ST Joss Whedon Bashes the ST...Again

Boy, DID they...

 

I actually enjoyed A:R. It's Citizen Kane compared to the AVP movies.

 

I think part of the issue is that this whole "remakes suck" stance is overly simplistic.

 

Well most remakes as of the last 5 years have sucked hardcore (Total Recall, Day the Earth Stood Still, Clash of the Titans, etc.)

 

How the hell did this thread get 8 whole pages when it was established that he wasn't bashing Star Wars back on page bloody one!!!

 

We need something to talk about dammit!

 

No we need something to argue endlessly about.

 

Good thing, then, that that's not what he's saying; he's saying that to allow Hollywood to become entirely dominated by the remake/franchise mentality, without regularly infusing new creative content into the marketplace, has a negative long-term effect on culture. It's really that simple. There is indeed room for remakes and franchises in culture (hell, one of the most celebrated films of all time, the 1959 version of Ben-Hur, was itself a remake of a 1925 silent film, which was a remake of a 1907 one-reel silent film, which was adapted from an 1899 play, which was itself adapted from an 1880 novel, so who says remakes can't prove their validity in the marketplace?); there just has to also be room for new things, that's all.

 

I can't like this post enough.

The problem with Hollywood isn't sequels, adaptations nor remakes. The problem is that it's currently dominated by them. There's a place in the world for expanding upon and retelling stories. But currently it seems that is all we're being served up. Because of the stupidly inflated budgets movies get these days Hollywood needs some kind of brand appeal to take advantage of before they even think about green-lighting a project. And that low risk approach to making movies is starting to take its toll on people.

 

Whaddya mean, "starting?!"

 

While I don't really agree with that either, I wasn't actually talking about what Whedon himself said, but rather about some of the responses to it and the culture it's appearing in. When people are dumbing things down to "down with franchises" - and at least some of them are - then of course there isn't going to be any creator today with the ability to "legitimately" argue in favor of more new material.

 

Who?

 

It's a matter of quality and quantity.

 

We are all Jonesing for some new information.

 

I'm Jonesing for some info on Indiana Jones V.

 

Film tech is finally at a place where formerly impossible stories can be realized. Therefore Middle Earth, therefore Narnia, etc.

That much of this has sucked isn't the tech's fault. As usual the blame lies in treating stories as hamburger dispensaries.

There is no word in this business that I hate more than franchise.

 

Indiana Jonesing.

 

Exactly.

 

Bashing?

Ha, what a sensationlistic overstatement. Stop being so sensitive.

He's just saying he's getting bored of sequels/reboots and general, and why blame him?

 

I got one word for Joss Whedon: WATERWORLD

 

Hopefully he has an open mind about the ST. There is every chance they'll be great. When it was announced in the early 2000's that they were going to reboot Batman he probably had the same gripe. I'm pretty sure Batman Begins & The Dark Knight showed that even established properties can be awesome if done properly.

 

That's true... but remember that prior to Batman Begins there had only been 4 Batman films, with none of them touching upon his origins - so Batman was ripe for plucking in that sense... and Nolan did a great job in bringing something previously not seen to that world. What irks me are the Spiderman, Superman, Fantastic Four (apparently) and Jason Bourne type reboots where they are literally remaking things within 10 years and bringing nothing new (apart from advanced special effects to the mix). It really is squalid filmmaking IMHO.

 

The Redundant Amazing Spider-Man was certainly a bit much, although it was as much copyright posturing as "squalid film-making".

 

I thought the Spider-Man reboot was totally unnecessary and I've never found myself with the slightest interest in seeing it. I know a lot of people liked it, but to me it just looked painfully mediocre, and most of the time I'd rather watch an interestingly bad movie like SM3 than a mediocre one. I had the same issue with the Incredible Hulk vs. the Hulk, although I at least understand why Marvel wanted to reestablish the character for the Avengers, and that paid off well for them in the end. The only reason for a Spider-Man reboot was for Sony to maintain control of the franchise, which is not only greedy, but a slap in the face to the fans who want to see all of Marvel's big characters together. The same goes for the Fantastic Four at Fox, who should have forfeited their ability to make more of those after cranking out two of the worst superhero movies ever. But even though I have yet to see MOS, Superman, like Batman, was in dire need of a reboot, as Bryan Singer proved when he tried and failed to continue the legacy of the original films. On the other hand, I have no desire to revisit a new incarnation of Batman anywhere in the near future, although I admit I am kind of hoping Affleck nails it just to shut up all the whining. As for Bourne, well, I enjoyed the first three but not enough to bother with any more films of lesser quality beyond that... much like Pirates of the Caribbean. It does sort of beg the question of where you draw the line between sequel and reboot though... If a movie takes place in the same universe but follows a different character, then I suppose it's both at once really. What does that mean for TF4? I don't know, but since I still want to scrub the first one from my memory, I won't be finding out.