Started By
Message

re: Spiderman, get off my lawn!

Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:25 am to
Posted by Proximo
Member since Aug 2011
24546 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:25 am to
Taking that as fact, it is because of advances in technology and CGI.

The truth of the matter is that certain types of films can be made at a higher quality today than they could twenty years ago. so, the studios are going to take advantage of that and the fact that the audience has turnover.
Posted by corndeaux
Member since Sep 2009
9634 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:31 am to
quote:

The whole reboot thing for Spider-Man was fine; it is not that we have forgotten about the Raimi movies. We just want more stories told on the big screen


It was about retaining the rights to a cash cow. Which is fine. His argument is sort of chicken/egg- industry changing because of teens or teens changing because of industry

quote:

Hulk 2003 The Incredible Hulk 2008

Superman Returns 2006 Man of Steel 2013


The Hulk film was remade because the original was just bad. No one should complain about remaking a bad movie- which the original Spider Man certainly was not.

Superman Returns is a different animal. It was a sequel to Superman II. No idea what Man of Steel is about, but a reboot doesn't seem superfluous
Posted by Kafka
I am the moral conscience of TD
Member since Jul 2007
157878 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:35 am to
quote:

Not sure what is considered a reboot


2002: The Incredulous Hamsterman starring Biff Hunkly is released

2004: Hamsterman Returns

2007: Hamsterman Caged

2012; The franchise is rebooted with the release of The Incredulous Hamsterman starring Curt Dreamly, which ignores the events of the last two films and starts over from where the hero is bitten by a rabid hamster and develops hamster-like superpowers.
Posted by jacks40
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2007
11877 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:35 am to
quote:

The point is this is a relatively new phenomenon -- something has changed -- and the OP was examining the ramifications


I think one thing that has changed is the nature of blockbuster movies.

For whatever reason, big budget action movies are the way to make money.

You can't just throw Tom Cruise in a movie like "The Firm" and make $100 million dollars anymore. The days of A-listers carrying hugely successful drama/suspense movies are gone.

There are only a small # of these properties like Spider-man so of course studios aren't going to let them go unused
Posted by jacks40
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2007
11877 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:37 am to
quote:

2002: The Incredulous Hamsterman starring Biff Hunkly is released


So I guess my question is there a difference btw reboot and remake?
Posted by EarthwormJim
Member since Dec 2005
10063 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:39 am to
quote:

Living in a world of the here-and-now, obsessed with whatever is current, kids seem no more interested in seeing their parents' movies than they are in wearing their parents' clothes


Is this really something that is unique to this generation? Every new generation is obsessed with new and current.

quote:

A film's intrinsic value may matter less than its ability to be talked about. In any case, old movies clearly cannot serve this community-building function as they once did. More, the immediacy of social networking, a system in which one tweet supplants another every millisecond, militates against anything that is 10 minutes old, much less 10 years.


I'm not buying that this is unique to the current generation. Sure social media has changed the visibility of the conversation, but the conversation hasn't changed from this generation of movie-goers to past ones. As a new audience emerges, things of the past become less important. It isn't a new phenomenon or only applicable to movies. I'm just not buying that social media changes the way we view movies.
Posted by Proximo
Member since Aug 2011
24546 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:45 am to
this.

Posted by alajones
Huntsvegas
Member since Oct 2005
35943 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:53 am to
quote:

So I guess my question is there a difference btw reboot and remake?
Yes, a reboot is what Kafka expalined so well.

A remake is Arthur, The Missing, etc.

Posted by TH03
Mogadishu
Member since Dec 2008
172004 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:53 am to
quote:

Not sure what is considered a reboot but Arthur with Russel Brand, they want to reboot the Vacation movies with Andy from The Office, planet of the Apes has been rebooted twice recently.

Total Recall is coming out, I believe a reboot of Robocop is also on the way.


with the exception of Marky Mark's apes and Franco's apes, all of those reboots have been older movies that were before this generation's time. Hell, all of these except Vacation, Total Recall, and Robocop are before my time. I don't think those count the same
Posted by Philosoraptor
Member since Oct 2010
4523 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 8:58 am to
quote:

Is this really something that is unique to this generation? Every new generation is obsessed with new and current.


The remakes and reboots are a product of the hollywood business cycle. Aren't Sony's rights to the Spiderman franchise about to expire?

It's all about cashing in on a lucrative franchise. They'd be stupid not to make as many movies as they can.

quote:

I'm not buying that this is unique to the current generation. Sure social media has changed the visibility of the conversation, but the conversation hasn't changed from this generation of movie-goers to past ones. As a new audience emerges, things of the past become less important. It isn't a new phenomenon or only applicable to movies. I'm just not buying that social media changes the way we view movies.


This.

Old movies are being forgotten because they are getting older. Plain and simple.

It took me having a bunch of free time my senior year of high school and into college to discover a whole bunch of classics. And I was lucky to have a friend to push movies on me constantly.

The classics will always be classics and will be discovered by each generation in due time. Even though, I think the "classics" change from generation to generation, with very few exceptions.
This post was edited on 7/19/12 at 8:59 am
Posted by alajones
Huntsvegas
Member since Oct 2005
35943 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 9:00 am to
quote:

Every new generation is obsessed with new and current.
Not really. When I was a kid, Disney still showed some movies over and over at theaters. VHS wasn't prominent until the mid-80's. How do you think John Wayne movies, Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind were so popular for 40+ years? They showed them on big screens every so often. There was no demand to remake the movies.

The idea of "hey, have you seen the next big movie" being a source of conversation isn't new though.

I think we are just in an action movie/super hero phase or maybe completely industry change. With the price of tickets, no one gives a crap to go see some drama or intense courtroom thriller on the big screen. They can wait until Netflix or HBO. The only thing a lot of people are wiling to spend money on are kids animated movies and action movies. Which today = superheros.

This post was edited on 7/19/12 at 9:02 am
Posted by jacks40
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2007
11877 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 9:09 am to
quote:

Not really. When I was a kid, Disney still showed some movies over and over at theaters


Off subject a little but Going by the # of visitors to Disney theme parks, the money they make rereleasing their movies like Beauty and the Beast into theaters, and selling Blu-rays of their old movies I'd say Disney has their mitts into the younger kids of today just like they have almost every generation since the 30's
Posted by TH03
Mogadishu
Member since Dec 2008
172004 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 9:10 am to
quote:

I think we are just in an action movie/super hero phase or maybe completely industry change. With the price of tickets, no one gives a crap to go see some drama or intense courtroom thriller on the big screen. They can wait until Netflix or HBO. The only thing a lot of people are wiling to spend money on are kids animated movies and action movies. Which today = superheros.


spot on.

from the link about a Jumanji remake:

quote:

All this to say, if this story proves anything, it's that reboots and sequels are still the name of the game in Hollywood, and it's going to be that way for some time.


Posted by iwyLSUiwy
I'm your huckleberry
Member since Apr 2008
42728 posts
Posted on 7/19/12 at 9:47 am to
quote:

As Amy Pascal, the co-chairman of Sony Pictures, which distributed the new "Spider-Man," said, "Five years is a lifetime in the movie business," by which she really meant it is a lifetime for the young audiences to which the movie business makes its primary appeal.


Really Amy? A lifetime? So a ton of kids who were 15 when the 3rd Spiderman came out were demanding a remake of the series? Don't give me that crap. I'm not surprised there is already a remake and I didn't really complain because I never cared for the last three, but, that doesn't mean there needed to be a remake.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 2Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram