oz!

Speaking of this film its kind of, off topic BUT what was the reason for this being a X Rated on its release in the UK? The misses wondered why, I cant find my of a reason on the internet I would think it was due to the tin man but thats only a guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Which of the recent batch of remakes do people think have matched/surpassed the original (not counting US language remakes ie. Let Me In, Dragon Tattoo..)? The Hills Have Eyes is the first that springs to mind, the original is better remembered for the awespme video box than the actual film. The remake was pretty slick and suitably nasty, but that was 2006!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to say Thundercats, as much as i adored the original as a child i managed to watch the reboot with a totally open mind and i'm glad i did as it's one of the best cartoons in recent years. Some of the redesigns aren't the greatest looking but the overall feel is perfect, the two little kids are actually charming this time round and not annoying cunts like in the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessary in the sense that it doesn't improve or expand on the original enough to justify remaking it.

But nobody needs it to. It's a product designed to appeal to an audience. Your logic could apply to genres just as easily as titles. People could be banned from making sci-fi films because [seminal sci-fi film] won't ever be bettered. [Actor name] could be banned from acting because he'd never match his performance in [film title]. There's no rule that says a film can only be made if it's the best of its kind in every category.

 

Why watch the new Elm St flick when you can watch the (vastly superior) original?

To support the remake culture because they're all in the conspiracy too? I dunno, but the option is there to watch both, isn't it? Like Gladstone alluded to earlier, they don't go around burning the new one over the old one on all the DVDs in the shop.

 

Which of the recent batch of remakes do people think have matched/surpassed the original (not counting US language remakes ie. Let Me In, Dragon Tattoo..)? The Hills Have Eyes is the first that springs to mind, the original is better remembered for the awespme video box than the actual film. The remake was pretty slick and suitably nasty, but that was 2006!

Definitely The Hills Have Eyes. Texas Chainsaw as well (the remake wasn't great, but the original is absolute shite, and anyone who disagrees deserves to end up an annoying wheelchair mong like that cunt in it). That was 2003 though, and it's very faint praise. I'm on the fence about Dawn of the Dead, but I worry I'm biased because of how shit Romero's last few films have been. And that was 2004. Last House on the Left remake was a proper film, the original was just a messaround made by mongs. I'd imagine the I Spit On Your Grave remake has to be better than the original, for the same reason. Let The Right One In was overrated wank, I hated it enough that I haven't seen the Chloe Moretz version but surely that's better. The Tim Burton Willy Wonka probably appeals to more modern-day kids (especially the emo dickhead ones) than the Gene Wilder one, but fuck Tim Burton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

The Hills Have Eyes was excellent as was Dawn Of The Dead, I'll second those.

 

Anyone seen The Manchurian Candidate remake? Any good? The original is stunning but I've heard the remake is excellent, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...