Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 15:24:37 GMT -5
What are your thoughts on these? Personally, I'm starting to get annoyed by this trend. My reaction to most of these announcements is the same: "this seems completely unnecessary since we already have the original and it's good". I don't at all feel that good old movies, games, or cartoons are outdated in some way and need to be modernized. In most cases it feels like the use of new technologies or modern ideas doesn't really change things that much and doesn't justify a remake. It's really hard for me to see most reboots as something other than lazy attempts at making a lot of easy money.
Then there are sudden sequels coming out of nowhere. Sometimes they can be great, like if they show how the world or the characters have changed. If you've seen something as a kid and then when you grow up you get a more adult and gritty sequel, it can have a pretty powerful effect. But in a lot of cases the story already seems complete to me and it just feels wrong to continue it. It's kind of shitty how you can never be sure anymore whether you've already seen the "real" ending. Maybe 15 years later a continuation will come out and it might even ignore some stuff from the original for the sake of a new scenario.
Of course all that stuff can be done in a good way and in a bad way, and I'm not necessarily against all of it in general. But the prevalence of remakes/reboots/etc seems troubling to me. Do you think it's just a fad? Or will the art world always be like this now, constantly piggybacking on the past?
|
|
Justince
Doomer
Professional Face-Puncher
Posts: 492 
|
Post by Justince on Sept 20, 2017 20:31:08 GMT -5
The last season of South Park had these little grape things called Memberberries, they would constantly be saying this like 'Member the '80s??' 'Oh yeah I love the 80s!' 'Member Chewbacca?' 'OOhh I love Chewbacca!' Essentially the Memberberries were blinding people with nostalgia until they had no idea if what they were seeing or doing was stupid or a waste of time. Reboots are absolutely a cheap cash-in, no question about it.
This is a huge trend right now with 30-somethings trying to recapture their youth, the biggest offender being the new Star Wars movies, which do nothing to move forward and instead rely on callbacks and references to shit that has already been done. Rouge One was an undeniable sack of crap, but it had Darth Vader, a Death Star and a Rebel Base so you've got a theater of 'spergs going apeshit over it, congrats! Your movie is a success! Terminator is another perfect example. The story fucking ended after T2, stop milking this shit. That last one was so bad I couldn't believe someone actually wrote it and people 'acted' in it. 'Member the T1000?' 'Ohh yeah, I loved the T1000!' 'Member Kyle Reese? Here's Kyle Reese again! But this time Sarah Conner saves him!! Get it??' Give me a fucking break. Fuck you Hollywood.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 20:47:45 GMT -5
Rouge One was an undeniable sack of crap, but it had Darth Vader, a Death Star and a Rebel Base so you've got a theater of 'spergs going apeshit over it, congrats! Your movie is a success! I think the weirdest part of Rogue One (for me) was seeing an actor on screen that has been dead for over twenty years. "Grand Moff Tarkin" played by Peter Cushing, the actor from the original 1977 Star Wars (A New Hope). He died in 1994 and well... here he is in 2017. Courtesy of some very eerie CGI work, that is admittedly impressive but also suffers from some 'uncanny valley' effect. Though the technology is definitely improving, I'd say we haven't quite reached perfection yet. But hey, the actor lives on! Into the future. Craziness. |
|
40oz
diRTbAg
Posts: 5,536
|
Post by 40oz on Sept 21, 2017 7:12:37 GMT -5
I've read somewhere that Pixar movies get lots of sequels because they cost next to nothing to make. The worlds and the character models are already there. They just have to write a quick bullshit story, animate the existing models a little bit, get the voice actors to come back and do some lines for a few hours, and that's about it. They could make an infinite number of toy storys if they really wanted to.
The paranormal activity sequels were especially dog shit. The whole movie is filmed on grainy security cameras. You can turn lights on and off with a circuit breaker and tie a fishing line to a door to make it look like it shut by itself. It's hilariously low budget and an 11 year old could have directed it.
Reboots of existing franchises are something I don't necessarily get. The last few movies I've seen recently were reboots but they were actually really good. I don't know why the same level of attention can't be applied to new original and very simple concepts. 80's scifi stuff is really making a comeback these days, but a lot of it is just a very simple marriage of two unlike things and uniting them together to develop a story that makes it believable. Seeing how complex more recent original films are, I don't see why going back to basics is so hard without rebooting something that already exists.
War + Space = Star Wars
Dinosaurs + Theme Park = Jurassic Park
Evil + Clown = It
Robot + Cop = Robocop
There's certainly some examples like Alien and Terminator that are a little out there, but the above would be a great start. Of course, it's important to make it believable and not just sell out your shitty movie concept in the title of the movie like "Cowboys and Aliens" did.
|
|
BIG DICK NIGGA
this post is a lie about my bodily proportions
Major Arlene obsessed, 100% verified freakazoid. AKA bzzrak
Posts: 2,296 
|
Post by BIG DICK NIGGA on Sept 21, 2017 9:13:31 GMT -5
Cowboys and Aliens was a great movie, lol.
About the topic:
I'm not old enough to see all the disappointing sequel stuff through a lens of nostalgia, so my POV is kinda different.
What do i mean by that: take the Terminator for example (as Justince mentioned it). I saw Terminator 5 before I saw T2, so for me the experience was as if T2 were the prequel to T5, or something. For me T5 wasn't disappointing at all, simply because for me it was like when you oldfags watched T1/T2. And the storyline of the Terminator series never made any sense, really.
Same for Star Wars, I watched E7 before all the other ones, so for me it was like when you oldfags watched A New Hope in '77 or something. I didn't see anything shameful in it.
So judging by you guys' replies, I'd say that you hate those reboots not for being objectively bad, but for the fact that they, umm, "desecrated" your holy memory of them 20 years ago. I might be wrong with my armchair psychoanalysis, obviously, but to me it seems like that.
Yeah, reboots can be cool. It's like refreshing the old movie and bringing it up to 2017 standards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2017 12:36:06 GMT -5
I thought the new Star Wars movies were alright. Same with the new Alien movies. I don't like them as much as the classic originals, but I don't hate them. To each their own. If you (and others) really like them, that's fine. Rogue One especially had some pretty awesome moments I thought.
I'm not a huge fan of the new Terminator movies though. To be honest, I think the only Terminator movie I truly love is the 1984 original. Judgement Day wasn't quite as dark or twisted by comparison. I wasn't a fan of seeing Arnold go soft and shooting people in the legs, lol. Lame, blow their heads off Arnie.
|
|
dn
Body Count: 02
the motherfucking darknation
Posts: 1,728
|
Post by dn on Sept 21, 2017 14:35:21 GMT -5
I've read somewhere that Pixar movies get lots of sequels because they cost next to nothing to make. The worlds and the character models are already there. They just have to write a quick bullshit story, animate the existing models a little bit, get the voice actors to come back and do some lines for a few hours, and that's about it. They could make an infinite number of toy storys if they really wanted to. What... Just... no. Yes, there are existing assets, but... Christ in hell, people seriously think this? Even the worst pixar sequel has animation light years ahead of the shit that dreamworks churns out. That shit is handcrafted. Thousands of hours spent on lipsynch alone. To hear that some asschild seems to think that it's on the level of a machima youtube poop fucking astounds me. Whoever wrote that article was speaking out of their fucking rectum and undoubtedly a humongous spastic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2017 14:41:01 GMT -5
I don't mean to derail this thread, but since we're on the topic of Star Wars...
One thing I really loved about the original Star Wars trilogy was the depiction of the Empire. They weren't all just a bunch of stereotypical bad guys. Instead, the Empire felt like a very real and nuanced political formation that was filled with people who genuinely cared about doing the right thing. At least, they thought they were doing the right thing. After all, it was just a power struggle within the senate. Sure, the Empire was a bunch of "space Nazis" but it was a lot more than just that. Take Captain Needa, for example. You feel some sense of remorse for the poor guy after he is force choked by Vader. There is some humanity there, that elevates the characters beyond the usual "bad guy", you know?
Also, Admiral Piett is another good example. He rose through the ranks on his own and became a favorite of Vader. It really sucked to see him die at the end of Episode 6, but I guess he was lucky to get there at all considering his failure at the end of The Empire Strikes Back. Interesting to see him survive the film... probably because Vader was still feeling sad about Luke. He no longer cared about the pursuit enough to kill someone. Also, Piett was good at his job. And despite him being on the bad side, he was personable and seemed to genuinely care. Plus he had the best promotion of all time:
|
|
Justince
Doomer
Professional Face-Puncher
Posts: 492
|
Post by Justince on Sept 21, 2017 17:15:57 GMT -5
So judging by you guys' replies, I'd say that you hate those reboots not for being objectively bad, but for the fact that they, umm, "desecrated" your holy memory of them 20 years ago. I might be wrong with my armchair psychoanalysis, obviously, but to me it seems like that. You'd need to work on your comprehension because that's not what anyone is saying in this thread. As Memfis clearly stated, the biggest offense is undoing a perfectly sound, satisfying ending just to open the door to a quick cash-grab. This is painfully transparent to anyone paying attention in the slightest. Did there need to be Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull? No, no fucking way in hell did that movie need to be made. I'm glad you said something about being updated to 2017, for 'reboots' or unnecessary sequels that usually entails the following prerequisites: 1) Digging up old actors who should have laughed at the idea and moved on. (Ghostbusters 2016) 2) Reducing the already tried and tested story to endless gimmicks and absurd filler just to lead to overblown action scenes until the movie becomes a parody of itself. (Applies to nearly every reboot) 3) Relying on references to past films to create a false sense of connection for the poor saps who have seen the previous films and were dumb enough to see the new one. They have to do this because the new writing and character direction is so bad only the memories of the previous film can attempt to salvage it. 4) Like point 1, casting flash-in-the-pan douchebag actors who have already had their 15 minutes of fame and are now universally hated, thus further tainting the reboot. See: Shia Lebeouf. |
|
|
|
Post by mistercornbread on Oct 3, 2017 8:25:43 GMT -5
There are certain stories that will get repeated time and time again, seemingly forever if the story is good enough. Hollywood pumped out an enormous amount of highly memorable stories during the 20th century and now we're in this weird post-post-modern era where we nostalgically retell the stories over and over until it becomes bad fan fiction. I think "Terminator: Genysis" is a really good example of this, even though I haven't seen it. But I can imagine a lumbering idiot screeching, "IT'S GOT THE TERMINATOR! AND THE T-1000! AND JOHN! AND SARAH! AND IN MULTIPLE TIME PERIODS!" Yeah, so?
|
|
TOS
You're trying to say you like DOS better than me, right?
Glenzinho's Chicabro
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by TOS on Oct 3, 2017 8:56:55 GMT -5
While I will acknowledge that not all late arrival remakes, reboots, prequels, sequels, et cetera are horrible...
I find that whether or not they are good movies is irrelevant to my point. I think it's unfortunate that people have become so reliant on others to be creative for them, that writers have lost the will to be creative and have instead resorted to double dipping the quill as it were instead of coming up with fresh ideas. I think this is because the drive is net financial gain and all passion for the cinema craft is gone (save for independent films). It seems like every other day I am hearing about new movies coming out that all swear to be "the best movie you'll see this year". What if instead of trying to get as much money as they can via needless product placement and overpaid all star casts, Hollywood actually took the time to write a new story that isn't reliant on actor notoriety, rehashed storylines that were successful in the past, or attractive visual effects, they just wrote something new that was original and enjoyable? Sure, they wouldn't make as much money as they are now, but they'd have better products.
But alas, this will not happen. As long as the hordes continually travel in mass to the theater every time a new movie comes out that promises to be "like nothing you've ever seen before!", cinema will remain dead.
"This summer, see Fast and Furious 17, starring Vin Diesel as a misunderstood hardass in a wifebeater that has a soft spot for family, featuring lots of explosions and a crazy plot twist!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 9:39:35 GMT -5
The most irritating remakes for me are the ones that attempt to remake a film that was essentially perfect on the first go around. I totally understand remaking an old film which had a great concept at it's core but suffered because of poor acting, lack of budget, or lack of technology to create good visual effects. This happened a lot with older films, and when I say old I mean like before our time. But when the original movie was undeniably awesome, a remake serves no artistic purpose and only exists as a cash grab, or worse serves to "modernize" the film for younger audiences. That really pisses me off actually. No wonder millenials are so fucking entitled. "Don't understand the 80's version of Robocop, young lad? Is the pacing of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre too slow for your tiny attention span? Don't worry, we'll modernize it for you!" To me, that downplays one of the most interesting aspects of older films: their ability to capture the essence of the decade that they came out of. Rather than re-making great films to please a shitty generation, I wish that the people of that generation were forced to watch and learn to appreciate why the original films were so good. But alas, there's no money in that idea. Rouge One was an undeniable sack of crap, but it had Darth Vader, a Death Star and a Rebel Base so you've got a theater of 'spergs going apeshit over it, congrats! Your movie is a success! I'd like to hear your thoughts on this guy's video review of Rogue One. It is a bit long, but in my opnion it's worth it. |
|
