Reboots: The Story Behind Them.

Reboots:  The Story Behind Them.

Reboots, Love em or Hate em. My thoughts and speculation on the topic.

Editorial Opinion
By Scorpioxfactor - May 27, 2010 03:05 PM EST
Filed Under: Action
Source: Self

Since films were starting to be released over years from the start a long time ago. New movie ideas formed in people's heads. They always were trying something new from genre to genre. Some ideas completely failed. Others took on a life of their own and totally surpassed anyones expectations. With new techniques and technology advancing, movie goers were getting the benefit of quality. Eventually, there seemed to be a point where the ideas stopped flowing. Companies desperate to make a buck and to possibly save their company just starting using old ideas, and decided to rehash them. One particular movie that has been refilmed more than twice is Wuthering Heights. I can't remember how many versions of the story I have seen. But why? I don't know. Now in the last 20 years I have seen all kinds of films being remade in another director/producers image. The movie fans unaffectionately started calling them "REBOOTS". The name seems to have stuck. Now, here we are in the here and now, many fans find themselves in heated debates and even here in CBM we find ourselves trying to wonder, why?



Growing up and watching the films over ones lifetime, they begin to see enough of them to build a foundation of "Categorized Movies". From this foundation, any other movies after the mental cement has dried and hardened, that the theatre goer sees will subconsciously reference the index of the "C.M". It is difficult for a writer to come up with new ideas over a lifespan if the foundation is large and vast.

With ideas running short and companies needing to release films, they decide the fase way to make money to is to "Reboot" an old classic film. One of the problems that fans of that movie have is that, it's a classic for what it was then. They have no care for the same movie just updated with different actors.

I don't know how many moviegoers out there actually think about this before going to see the "Re-quels". It is unbelievable how popular some of these films are. Vincent Price's "Last Man on Earth". Charlten Heston's "Omega Man" & Will Smith's "I am Legend". All 3 are taken from Richard Matheson's book "I am Legend".

So, now you, the movie going CBM fan end up going to a movie and seeing something rehashed and cut to bits and toally ripped to shreds. This is what ends up happening.



If quality and storytelling can be unique, i personally don't think I would have a problem with them. But just rushing something into theatres isn't helping the situation any.

I now will leave you with this question, Reboot or original film, Where do you stand?
GLADIATOR II: Paul Mescal Squares Off With Pedro Pascal & Denzel Washington In Epic First Trailer
Related:

GLADIATOR II: Paul Mescal Squares Off With Pedro Pascal & Denzel Washington In Epic First Trailer

TOP GUN: MAVERICK Director's F1 Movie Starring Brad Pitt Gets An Action-Packed First Trailer
Recommended For You:

TOP GUN: MAVERICK Director's F1 Movie Starring Brad Pitt Gets An Action-Packed First Trailer

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

DLM
DLM - 5/27/2010, 4:03 PM
Unfortunatly this is one of those things we are going to have to put up with. As soon as a movie is popular the movie company will redo it every few years for the next-gen of movie goers to recash in on the previous incarnations success.
marvelguy
marvelguy - 5/27/2010, 4:08 PM
It depends on the genre. I agree with Ozy. Horror flicks can just keep going. Zombie's "Halloweens" were terrible and brought nothing more than the original. Comic book movies, James Bond, Lone Ranger/Zorro, and maybe even "Star Trek" deserve updated versions. I would love to see a different director doing Bond all the time.
However, how soon and how invasive of a re-boot is a better question. "Batman Begins" is the tent pole. Marvel is trying to do it too often and too quickly. "Incredible Hulk" was leagues ahead of Ang Lee's, but the general populace didn't seem too ready for another Hulk flick.
I think "Indiana Jones" should start over. There's no better bad guys than Nazis and Harrison Ford is a fossil.
Scorpioxfactor
Scorpioxfactor - 5/27/2010, 4:34 PM
Thanks guys.
AverageCitizen99
AverageCitizen99 - 5/27/2010, 6:43 PM
@Scorpioxfactor
Very interesting article man! It's good to read someone's opinion on the subject.

I think reboots or remakes are only necessary when you, as the filmmaker or writer, see that the story can be told in a different perspective. That would differentiate between the original as it is not a scene-by-scene or line-by-line copy but something that can honor the original.
Wadey09
Wadey09 - 5/27/2010, 9:03 PM
this is like the Ultimate universe of the regular 616?
is it which came first?
which is better?
which is longer lasting?

although when it comes to films, i do tend to favor the "new" thing, i am becoming tired with the whole reboot/remake/retool-ing of films.
Hollywood is running our of ideas. maybe we should contribute?

btw don't forget to check out Part VI of my Spider-man story by clicking the LINK!!!
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 5/28/2010, 6:28 AM
I don't really care about reboots and i find it funny that so many people complain about them.

I REALLY can't stand the most famous line people use, "No one in Hollywood has any original ideas anymore."

Do people not realize that every year the "original movies" far outnumber the remakes and reboots? Just because it might be a movie that doesn't interest you, doesn't mean it stops being original.

And the people that say no one is original in Hollywood anymore, are the same people lining up to go see an Iron Man movie. Now, I love CBM's as much as anyone, but they are the very definition of UNORIGINAL. Its someone making a movie about characters (and often times stories) that were created and written by someone else. I know, that just screams original, doesn't it? lol

Basically, if you don't like reboots, thats fine, more power to you, but come up with a good reason for it, because the "unoriginal" argument doesn't hold up, especially for people that are such big fans of CBM's, the most unoriginal genre of movie out there.
McLovin
McLovin - 5/28/2010, 8:58 AM
I also have no issues with these reboots, especially when it comes to CBMs. I would rather watch 15 different versions of the same superhero and decide which one I like best, rather than some of the other crap that comes out every year. I don't really care for the rehashing of 80's TV shows as much (Charlie's Angels, Dukes of Hazard, A-team, etc) but I have waited my whole life for this superhero movie extravaganza and who knows how long it will last? I say let's ride it till the wheels fall off this beayatch!!!
grog
grog - 5/28/2010, 2:10 PM
I am becoming comfused over the "re-boot" topic. What is the difference between a re-make and a re-boot. by the definitions given here, Twilight is a re-boot of Brams Stoker Dracula. While Dracula was a good movie, the whole twilight series is nothing but a waste of film. regardless both are vampire films. so I ask what is the difference?
Scorpioxfactor
Scorpioxfactor - 6/1/2010, 10:23 AM
Grog---In the end. Remake and Reboot. Both are the same thing really. "MY" opinion though. Not Someone else's interpretation. I can't speak for someone else. Thank you to everyone for taking time to read my editorial and also posting your thoughts.
View Recorder