If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   Why movie reboots fail. Reason number 8 is obvioOHGODTHEBEES GETTHEMOFFME   (io9.com) divider line 193
    More: Amusing, movie franchises, Japanese films, Anal-oral sex, giant monsters, Roland Emmerich, Ray Harryhausen, underworlds, Sam Raimi  
•       •       •

9254 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 03 Apr 2013 at 11:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



193 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-03 12:23:45 PM  
A Goonies reboot with modern fat lazy iPhone crazed kids would be hillariously bad.

Writter made a good point though, parents never let their kids out of eye sight these days.

In my day....

/lawn off it.
 
2013-04-03 12:29:53 PM  

ExpressPork: The new Clash of the Titans was a succes, thanks to the drooling masses of idiots that bought tickets and called it a "good" movie (some still do).

I'll just pick on this one for now.
Liam Neeson sleepwalked through his role.
The movie relied much too heavily on action sequences, which made them feel stale and boring already about half way through.  Let's just examine the "medusa" fight in both old and new films.  Compare the original scene to the new one.
In the original there is an actual feeling of suspense.  It actually puts you on the edge of your seat.  It makes the scene interesting to watch.  The new medusa scene is just ACTION/FIGHT/BLOOD/SOUND/EFFECTS.  For the next battle...repeat formula.  That's just the first example that comes to mind.  I could go on and on.
And in spite of being a horrible movie, somehow the public spent enough of their money on it to warrant a sequel.  jackiechanwtf.jpg


And ... Clash of the Titans has Sam "The Black Hole of Acting" Worthington in the lead.
 
2013-04-03 12:34:49 PM  

scottydoesntknow: SurfaceTension: Interesting. My experience was just the opposite. I really liked 12. Almost more than 11. The only thing is I think it's a little confusing because basically everything they're doing in Europe is nothing more than the "elaborate show" that LeMarque says they have to put on for Toulour.

5 words that completely took me out of the movie and caused me to lose all interest.

Julia Roberts playing Julia Roberts


This post american dad approved..
 
2013-04-03 12:34:59 PM  
Red Dawnmade sense in the '80s

No it didn't.  I mean, it made sense as to why it was made then , but no, that movie never made any sense.
 
2013-04-03 12:35:58 PM  

Sybarite: Why is the author talking about Watchmen? That was an adaptation from another medium not a reboot.


i think the author was just trying to bolster the overal point with one of the best examples. watchmen is a great example of a work that only makes sense in a certain time and place.
 
2013-04-03 12:38:15 PM  

Somaticasual: This post american dad approved..


Hehehe I was trying to find that picture of them discussing it. That was an awesome episode too.
 
2013-04-03 12:39:09 PM  

SurfaceTension: Am I the only one that enjoyed the Star Trek reboot?


No
 
2013-04-03 12:40:43 PM  

Snapper Carr: If you want to see a guy in a bear suit sucker punching women, The Wicker Man will not disappoint.


Who doesn't want to see that?
 
2013-04-03 12:40:52 PM  
Two things:

As a Star Trek fan, I thought the reboot was great.

I hate Julia Roberts.  She can barely act and she is disturbing to look at.
 
2013-04-03 12:42:02 PM  

Valacirca: Red Dawnmade sense in the '80s

No it didn't.  I mean, it made sense as to why it was made then , but no, that movie never made any sense.


The remake of that one quite easily could have killed or stalled the career of Chris Hemsworth, he should thank his lucky stars that its release was delayed. The movie was that bad.
 
2013-04-03 12:45:01 PM  
They fail with me because either:

A) I liked the original and don't need to see it again -or-
B) I didn't care for it the first time around
 
2013-04-03 12:46:49 PM  

Valacirca: Red Dawnmade sense in the '80s

No it didn't.  I mean, it made sense as to why it was made then , but no, that movie never made any sense.


And it sucked in the '80s too.
 
2013-04-03 12:47:03 PM  

Ennuipoet: (Cinches onion tightly on belt) People these days can't be bothered to create, they can only remake.  Hollywood reboots a franchise rather than search for the next franchise, it's safe, cheap and they've taught people this is what they want.  Yet, when you look at the big movers on television, The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Mad Men, they are breaking new ground and people are eating it up.  Is this what we have to look forward at the theater in 20 years, a Game of the Throne reboot and Holo 3D Don Drapers?


That penis is going to be mighty impressive in Holo 3D.

"It's comin' right for us!"

southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com
 
2013-04-03 12:58:39 PM  
1) You Have Less Talent than the Original Cast and Crew

Um, not if the original sucked, or was so lo budget that they couldn't afford big talent. Wrong answer, try again.

Wow, 1 line item in, and your blog already sucks.
 
2013-04-03 12:58:44 PM  
The Evil Dead remake/reboot looks all kinds of awesome.
 
2013-04-03 12:59:06 PM  

Jack's Smirking Revenge: Snapper Carr: If you want to see a guy in a bear suit sucker punching women, The Wicker Man will not disappoint.

Who doesn't want to see that?


I am going to have to search out this movie.
 
2013-04-03 01:02:55 PM  

Mikey1969: 1) You Have Less Talent than the Original Cast and Crew

Um, not if the original sucked, or was so lo budget that they couldn't afford big talent. Wrong answer, try again.

Wow, 1 line item in, and your blog already sucks.


You do realize it says "8 Reasons" and not one. What might apply to some reboots obviously won't apply to others.

/Can't believe I'm defending a Gawker link, but the article wasn't half bad
 
2013-04-03 01:03:26 PM  
I'm waiting for the Prometheus reboot.

I hated the first one.
 
2013-04-03 01:06:13 PM  

Lee's_Austin: The Evil Dead remake/reboot looks all kinds of awesome.


I have a feeling they're going to lighten up on the tree rape scene.
/regardless, still can't wait to see it in theaters
 
2013-04-03 01:10:39 PM  
Total Recall rocked.


I have no idea why they had to call it Total Recall! They could have just had his memories triggered by something else and made a whole new movie.

They could have called it "Borne Identity 2250" because it was closer to the Borne Identity movie then it was to Total Recall. And it had this:

img708.imageshack.us

How did this not make billions and billions of dollars?!
 
2013-04-03 01:12:27 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Mikey1969: 1) You Have Less Talent than the Original Cast and Crew

Um, not if the original sucked, or was so lo budget that they couldn't afford big talent. Wrong answer, try again.

Wow, 1 line item in, and your blog already sucks.

You do realize it says "8 Reasons" and not one. What might apply to some reboots obviously won't apply to others.

/Can't believe I'm defending a Gawker link, but the article wasn't half bad


Yeah, but it makes it sound like they are ALL 1/8th of why it doesn't work. '8 Things That Can Cause a Reboot to Fail' makes it sound like it can be any combination of the 8, but '8 Reasons Movie Reboots Fail', with no qualifiers makes it sound like all reboots fail, and it's all set in stone. That's what bothers me about articles like this. I guess it's more in line with the general complaint about the lack of quality in journalism today, and Gawker is a prime example of that, so I guess you're right. Considering what they have to work with, this is pretty good.

/Do I sound bitter?
//I FEEL bitter
 
2013-04-03 01:17:12 PM  

Mikey1969: Yeah, but it makes it sound like they are ALL 1/8th of why it doesn't work. '8 Things That Can Cause a Reboot to Fail' makes it sound like it can be any combination of the 8, but '8 Reasons Movie Reboots Fail', with no qualifiers makes it sound like all reboots fail, and it's all set in stone. That's what bothers me about articles like this. I guess it's more in line with the general complaint about the lack of quality in journalism today, and Gawker is a prime example of that, so I guess you're right. Considering what they have to work with, this is pretty good.

/Do I sound bitter?
//I FEEL bitter



You're that picky with the English language? How do you even log onto this website?! My god your stomach must be riddled with ulsters and you must be having chest pains. The blood shooting from your eyes should have been the first clue something was bad wrong.


And one more picture:
img825.imageshack.us

'cause I can
 
2013-04-03 01:18:07 PM  

Mikey1969: 1) You Have Less Talent than the Original Cast and Crew

Um, not if the original sucked, or was so lo budget that they couldn't afford big talent. Wrong answer, try again.

Wow, 1 line item in, and your blog already sucks.


i'd say the best example of the point the author was making is The Thing. the original had great actors, effects and an established director. the new one had relative unknown actors, used CGI and was directed by a complete unknown. the contrast in quality between them is stark, although they are essentially the same movie in terms of the plot
 
2013-04-03 01:18:33 PM  
5) The Original Was a Product of Its Time

I DO agree with this one. I've used this exact line, and I used The Goonies as my example when discussing the Red Dawn reboot. Author may be a Farker, and if so, he ripped me off 100%. Some movies fit where they fit due to the culture at the time(Also, the Cold War aspect of Red Dawn made it more believable than what I'm hearing about the reboot), and they can't really fit in a newer climate.

Scary how close this is to exactly the argument I used.
 
2013-04-03 01:20:09 PM  

Mikey1969: scottydoesntknow: Mikey1969: 1) You Have Less Talent than the Original Cast and Crew

Um, not if the original sucked, or was so lo budget that they couldn't afford big talent. Wrong answer, try again.

Wow, 1 line item in, and your blog already sucks.

You do realize it says "8 Reasons" and not one. What might apply to some reboots obviously won't apply to others.

/Can't believe I'm defending a Gawker link, but the article wasn't half bad

Yeah, but it makes it sound like they are ALL 1/8th of why it doesn't work. '8 Things That Can Cause a Reboot to Fail' makes it sound like it can be any combination of the 8, but '8 Reasons Movie Reboots Fail', with no qualifiers makes it sound like all reboots fail, and it's all set in stone. That's what bothers me about articles like this. I guess it's more in line with the general complaint about the lack of quality in journalism today, and Gawker is a prime example of that, so I guess you're right. Considering what they have to work with, this is pretty good.

/Do I sound bitter?
//I FEEL bitter


You're reading too much into the title. It's '8 Reasons Movie Reboots Fail', not '8 Reasons Movie Reboots Always And Will Forever Fail'.  In other words, these are 8 reasons that movie reboots have been observed to have failed in the past.  I mean, if I made a list of '10 Bizarre Penis Shapes Found In Nature', I am not implying that all animals have all 10 penis shapes.

/man, that duck penis thread really burrowed into my brain
 
2013-04-03 01:21:13 PM  

tlchwi02: i'd say the best example of the point the author was making is The Thing. the original had great actors, effects and an established director. the new one had relative unknown actors, used CGI and was directed by a complete unknown. the contrast in quality between them is stark, although they are essentially the same movie in terms of the plot


String me up, tar and feather me if you will...but I liked the what was on technicality a prequel
 
2013-04-03 01:25:32 PM  

ExpressPork: The new Clash of the Titans was a succes, thanks to the drooling masses of idiots that bought tickets and called it a "good" movie (some still do).

I'll just pick on this one for now.
Liam Neeson sleepwalked through his role.
The movie relied much too heavily on action sequences, which made them feel stale and boring already about half way through.  Let's just examine the "medusa" fight in both old and new films.  Compare the original scene to the new one.
In the original there is an actual feeling of suspense.  It actually puts you on the edge of your seat.  It makes the scene interesting to watch.  The new medusa scene is just ACTION/FIGHT/BLOOD/SOUND/EFFECTS.  For the next battle...repeat formula.  That's just the first example that comes to mind.  I could go on and on.
And in spite of being a horrible movie, somehow the public spent enough of their money on it to warrant a sequel.  jackiechanwtf.jpg


The medusa was pretty bad-ass though. She was pretty damned hot, which seems to be a new trend with medusi... The rest of the movie blew goats.

I don't know why they used Total Recall as an example. I watched the original first run in the theater, and have grown up with it. It sucked, it was a cartoon-y mess. There, I said it. I haven't read the story in about 10 years, but it seemed like the new version stayed closer to the story than Arnold's version. Planet of the Apes? I was OK with it, it wasn't that bad. The original still holds its ground, but I think there are other reasons that people called it a "failure", and most of those are because the people heard from someone else that it was a failure.

I'm interested in the remake of Evil Dead, but originally I wanted absolutely nothing to do with it. What I've heard though,, is that Sam Raimi signed off on it and gave it his stamp of approval. If the original filmmaker is willing to do something like that, then I'll give it a go...
 
2013-04-03 01:26:47 PM  

tlchwi02: Mikey1969: 1) You Have Less Talent than the Original Cast and Crew

Um, not if the original sucked, or was so lo budget that they couldn't afford big talent. Wrong answer, try again.

Wow, 1 line item in, and your blog already sucks.

i'd say the best example of the point the author was making is The Thing. the original had great actors, effects and an established director. the new one had relative unknown actors, used CGI and was directed by a complete unknown. the contrast in quality between them is stark, although they are essentially the same movie in terms of the plot


You do realize that John Carpenter's The Thing is a remake itself, right?  There was an original,  The Thing From Another World.  And Carpenter's version is much better.
 
2013-04-03 01:28:39 PM  

PanicMan: Two things:

As a Star Trek fan, I thought the reboot was great.

I hate Julia Roberts.  She can barely act and she is disturbing to look at.


Agreed on both counts. I think she is disturbing to look at because her mouth appears to be upside down.
 
2013-04-03 01:30:44 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: String me up, tar and feather me if you will...but I liked the what was on technicality a prequel


see, i thought that not only was it quite bad on its own right (it was barely scary, it slavishly attempted to replicate the original without understanding any of the parts that made that movie brilliant, the cgi was a terrific letdown from the *still* creepy monsters of the first and the acting was nowhere near as awesome as keith david and kurt russel with a sprinkle of insane wilford brimley) but it managed to damage the original by taking that great element of the norwegian campsite and cold open to the movie and remove the mystery. the opening sequence of the norwegians randomly showing up trying to murder a dog, then later finding the wrecked camp, with the suicides, the burnt out and wrecked structures and the grainy video tape the only human record. imagining how the swedes dug the thing up and it killed them all heightens the tension, but knowing how it actually went deflates it
 
2013-04-03 01:32:44 PM  

serial_crusher: was Rise of the Planet of the Apes technically a reboot?  I thought they said it was a prequel... the way the Ape revolution played out in the original timeline until Cornelius and Zira went back in time and changed it up?


Well, that's a good question. If we look at POTA as the original reboot, then this is a prequel to that. If you throw away POTA, thenTHIS is the reboot to the series itself, since it is basically starting the series over, just taking up roughly what the original 4th film covered... In other words, it's a sequel to a reboot while being a prequel to the storyline at the same time as it is a remake of a previous movie and a reboot of a previous series.
 
2013-04-03 01:33:20 PM  

tlchwi02: Mikey1969: 1) You Have Less Talent than the Original Cast and Crew

Um, not if the original sucked, or was so lo budget that they couldn't afford big talent. Wrong answer, try again.

Wow, 1 line item in, and your blog already sucks.

i'd say the best example of the point the author was making is The Thing. the original had great actors, effects and an established director. the new one had relative unknown actors, used CGI and was directed by a complete unknown. the contrast in quality between them is stark, although they are essentially the same movie in terms of the plot



LMAO!
 
2013-04-03 01:33:34 PM  

LeroyBourne: /regardless, still can't wait to see it in theaters


Agreed.  Although, I have to amend my statement.  According to the Wiki page, this is a stand-alone sequel and not a reboot/remake.
 
2013-04-03 01:34:31 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Mikey1969: Yeah, but it makes it sound like they are ALL 1/8th of why it doesn't work. '8 Things That Can Cause a Reboot to Fail' makes it sound like it can be any combination of the 8, but '8 Reasons Movie Reboots Fail', with no qualifiers makes it sound like all reboots fail, and it's all set in stone. That's what bothers me about articles like this. I guess it's more in line with the general complaint about the lack of quality in journalism today, and Gawker is a prime example of that, so I guess you're right. Considering what they have to work with, this is pretty good.

/Do I sound bitter?
//I FEEL bitter


You're that picky with the English language? How do you even log onto this website?! My god your stomach must be riddled with ulsters and you must be having chest pains. The blood shooting from your eyes should have been the first clue something was bad wrong.


And one more picture:
[img825.imageshack.us image 800x1265]

'cause I can


The Irish province?  :-)
 
2013-04-03 01:34:34 PM  
The Stealth Hippopotamus:
[img825.imageshack.us image 800x1265]

'cause I can


t1.gstatic.com

you know, i should write parts for them in my screenplay - 'scarlett johannson and natalie portman make out'
 
2013-04-03 01:35:11 PM  

HeartBurnKid: /man, that duck penis thread really burrowed into my brain


Counter-clockwise?
 
2013-04-03 01:36:10 PM  

tlchwi02: Mikey1969: 1) You Have Less Talent than the Original Cast and Crew

Um, not if the original sucked, or was so lo budget that they couldn't afford big talent. Wrong answer, try again.

Wow, 1 line item in, and your blog already sucks.

i'd say the best example of the point the author was making is The Thing. the original had great actors, effects and an established director. the new one had relative unknown actors, used CGI and was directed by a complete unknown. the contrast in quality between them is stark, although they are essentially the same movie in terms of the plot


I tried to watch the new one, but it lost me... Too much of a scene-by-scene remake, it seemed, and nothing new to bring to the table.
 
2013-04-03 01:37:33 PM  

tlchwi02: see, i thought that not only was it quite bad on its own right (it was barely scary, it slavishly attempted to replicate the original without understanding any of the parts that made that movie brilliant, the cgi was a terrific letdown from the *still* creepy monsters of the first and the acting was nowhere near as awesome as keith david and kurt russel with a sprinkle of insane wilford brimley) but it managed to damage the original by taking that great element of the norwegian campsite and cold open to the movie and remove the mystery. the opening sequence of the norwegians randomly showing up trying to murder a dog, then later finding the wrecked camp, with the suicides, the burnt out and wrecked structures and the grainy video tape the only human record. imagining how the swedes dug the thing up and it killed them all heightens the tension, but knowing how it actually went deflates it


Fair enough argument, I will say in its defense that even though we got a mostly complete explanation of the camp we did not however get a full on explanation of the alien, it's still The Thing and its still a mystery
 
2013-04-03 01:43:47 PM  

SurfaceTension: Am I the only one that enjoyed the Star Trek reboot?


No. I got the DVD the day it came out and still watch it regularly. I also went to see Hobbit on Imax 3D just to see the Star Trek preview, and I cannot wait for the new one.

Sybarite: Why is the author talking about Watchmen? That was an adaptation from another medium not a reboot.


I think the author was making the point that some movies aren't just the product of their settings, like the 80's, but that the audiences who appreciate them are the ones currently living in that setting. I loved Watchmen, and some of that may have been because I grew up in the 80's and I understood the mindset. I never read the graphic novel until a few months before the movie came out, and I still got what it was doing. But I can understand why not everyone would have understood the dire feelings the movie was trying to evoke, as the Cold War ended nearly twenty years before the movie came out.

I completely agree with the point that some movies are the product of their time. It's why Die Hard is a great movie and the later editions (4 and 5) don't hold up. Die Hard is an 80's movie, and it is a product of the 80's. (And woe unto anyone who decides to remake Die Hard. It is perfect, it needs to remake.)
 
2013-04-03 01:47:59 PM  
The Red Dawn reboot was pretty good with the exception of the guy in the Charlie Sheen role, he sucked.
 
2013-04-03 01:49:53 PM  

Valacirca: Red Dawnmade sense in the '80s

No it didn't.  I mean, it made sense as to why it was made then , but no, that movie never made any sense.


Sure it did, it could be summed up in one sentence. "Because we live here."
 
2013-04-03 01:50:39 PM  

Dr. Whoof: You do realize that John Carpenter's The Thing is a remake itself, right? There was an original, The Thing From Another World. And Carpenter's version is much better.


ehhhhh, its not really a remake. i guess i would say its a reboot of the original short story (or a re-imagining maybe?) The '51 movie and the '82 movie bear almost no resemblence to each other outside of the idea of an alien getting unfrozen. i think of it more like the recent "i am legend." take out a few spoken references and compare it the omega man or last man on earth and they are fundamentally different movies, even though they are all based on the same core concept. same thing with thing from another world and the thing.

/this is getting confusing
 
2013-04-03 01:58:32 PM  

serial_crusher: was Rise of the Planet of the Apes technically a reboot?  I thought they said it was a prequel... the way the Ape revolution played out in the original timeline until Cornelius and Zira went back in time and changed it up?


I think Rise is a reboot. Originally, a plague wiped out most non-primate species. People still wanted pets, so apes become our new bestest friends. C & Z take the plague back with them, and the cycle begins anew. But their Caesar has been tempered from his time with the circus guy.

In Rise, modified virus wipes out humanity leaving pockets of people and insmartenated apes running the show.

/for the record, I like both old and new Trek
 
2013-04-03 01:58:52 PM  
Movies that need remakes or reboots:
Krull
Flash Gordon
Battle Beyond the Stars
Logan's Run
Time Bandits
Ice Pirates
Space Hunter
Dragonslayer
Buck Rogers
Beast Master
Red Sonja
West World
Andromeda Strain
Dark Star
Short Circuit
War Games
The Rocketeer
Dreamscape
Night of the Comet
Megaforce
 
2013-04-03 02:04:12 PM  

Witty_Retort: serial_crusher: was Rise of the Planet of the Apes technically a reboot?  I thought they said it was a prequel... the way the Ape revolution played out in the original timeline until Cornelius and Zira went back in time and changed it up?

I think Rise is a reboot. Originally, a plague wiped out most non-primate species. People still wanted pets, so apes become our new bestest friends. C & Z take the plague back with them, and the cycle begins anew. But their Caesar has been tempered from his time with the circus guy.

In Rise, modified virus wipes out humanity leaving pockets of people and insmartenated apes running the show.

/for the record, I like both old and new Trek


Rise, like many Hollywood movies, can be be summed up by "BAD SCIENTIST!"
 
2013-04-03 02:09:22 PM  
You just told me exactly how old you are. That wasn't really my point, I just want to say that I couldn't agree more.

/is approx. the same age
 
2013-04-03 02:11:02 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Movies that need remakes or reboots:
Krull
Flash Gordon
Battle Beyond the Stars
Logan's Run
Time Bandits
Ice Pirates
Space Hunter
Dragonslayer
Buck Rogers
Beast Master
Red Sonja
West World
Andromeda Strain
Dark Star
Short Circuit
War Games
The Rocketeer
Dreamscape
Night of the Comet
Megaforce


Oops. My previous post should have quoted Slaves2Darkness
 
2013-04-03 02:12:53 PM  

SpdrJay: I'm waiting for the Prometheus reboot.

I hated the first one.


Holy shiat, you and me both.

Do yourself a favor, read the original draft of the script. You'll both enjoy it and hate everyone in Hollywood for not allowing it to be filmed instead of the abortion they came out with.
 
2013-04-03 02:12:55 PM  

Pepperjack: PanicMan: Two things:

As a Star Trek fan, I thought the reboot was great.

I hate Julia Roberts.  She can barely act and she is disturbing to look at.

Agreed on both counts. I think she is disturbing to look at because her mouth appears to be upside down.


Maybe that's it.  I don't know but whatever it is, she creeps me out.
 
2013-04-03 02:22:18 PM  

Saiga410: scottydoesntknow: I really can't think of many reboots I actually liked beyond Dredd, Rise of the PotA, and Amazing Spider-Man

Gone in 60 seconds?  Though I personally prefer the original.


Have you watched the original recently? Now, the cars are great, no argument there. However, the directing and acting are just painful to behold. It's unwatchable.
 
Displayed 50 of 193 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report