Batman Begins.

Live Free or Die Hard.

Rocky Balboa.

Casino Royale.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.


What do you think of this new Hollywood trend of re-visiting old movie franchises?

Do you hate it cuz it shows Hollywood's lack of originality, or do you do like it cuz it's like comfort food?

If I keep getting Casino Royale, Batman Begins type caliber films I'm all for it. Even Live Free or Die Hard which was a fun movie. No Rocky Balboa though, that was an awful film.

I don't mind it.

As long as the movie is good who cares? Hollywood was -NEVER- original so this is nothing new.

I'll be satisfied If they make Ghostbusters 3!

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/g...atures;title;3

John Rambo!!

In some instances it just reeks of desperation by the studio (Live Free or Die Hard), sometimes it's a desperate star (Rocky Balboa) and in some cases it's because the studio wants to take its time and do it right (Batman Begins, Casino Royale)

I think Clint should do another Dirty Harry.

I don't mind resurrecting franchises, if it's done well. Batman Begins, Die Hard, Casino Royale, and Rocky Balboa were all good movies. Superman Returns and Rob Zombie's Halloween, not so much.

Well said, PopcornTreeCt.

Sometimes, it IS desperation by the studio. Lethal Weapon 4, anyone?

I never understood why LW4 was rushed into production. They wrote a lot of it as they were going along. *shakes head*

As with remakes there are both good and bad examples of this trend. Casino Royale and Batman Beings are excellent examples. Halloween is not a good example. With everything announced these days seemingly a remake or "reimagining" or reboot the only thing I care about anymore is if it's any good; plain and simple. I like good movies and if they're done right I don't care what they call 'em.

Dislike it very much. But BB is different, mainly because Christopher Nolan is competent, and it wasn't an exact remake.

E

How is it any less original than any normal sequel? I mean, as long as the film is GOOD, then why is there any need to not enjoy it? If it screws up some sacred bond you have a movie franchise then you can simply choose NOT to see the film, right?

I like it, and so far the have been pretty good

I don't think Casino Royale counts since the cycle of Bond movies never really stopped..

Otherwise, it doesn't bother me, at least they try to make em decent.

I have no problem with it. Harrison Ford and Sylvester Stallone may well be reprising their famous roles out of lack of better options, but there's really something to be said for following the same character played by the same actor over decades. It almost feels like revisiting old friends.

I don't mind the rebooting option either (Batman, James Bond). Some characters are so iconic that they shouldn't be tied to one set of actors. Let them be continually reinterpreted by new generations as long as there's vitality and creativity involved like in Batman Begins and Casino Royale.

Well none of the examples are remakes.


I'd agree that I'll dig anything that's good.

The Bond example isn't a great one since it never stopped. The others are either a reboot attempt (Batman) or an extension of a dormant franchise. They can be good or bad, but I'm for anything that's good.

As to Ms. M's post, there's a truth to it. People have no problem about remaking Hamlet. Why not redo other roles that weren't written by William Shakespeare? You can always have a new take on things...

How is it new? Hollywood has always rebooted franchises. (how many versions of Dracula has there been?)
They consider them brands and every now and then they refresh them for a new generation.

I'm sure in our lifetimes we'll see ressurections of Harry Potter, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings etc.

Like everyone else said I don't really care as long as they're handled well.

The idea is nothing IMO, everything's in the execution.

^^ Good point, but I think there's been more remakes/resurrected movies/sequels than ever before, and especially of things that were popular in the 80s.

Exactly. Well said.

A lot of the movie icons from the 1970's and 1980's, in particular, are getting the reboot.

I haven't seen it but doesn't "Superman Returns" fit into this as well because it wasn't a remake?

That was a sort-of sequel, not a remake or a reboot wasn't it?

I don't know people consider "Superman Returns" a sequel. He didn't go anywhere at the end of any of them. Plus we see the "origin" again.

When Die Hard is dumb down by Fox who seems hates R rated movies, they should have ended it with number 3.

My daughter has a casting call later this week for the new Beethoven movie.

Yes, I'm not kidding. The dog.