All directors and actors have a certain responsibility to promote the films they are working on, and try to make them sound as appealing as possible. It should come as no surprise that the things that directors and actors say about their current project before it hits the theatres should be taken with a grain of salt. After all, no self-respecting director is going to say that their film is terrible. No respectable actor is going to say that people should not go see their newest film because they feel it was rushed, or what ever the case may be.
This may seem like common sense, and it is, but what about the other things that directors say that come across as blatant misinformation? This is not to bash all directors. There are those, like Chris Nolan, who may not give much information, but when he does, you better believe it is accurate. Two films that are currently being made come to mind for which the directors have made comments. I find these comments to be misleading, and in one case, just outright wrong. I will try to give these directors the benefit of the doubt and say that it is entirely possible that they just did a bad job of getting their points across.
The first director I have in mind is Darren Aronofsky, who is directing "The Wolverine". Entertainment Weekly recently did an article on the new comic book movies coming out. In it, they stated that Aronofsky had recently said that "The Wolverine" will not be a sequel, but a stand alone movie. I want to know how that can be. If the events of "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" actually happened, then how can this not be considered a sequel? I understand that Logan lost his memory in "Origins", so there probably will not be any mention of the events of "Origins" in "The Wolverine". Is that enough to say it is not a sequel? I don't think so. Just because the events might not be mentioned, does not mean they did not happen. In fact, in "The Wolverine," I think everyone is expecting Logan to have no memory. Just that simple fact is a direct result of the events in "Origins", which would in turn make "The Wolverine" a sequel. Am I missing something here? It is no secret that a lot of people thought "Origins" was a bad movie. Is this Aronofsky's attempt to reign in the disappointed fans of the first movie? Is he trying to make people think that if it has no connections to "Origins" then maybe it will be good? Is he outright lying? Or did he simply mean that Logan will have no memory, and "The Wolverine" will be its own story? If that is the case, I would still consider it a sequel. Maybe not a part in a planned series or trilogy, where every film moves the overall plot forward. But a sequel none the less.
The next film I have in mind is "The Amazing Spider-Man". Mark Webb is directing this film. In the same issue of Entertainment Weekly, Mark Webb stated that this Spider-Man film is not a reboot or remake. He said that this film is not trying to remake the character or ignore what has come before. Webb stated that "The Amazing Spider-Man" is going to be a story from the early career of Spider-Man that we have not seen yet. By saying that this is not a reboot or remake, it sounds like Webb is going out of his way to make people think this is actually a part of the previous Spider-Man series. Anyone who payed attention to the previous films knows that this cannot be. This film will not feature Mary Jane, but will indeed have Gwen Stacey, and Peter Parker will be in high school. If this is not a reboot, then how can this be possible? It makes no sense. Gwen was not his girlfriend in high school in the original Spidey movie, but she will be in this one. That alone screams reboot to me, and anyone else who kept their eyes open during the previous Spider-Man films should feel the same way. Its well known that people think a reboot this early after the last Spidey movie is a stupid move. Is Webb just trying to trick those people into seeing his movie? Or, again, am I missing something?
So what is going on here? Are directors purposely trying to mislead movie-goers into thinking the film is something it is not? Is there a slippery slope in the meanings of the words "remake", "reboot", and "sequel"? Or maybe its just me. Maybe I have a different idea of what a reboot and a sequel are? If so, then please tell me. At any rate, to those that read through all of this, thank you. I hope you enjoyed it, and I look forward to your comments.
~CDB