with the wealth of horror reboots coming out (Texas Chainsaw 3D, etc...). I thought of how unnecessary some of these reboots actually are, especially since they come mere years after the first reboot (TCM was what 2003?). The Amazing Spider-Man less than 10 years after Raimi.

So which franchises or films do you think was just silly to reboot again...and again...?

all of them

/thread

TCM 3D isn't a reboot.

Conan The Barbarian

I think only James Bond films could have been good. They could have followed the books.

With that in mind, I think the shorter thread would be about reboots that aren't that objectionable.

For me, I don't care an iota about comic book reboots. I think the comic book movie model has simply become the comic book model itself, where certain artists/writers have discreet runs where they put their stamp on a tried and true character. Or you have the same character in multiple books (Spider-man, Amazing Spider-man, Spectacular Spider-man, Ultimate Spider-man, etc).

So, really, reboots aren't that big of a deal to me.

It is sequels and the automatic "franchising" of movies that gets annoying. Say what you want about the Disney machine, but at least at their worst, they used to go direct to video where they could be neatly ignored, while the superior original works were hitting theaters. Now, the sequels are hitting theaters. Ted 2? Really. That one note, family guy recycling plant of a comedy barely deserved to be a one-off film (aside from a 23 minute family guy episode) and it gets an automatic sequel b/c of its Box Office.

It is that type of mentality that is going to destroy Hollywood. Stick to a genre template, sure, roll out a Biblical epic one after the other until people get sick of them or large clunky musicals (60s Hollywood mainstream), but at least make them unique films/stories each go around.


Here's a recent article that ties into this thread:

http://www.vulture.com/2012/11/start...ranchises.html

ANDY HARDY COMES HOME (1958), with a 38-year-old Mickey Rooney reprising the teen role that made him a star.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051360/

Wasn't Spider-man done so the license did not default back to Disney?

Is any movie, reboot or not, "necessary"?

Nope, but I think the intent of the OP is to use that word as shorthand for devoid of artistic merit or maybe a quick hackneyed cash grab by Hollywood at large.

The whole reboot/sequel trend, is not so much a trend as just a more prolific emphasis on a time tested Hollywood business model. This stuff isn't new (see: remakes better than originals thread), but with less films being made overall, it is a larger, better marketed percentage of films being franchise-type movies or remakes of classics/old favorites with an eye toward a franchise.

http://www.deadline.com/2010/01/urge...eboot-planned/

Spiderman 4 was originally greenlit with Raimi and Maguire returning. But, it was scrapped because of script issues and production delays. Plus, Raimi said he couldn't make the deadline to get the movie completed. That's why Sony decided to start all over again.

For me, Nightmare on Elm Street. It looked just like the original but updated and with a little twist.

My first thought was that the CASINO ROYALE reboot was unneeded. It was unnecessary and there was no need to seperate Craig's Bond from all the previous ones. Most Bond movies are stand-alones anyway, and I rather enjoyed when one actor would refer back to the events of a Bond movie with a different actor.

I count Casino Royale as a partial reboot, since it has the same M. And it's not as if the other films were strong on continuity.

Texas Chainsaw 3D isn't a reboot, its a true sequel to the first movie.

The Amazing Spider-Man is what immediately comes to mind. It's transparent because you can see the business meetings that went into its creation. If anything they should have followed the James Bond model and just showed Spidey's next adventure and not try to retell the exact story we just saw ten years ago.

Since comic book movies are so hot right now, you'll see them continue to be remade and remade. Nolan's Batman movies were the only ones that had the guts to have a final ending. But do you really think we won't see another Batman flick greenlit in the next few years???

The simple answer is 'all the bad ones'. No one seems to be bothered by reboots/remakes if they're good. Batman Begins was a reboot after all and the original Batman is highly regarded. I don't see many people complaining about that.

TDKR spoiler



And I have no problem with constant comic book reboots. These are just reusable characters and if they can tell a different story then I'm all for it. I just don't think they should bang out constant origin stories.

I read this thread title as Robots that are Unnecessary. So to answer that question, Paulie's robot from Rocky 4.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cku6oPGWW7Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Best Three words this thread will see ...

Are books, music, or art truly "necessary"? No. They are not. But they are still important so thank fuck they exist.