Sta.sh
You can enter as many times as you want.
You can not alter the shape.
Yea... and if you don't read the rules, you won't get anything out of this.
What you have to do
Advertise; you don't have to but is looked up upon
each ) on this giveaway.
It's easy to participate 
This journal.
3 x a 1 Month Premium-Membership
Here are a few of the proposed "reboots" found in a recent Time Out New York magazine that my girlfriend was reading: Spider Man (with a 3D option this time), Superman (but directed by the Batman Begins team to make it a little darker—because we all know how dark Superman is supposed to be), Daredevil, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and a few others I forgot.
To be fair I don't remember the entire list and whether or not these were actually green-lit projects or just rumors—but regardless of what the future might be, the idea of a Hollywood "do-over" looks to be a phenomenon that's here to stay.
My gut reaction to this is negative and from what I gather, a lot of us feel the same way. It's easy to complain so I'm not going to bother. We've all heard heated "why can't Hollywood get it right the first time?" arguments from all our friends, so I'm not going to waste any more of your time. Instead, let's detach ourselves emotionally from this and try to see it from all angles. I'm looking for some good feedback here so feel free to chime in if I miss something.
Here's a quick list of pros and cons for a few different sides of this issue as I see it:
COMICS AS A WHOLE
As far as industry and money is concerned, reboots are probably beneficial. It brings in more buzz, more readers (assuming we take proper advantage) and might produce more jobs. Movies are a successful medium and the more we link ourselves to them, the better comics could survive—even if it requires rebooting poorly done "first attempts" it still might be good. Plus it reaches younger viewers who weren't around for the first launch. Entertaining children has always been a booming business because there will always be 7-year-olds who bug their parents to see Spider Man. And a new trilogy can be done every 7 years.
Hell, if comics aren't bringing in children these days, then maybe "reboots" will.
But even though it brings in business, we might be cheapening comics in the eyes of the public. My fear is that the casual observer will see the second Hulk and say "didn't they just make that movie a few years ago?" and then think "oh well, it's only superheroes" and then shrug. I might be reaching on that one, but the idea of outsiders thinking "comics are dumb" seems reinforced when Hollywood doesn't take comics seriously enough to get a movie right the first time.
ARTISTS
As an artist I consider myself a defender of what I take to be "art" in all forms—even movies. To varying degrees, I think we all are. We all might butt heads over the details, but our hearts are usually in the right place. And we all have our favorite movies where plot, script, arc, action, dialog, cutting, music, sfx, and acting collide. And if enough of these factors are off, we call BULLSHIT. And we then consider it POORLY DONE ART (then assault it with Tweets and blogs). Sure, reboots might bring in more work for the average comic book, storyboard, and concept artist—but the idea of Hollywood going "Oops! Oh well, we'll just try again HARDY HAR HAR!" is a little offensive to our artistic sensibilities.
But on the positive side, more buzz for comic book properties means more work, so maybe it's worth the trade-off.
WRITERS
As a "sometimes" writer, reboots offends me the most. And I think it should offend most writers on an artistic level because usually the problem with comic book movies is the writing. If you're old school about your writing, then you probably think that a good script doesn't need CGI, name actors, excessive marketing PR, licensing, Danny Elfman, and a hundred people at Paramount adding their two cents to a script. But the things I've just mentioned aren't anything new in the last 20 years. The reboot marks a new trend. If it wasn't bad enough that suits and corporations have been systematically stripping artistic integrity away from "event" movies ever since Lucas made a mint on Star Wars toys, now they've given us the reboot—the shame-free solution to a multi-million dollar misstep.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Back in the 80s they tried to make a Fantastic Four movie but it was so awful that they tried not releasing it. Not only that, the product was so bad that the producers were shamed into not attempting another try. They just buried their heads in the sand out of (what I would call) shame. The movie franchise for the Fantastic Four was wounded for years. But what would happen now? No shame is felt because now they can quickly move onto making the reboot and have all the merchandise to go along with it. Without the shame, I feel that producers are less likely to take their time with a movie to get it right the first time.
Don't tear down the Hulk statue at Univeral in LA! We'll just reboot the Hulk with Norton and save the trouble of filling in the hole.
I'm having a hard time coming up with a positive impact of reboots for writers. Unless, of course, you're one of the 20 writers Paramount hires to work on version 16 of a bad script.
WRAPPING IT UP…
On one hand, it doesn't really matter what we think because Hollywood will do as it pleases. On the other hand, Hollywood is paying some attention to us now because of the digital influence we have on each other. We as a community probably killed a Daredevil sequel because we got online and RAKED that movie and fewer people saw it, thus costing Hollywood money. We stole from them and now they listen more.
If something is bad then don't the people deserve to have it redone so that they can finally have the movie they deserve? I think so, but there is a point when we call BULLSHIT for whatever reasons. And is they anything fundamentally wrong with redoing a movie? I don't think so, just like there's nothing wrong with a musician doing a cover of a song. For me, I think it comes down to intent.
People are always trying to make a good product, and sometimes they fuck it up. And sometimes it makes sense for the next guy to come along and remake that product, thus filling the public's demand. With reboots my only concern is that the designers aren't taking their jobs (or us) seriously because in the back of their minds they know they can always shamelessly try again.
Thoughts?
| Deviant Login | Shop | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
Neutral 
Look at it this way; how many times have movies about Robin Hood, Ben Hur, or Wyatt Earp been made? In some cases, movies based on certain characters or stories have been made in rapid succession, all with little or no continuity to bind them. Each one is a different take on the subject, and each one has been met with varying degrees of success or failure. Hollywood loves to milk a sure thing. If they can find properties with a built-in audience, then half the work's done for them. If they can rely on that built-in audience to keep coming back for every new iteration on the subject, then that's just a license to print money. Our beloved comic characters have that kind of cache, and they've proven so over and over again during the last decade. So, should a studio make a movie about a certain green monster that ends up being a bit too lyrical to make a billion dollars, it's no big deal. It's understood that the monster still has the selling power just based upon its cultural distinction to produce several attempts at telling (and selling) its story.
On the artistic level, I guess I stand differently than you about retellings. As a sometimes writer myself, I very often come away from stories, both great and terrible, thinking about how I would have approached the same subject. Indeed, the more I like a story, the more I think about the ways I would treat it. As comic fans, we've all had to suffer the disappointment of falling in love with a certain take on story, only to see that story change hands between talent, resulting in the wiping-out of the work we'd grown so fond of. That sort of thing sucks, especially when it's premature, but it doesn't make the work that had been put in any less relevant. Nor does it mean that nobody else should have a crack at our favorites once in awhile.
The thing about the guys that do get the "reboot" treatment is that they are both powerful enough on their own legs and maleable enough within the collective consciousness to be able to stand up to a thousand different visions about who they are and what they mean. It's a special status, I guess, that these properties are afforded. Now that Hollywood understands the public's support for these guys, we can expect them to keep getting the Robin Hood treatment.
I feel like if comics can change creative teams and tell new stories with existing characters, then film should be able to do it. Hell, they do it now with James Bond. That's been running for like, what, thirty years? And they make it fresh everytime.
I think comic movies and other franchises can work the same way.
If it's creative, and the intent is good story, then I'm all for it.
Thanks for sharing your point of view, Sean.
Iīll get my Jobars #1 and 2 this weekend and give you some nice feedback.
Good luck at the con
Cheers!
But seeing it as a story for itself makes it more fun. Some are unforgivable, like Burton's Alice in Wonderland. But some give the original work a good name, like The Dark Knight or Iron Man.
It's a little unfortunate that the video game idustry has yet to produce a quality movie adaption.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but it's something that's been happening for nearly the entire existence of film. I think a couple of years ago you wrote a journal on here about evolution and storytelling. On the most basic level this relates almost perfectly. Exampe: A group of neanderthals are on a hunt, they kill a sabretoothed tiger and the story is told when they come back to their camp. A member of their camp draws it on a wall, years later another neanderthal sees this and repeats the story, but wasn't there so the story may change a bit, instead of a group of hunters it is now one hunter that kills this tiger. He rebooted it.
There is always going to be this buzz word climate in Hollywood, where for years and years films will be made in the vein of one successful film, ie The Matrix, or The Dark Knight or whatever. But the fact is that stories are retold with a few tweaks here and there, but they have been told before.
Just a few example:
Lion King = Hamlet
The Matrix = Allegory of the Cave
Cold Mountain = O Brother, Where Art Thou? = 2001: A Space Odyssey = The Odyssey
Romeo and Juliet = West Side Story = Shakespeare in Love (obviously)
The Warriors = 300 = The Battle of Thermopylae
Anyways, The big problem I have with Hollywood movies in general is the product placement. sometimes it isn't a big deal but it gets annoying when they shove the product into your face like showing you what type of phone or camera does the main character use or for example, like when Tony Stark in Iron Man asks to get a good 'ol American Cheeseburger and then cuts off to a scene where he gets off his limo and starts to eat a BK cheeseburger while pushing Rhodey away b/c he doesn't want to share how good his cheeseburger is. Type of stuff like that just makes me roll my eyes.
And to be perfectly honest, there are some things that just should not be redone. Some things that were just so horrible the first time, it needs to stay dead.
Of course (and pardon my extremely illogical seque system; I have been up since five and have no idea why my eyes are still open) we haven't even covered the issue of creativity, originality, and new material. "Reboots" are going to become just one more excuse for Hollywood to put the same shit over and over into the theaters and easy-bake every single story to a formula, because who needs new shit when you can just change three things, tell the same story, and make twice as much money as the last time because now it's in 3D?
To sum up: TERRIBLE idea in practicality. Certain aspects of the theory are nice enough, but when you add in the greedy asshole reality... it's just not worth the giant pop culture headache.
PS: When I scrolled down, I saw something about the tragedy of the Wolverine movie. Thought I'd throw in my two cents. Aside from the half-decent eye candy (from a female point of view) it was pretty horrible in most every way. My biggest pet peeve being Deadpool. What in the HELL is the point of having The Merc with a Mouth in a movie if he CAN'T DAMN WELL TALK. A few snappy one-liners in the first fifteen minutes by pre-op Wade just isn't damn well enough to excuse that heinous idea. Bad writers/directors. BAD. No biscuit.