ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Your favorite film reboot

SpaceClown77

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 337

Report this Jul. 26 2009, 5:47 am

I voted for Batman Begins. It was far more enjoyable than the previous three rubbish batman films.

ENT567

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5267

Report this Jul. 26 2009, 10:26 am

Casino Royale (though the next one was awful).

I don't vote for Batman Begins bcz imo a comic book hero like Batman, when turned into that kind of dramatic hero living in an almost real world, totally loses his symbolic, "unreal" nature and gradually becomes some kind of idiot who for no plausible reason keeps wearing mask and dressing like a bat, while everybody else around him becomes more and more real.

Vice_Adm_Baxter

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Jul. 26 2009, 10:36 am

I voted Other because Lost In Space wasn't on the list neither was Planet Of The Apes

The_Mighty_Quark

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 235

Report this Jul. 26 2009, 8:59 pm

Star Trek, Friday the 13th, and Yeah, Lost in Space!  (Thanks Vice_Adm_Baxter, I forgot about that one!;) :cool:

Captain_Storma

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11836

Report this Jul. 27 2009, 8:47 am

Ermmm... TERMINATOR 4 is not a reboot, but a sequel, so forget that. It follows the action of 3, and kind of serves as a prequel to 1 (complicated... isn't it).

Defineatly BATMAN BEGINS. Casino Royale was crap compared to the older Bond movies (nobody will ever be able to beat Sean Connery or Roger Moore), and everyone knows what I think about TREK.

Batman was the only film which was actually better than anything that came before. A film focused on characters, with a main theme and a #### good screenplay.
Cannot wait to see a 3rd part (although there was no official announcement yet... another prove that this reboot is classy... they do not simply make up stories, they work them out, and as long as they do not think a story could work, they will not throw out a sequel just for the sake of making money).

Speaking about money... TREK XII and XIII could be filmed back to back... Matrix and POTC all over again???  :sarcastic:

SpaceClown77

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 337

Report this Jul. 27 2009, 9:11 am

Quote (Captain_Storma @ July 27 2009, 8:47 am)
Ermmm... TERMINATOR 4 is not a reboot, but a sequel, so forget that. It follows the action of 3, and kind of serves as a prequel to 1 (complicated... isn't it).

It's close enough to a reboot if you ask me. The star of the previous three - Arnold - doesn't appear at all(I don't count CGI Arnold). I've seen several times it been mentioned as a reboot for the Terminator franchise. So yeah, I think it counts.

I only included recent reboots in the last five last years - that I could think of.

Vice_Adm_Baxter

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Jul. 27 2009, 9:46 am

Quote (Captain_Storma @ July 27 2009, 5:47 am)

:logical:

Quote
Batman was the only film which was actually better than anything that came before. A film focused on characters, with a main theme and a #### good screenplay.


Not really, It was actually the least Batman of the films that had been released to that point in time.

Quote

Speaking about money... TREK XII and XIII could be filmed back to back... Matrix and POTC all over again???  :sarcastic:


You still haven't gotten over the fact that there will never ever be another TNG movie ever have you?

SpaceClown77

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 337

Report this Jul. 27 2009, 10:40 am

Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ July 27 2009, 9:46 am)
Quote
Not really, It was actually the least Batman of the films that had been released to that point in time.

Wrong. Batman Begins was the first Bat film to focus on Bruce Wayne/Batman, the villains were not that important. It was a character study for those characters. The previous films treated Batman like a secondary character focusing too strongly on the villains.

thereR4lights

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2643

Report this Jul. 27 2009, 11:06 am

batman begins was a rebbot
terminater 4 not
my choice is a most deff

star trek XI

Captain_Storma

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11836

Report this Jul. 27 2009, 11:21 am

Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ July 27 2009, 6:46 pm)

Quote:


:logical:

So by your logic EPISODE I was a reboot of STAR WARS EPISODE IV???

Prequel is not equal to reboot.

A prequel tells a story set before a film, or series of films IN THE SAME universe.

ENTERPRISE was a prequel to TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY and can be considered a prequel to nuTOS.

WOLVERINE was a prequel to the X-MEN Trilogy, set before the film series.

Captain_Storma

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11836

Report this Jul. 27 2009, 11:24 am

Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ July 27 2009, 6:46 pm)
:sarcastic:


You still haven't gotten over the fact that there will never ever be another TNG movie ever have you?
Oh come on, you are beating a dead horse here... I never said I wanted another TNG movie, in fact I would prefere not to have TNG at all. TNG is over it had its time.

I want something completely new.

So, please stop posting false things about me. Nobody here wants another TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT... and me nor TOS for that matter.  :eyesroll:

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 27 2009, 11:36 am

This is a bit of an odd question.  It wouldn't be asked if we hadn't had so many reboots and remakes the last 10 -15 years or so.  Truthfully, I really have not been in favor of most of them because I thought they either bastardized the original source material or were totally unnecessary since the originals were so good.  

That said, here's a list of some I thought were great:

1.  ST XI:  As I said, I think the Berman-TNG formula had run its course and, after the back to back blows of INS and NEM the TNG movie franchise was effectively destroyed.  ST XI both put the franchise back on the map in a hug way and returned the classic, original characters to prominence.  I thought it was a very fun movie that was true to the characters and the style and heart of the original show.  It was a vindication to the original show after the way Berman treated it, and, in particular, Mr. Nimoy.

2.  Batman Begins.  After Batman and Robin, you really had nowhere to go but up.  Thankfully, Batman got another chance and Batman Begins finally delivered a Batman movie about Batman, not one of his rogues gallery.  As a longtime Bat-fan, I loved that film.

3.  Casino Royale.  I didn't think another reboot of Bond was necessary.  After all, it had already been rebooted with Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye, and, it can be argued at least softly, with Timothy Dalton as well in The Living Daylights.  Brosnan's Die Another Day, as much as it was over-the-top and, imo, not his best Bond film, made a ton of money.  There was no financial reason to reboot.  The producers did it in light of the success of the Bourne films, and, imo, they did a brilliant job with Casino Royale.  I felt sorry for Brosnan, who wasn't ready to give up playing Bond (I think he wanted to do one more picture), but I understand why the Brocollis felt they needed to change actors.  That's kind of what having a new Bond allows you to do:  reboot things, either a little or a lot.

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 27 2009, 11:37 am

Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ July 27 2009, 9:46 am)
Last I heard is that there isn't going to be a 3rd Batman movie.

Actually, Gary Oldman just said the new film starts filming in 2010 (I believe that was the date).

There is going to be at least one more Batman film.

Captain_Storma

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11836

Report this Jul. 27 2009, 11:39 am

STAR TREK - INSURRECTION

Production budget: 58 million USD

Box office performance:
Domestic:  $70,187,658    62.3%
+ Foreign:  $42,400,000    37.7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
= Worldwide:  $112,587,658  

You call this a bomb? And I thought you were the numbers person.
So... might we call TREK XI a bomb, cause it also just got 200% at the BO of its budget?

:eyesroll:

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Jul. 27 2009, 12:41 pm

Quote (Captain_Storma @ July 27 2009, 11:39 am)
STAR TREK - INSURRECTION

Production budget: 58 million USD

Box office performance:
Domestic: ?$70,187,658 ? ?62.3%
+ Foreign: ?$42,400,000 ? ?37.7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
= Worldwide: ?$112,587,658 ?

You call this a bomb? And I thought you were the numbers person.
So... might we call TREK XI a bomb, cause it also just got 200% at the BO of its budget?

:eyesroll:

Uh, I don't know if you were referring to my previous post, Storma, but I wasn't calling INS a bomb. ¿NEM is the only ST movie that has consistently been referred to as a bomb at the box office. ¿

Look at this domestic box office chart again:



As you can see, INS had only 1,814,240 sales than TFF did and it cost almost twice as much to make.

And, from the chart, you can see there was a 28% drop in the domestic box office from FC. ¿Now, obviously that is not the disaster that was TFF, which dropped 55% from TVH, but Paramount was not happy with it (just as they weren't happy about GEN not significantly gaining ground from TUC), but INS was the most expensive ST film since TMP. ¿

That's why Berman said this, going into NEM:

Quote

Berman on Star Trek Nemesis :


"Star Trek was going through some changes. Deep Space Nine had ended. Voyager had ended. Voyager's ratings had not fared at all that well. Enterprise was on the air (and struggling). I think that the studio was not in a big rush. ¿Patrick Stewart was kind of busy. There was a sense I was getting from the studio that perhaps the next film we produced might be better off if we did it with a new cast. I felt, right or wrong, that because we were introducing a new cast with Enterprise that to introduce a new cast almost simultaneously was not a good idea. I felt since it had been awhile, four years I believe, since the audience had seen Picard and company, that we should give the cast of The Next Generation another shot."



I mean, why do you think it was so long from INS and NEM? ¿Why do you think the studio was considering using a whole new crew for the movie following INS if INS did so well? ¿

Heck, Paramount was considering the same thing, going on with a new crew or Bennett SF Academy idea, for ST VI after the extremely poor showing of TFF. ¿However, the 25th anniversary was coming up and the Paramount execs, I think, recognized that they were partially to blame for the problems in TFF and they wanted the original cast to go out on a high note, so TUC was made. ¿

They're similar situations. ¿Both TFF and INS were set-backs and each time another chance was given. ¿However, the differnce is TUC regained some of the ground TFF lost and was critically acclaimed while NEM's box office dropped over 50% of INS's and was the second-worst reviewed ST movie ever.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum