ST Joss Whedon Bashes the ST...Again

Yep - I actually thought that the new Spiderman was fine... but it added absolutely nothing in my opinion - which is probably a worse offence that just being bad. I think the worse one for me still has to be MOS though, simply because it pretends to be something it isn't. I'm sure there's a good film in there somewhere... all the lonely God angles are worth exploring, but as soon as you get Jor El blasting people with guns and 'kicking ass' it kind of loses the entire point of 'Superman' for me.

Also - I agree about the blurred lines between sequel/prequel and re-boot. I think JJ's Star Trek is the cleverest way of re-booting a franchise... and I very much see Ep VI being a re-boot of Star Wars rather than it being a sequel per se. We shall see.

 

I would say the only way episode 7 could be considered a reboot, is if you consider either of the existing trilogies to be reboots.

 

It depends on what we get... and how one defines sequel/prequel/re-boot.
If the main characters from the OT (namely Luke, Leia and Han) are a pivotal part of the ST, then I'd say that's a continuation... a sequel. If they are there simply to 'pass on the torch' to new characters (and their screen time tantamount's to a cameo) then I'd see that more of a clever 're-boot' in the mould of Star Trek:TNG or JJ's Star Trek.

 

By that rationale, the PT were reboots as well. I think of Star Wars as more of a multi-generational saga, so as long as the story all ties together I wouldn't consider the ST a reboot regardless of how large the roles of the OT characters are.

 

It's called an opinion, dude, and he's entitled to it.

The Sequel Trilogy isn't going to be universally liked or accepted, which is fine.

 

Agree. A reboot implies more of a resetting of a property to put a different spin on things. If you consider the OT to be (technically) sequels to the PT which, which they are on a story level, the same applies to the ST.

 

I personally really liked the ASM reboot and felt that it was vastly superior to the Raimi trilogy.

 

Like I say, it depends on your criteria. The PT were a specific continuation of a story by the same storyteller (Lucas obviously) featuring characters and situations that either appeared, or were referenced, in the originals... with a finite story arc i.e. we knew where it would end. We don't yet know what the crossover/synergies will be for the ST, but potentially... it's a different storyteller (depending on Lucas' influence), different characters/actors with a Disney business plan behind it. That's me being overly cynical of course... but I think Ep VII is more about opening up/reinvigorating Star Wars as a brand than it is about continuing 'the story'... and that's probably why Lucas thinks he's basically done with it (in terms of him making Star Wars films).

 

Still not a reboot. A reboot pretends the previous entries in the property don't exist. There's zero way that will be the case with the ST.

 

I'm not sure that's accurate because how does that differentiate from a remake?

 

A remake is usually the same story given a new interpretation, not a complete reset with a different narrative.

There is a reason most reboots don't start with the most famous villain that was featured in the last reiteration - they want to set their own world and rules. Hence Batman Begins goes with the League of the Shadows and saves the Joker for the sequel, once the reboot has been bedded in. Same with Spiderman.

ST was a clear reboot but cleverly allowed the previous iteration to co-exist with it.

Casino Royale was an odd one because it was a reboot but also technically a remake, but the original was bordering on spoof in the first place.

You also don't keep the same actors in the same roles if you're doing a reboot (although you may have to recast for a variety of reasons) - if the Big 3 as assumed are in the ST.

The ST is not a reboot.

 

So you'd classify the new Spiderman and Superman movies as remakes and not reboots? They are both basically the same story with the same characters. I personally think the term 'reboot'/reset' is a fluid one and is really used more of a marketing tool than anything else.

The point I was making was not so much about the definition of reboot verses remake etc. but rather that Ep VII is probably more an attempt to reinvigorate Star Wars as a franchise than it is an attempt to continue the story set out in the previous films. That's obviously an assumption on my part... because if Lucas has had a strong influence on these, then perhaps the 9 films will have a seamless narrative - I hope so. But again, I'm a self confessed cynic which I readily admit to.

 

I understand where you're coming from in your definition of reboot, so I guess it all depends on your point of view. I personally feel that since the story did come from Lucas and will be Episodes VII-IX, which he has said off and on would be a possibility for a very long time, they will most likely be as much a part of the same story as the prequels were. Just because we don't know where the story is going yet, doesn't mean it's going somewhere entirely new. I have a feeling it will connect greatly to the other movies to create one seamless saga. Of course from another point of view, they are definitely using these films as a springboard to begin a new phase of the franchise, which could qualify it as a reboot in a certain sense. But the prequels did accomplish the same thing in the time they were made so I would expect nothing less from a new trilogy anyway, especially with Disney involved, which I suspect is where the real cynicism is coming from.

 

It's easy to call someone greedy when it isn't your money at stake. Spider-Man is a multi-billion dollar franchise. Do you think they should throw that away and let their rights expire back to Marvel just to make the fanboys happy?

Sony rebooted Spider-Man for 2 reasons: 1) They wanted to make a profit and 2) Given that they wanted to make a profit, they really had no choice.

 

I didn't state that. I think you've mis-edited a post from someone else...

 

Sony rebooted Spider-Man because they didn't want to give up the rights to Marvel Studios.

 

Agreed.

I thought ASM had a lot less cheese.

 

It didn't consist of bizarre WTF moments like SM 3.

 

I personally preferred Raimi's trilogy (even the much muddled with SM3). TASM wasn't a bad film, technically, but it just didn't gel with me at all. Apart from Emma Stone. I love me some Emma Stone.

 

Man of Steel and Amazing Spiderman are pretty clearly different visions of the same origin stories used to reboot a franchise rather than remake. I get what you're saying, though.

 

I think Amazing Spider-Man was, in a strictly technical sense, better than any of the Raimi films (which I think helps show the way in which the bar for superhero films in general has been raised in the last few years). But it felt terribly redundant. I'd definitely consider it the most gratuitous remake/reboot/sequel out of everything that's been mentioned in this thread.

Man of Steel at least seemed like it was trying to do something different, even if (again IMO) both concept and execution were very poor.

 

The Spider-Man reboot came way too soon. If this was the first Spider-Man movie they had done back in the day, it would've been great. Well, okay for me, but I'm not a Spider-Man fan to begin with. As it stands now, it's just kinda "Eh, an origin once more." They could've easily skipped the origin part and went straight to some more interesting stuff.

 

Yeah people need to remember that '89 Batman wasn't an origin story at all. I don't understand this fixation on origin stories having to be retold every decade.

 

I'd say it was sort of an origin story. When it began, he was just starting to make a name for himself, and it deals with the incident that led him to become Batman. We just don't see the process of getting there like we do in Batman Begins

 

But if more movies followed that template, they would still be successful.