Prequels and Sequels and Reboots, oh my!

[KimiDoll]

I have just caught wind that Hollywood is going to try for a Blade Runner reboot which launched a huge discussion with my friends on the pros and cons of prequels, sequels and reboots.
Most of them were con, there were a few pro, but all in all we came to the conclusion that we were biased because we loved the originals too much.

So I am going to place this question here.

What are your opinions on prequels, sequels and reboots?
Have you had a favourite movie ruined because of Hollywood's attempt to make more money from the franchise?
Or do you like the idea of your favourite movies getting dusted off and revised for younger generations to enjoy?

I want to know what you have to say.

 

[darkangel76]

I think it totally depends on the way things are approached and handled. Sometimes it can be a wonderful thing to revamp and revitalize and sometimes it can be disastrous. The idea of a Blade Runner revamp sounds a bit iffy to me mainly because it was spectacular as it was and quite ahead of its time. Doing a revamp now seems a bit out of place. Not saying one couldn't be done eventually, but I'd say that they really ought to wait a while, not to mention perhaps wait for a time when revamps aren't quite so popular. There's also the added fact that Blade Runner is a standalone movie and not a series franchise. So, for me, that makes the idea of a revamp even more of a 'huh'?

A couple examples where revamps have been quite successful and a lot of that goes not just to the actors/actresses involved, but to those who wrote/directed are the newest Star Trek and Oz the Great and Powerful movies. The fact that these movies didn't completely rewrite what has already been done was probably a big reason as to why they were successful. They allowed us, the audience, to see what they could do and where they could go (even if it meant eventually rewriting and/or revamping down the line). But, because they've been kind enough to ease us into this and in a nice way, we can feel better about it. Plus, with Star Trek (haven't seen the second new one yet, though I've heard it's fabulous... and as a huge fan of the franchise), I can say that the newer one was outstanding in how it handled everything. The tributes were slick and intelligent, they took time to find people who fit the actors preceding them and they found a way to make an alternate time line that made sense with Star Trek's take on such things so that fans of the originals (all the series, that is) wouldn't, or shouldn't, get all bent. Same with Oz. They delved into the prehistory, filled in the gaps and gave everything depth. And though the classic is awesome in its own right... it hasn't been touched in... how long? And now the characters have been made that much richer and fuller. So, I really hope they continue on and bring Dorothy into the mix there.

Anyway, as I said. I do think it really depends on several factors. It's just sad that nowadays most of these factors do not seem to be considered because it does seem like most remakes should not be made. I just wish those who suddenly one day have the bright idea to do one would take note of such things and learn something from those who were smart about it (ie, those who were a part of the Star Trek and Oz films). If more people involved in film took that care, time and thought, the remakes that came out would be as wonderful as those and I think people would be less biased about them in general.

Just my thoughts.

 

[MasterOfWhispers]

Er after seeing how horrible total recall reboot is. I really doubt Hollywood would be able to make a competent reboot of a massively loved movie. On Reboots in general, it depends on how it's handled. The Dark Knight proved how successful a reboot can be. It actually managed to rescue an entire move franchise.

As for sequels and prequels, I think it's dependent on how good the first is and if a sequel and surpass what the first movie established. Star Wars Prequels showed how much quality can drop. I might of a different opinion to those who actually liked the prequels but I'm sorry those movies sucked. They could never live up to the original. Plot was horrible most of the actors were wooden. Well The Supposed lead was wooden. I get a little angry thinking about it. I'm even more apprehensive about the upcoming sequels.

Terminator 2 compared to 1 that's what I mean by improved sequel! Not just effects but story telling was fantastic in comparison. Three and Salvation is a different matter.

 

[Broomhandle45]

I think for the most part it's a glimmering sign economical woes and fears of new concepts being terrible and trying to make bank on the name alone. But generally speaking, that's the feeling I get. The examples of Oz and Star Trek are pretty great counter arguments though, but those aren't the majority...just the exception.

There's also the pure fact that people think they know exactly what they want when they don't really know. ESPECIALLY they finally see the sequel, and this isn't just for movies either. People have and always will think that something should have went better, or something should have been changed...it's inevitable. I think people LIKE seeing the idea of remakes, but in their head they're thinking a frame by frame redo with newer special effects.

People don't want 'remakes' in the sense that they want 'HD old movie'. Which is fine, but when you put a familiar name on a new thing...you get the nostalgia that goes with it and that can be a horrible movie killer.

 

[darkangel76]

I'm definitely inclined to think that half, if not more than half, of the reason as to why remakes are so popular these days has to do with economical woes. I also think it is why we're seeing so many book adaptations as well. I mean, it's awesome to see your favorite book come to life on the big screen and all that, but it's awesome to see original ideas on the big screen as well and it's quite interesting that the past decade-ish has been riddled with remakes more so than most. Or so it seems anyway in comparison to others.

Anyway, as for the whole prequel/sequel deal, my view is that those who embark on any story to be told in any media need to keep in mind that each segment is important and deserves the same care and attention as each and every other portion. That means, you do NOT just concentrate on the first film or the finale film. You concentrate on them all. You don't start strong and end badly. You don't start out poorly and end with a bang. It's one massive project and should be treated as such even if there are time gaps, director or production changes. Hell, even if you end up having to swap actors... all of it is important and all of it matters. You are catering to an audience who cares to see a story in its entirety so there really should be some sort of pride in the work being shown off to them all.

On that note, one example of a trilogy that started out with such promise to the point of astounding amazement was The Matrix. Oh my god. That film was revolutionary in so many ways. The story kicked major ass, the cinematography was groundbreaking and just beautiful on the eyes... Seriously, it was beyond awesome. And even if you weren't into dystopia or scifi, you had to appreciate it. The way it ended, you couldn't help but be anxious for the second film and then... that second film happened. It was ok. Not bad, but definitely not great. And we won't even discuss the final film because it truly just isn't worth discussing. =/ So much potential and it all ended up going down the drain. To this day I love to pretend that only the first movie exists and then I conjure up my own alternate universe of what I think should have happened. Do I think the original The Matrix movie needed those sequels? After rewatching it... no. In all honesty, it could've been a stand alone flick. However, the sequels could have made it better.

An example where sequels have worked wonderfully are some of the more obscure (well, not really, though they certainly aren't as mainstream) and off beat movies are the Riddick movies and the Escape/Plissken movies. These movies are freakin' awesome and are examples of how sequels definitely make a franchise better. Each movie gets better, further develops the anti-hero who is their main character, further develops the story and world in which they are in. It's a pity that the Escape/Plissken movies aren't continuing. However, it's awesome that another Riddick flick will be coming out in the Fall. I look forward to that immensely and already know it'll be amazing and will follow suit to ground work that's been laid out in the Riddick franchise.

 

[JayMatthews1125]

I guess I'm the odd one out who liked the Star Wars prequels, the first 2 were okay...the third was phenomenal. Now before I get flamed, I'm only talking story wise. Actor execution was a little flat in some parts. They should have spend a whole hell of a lot more time on making them just right and perfecting them. The X-men First Class prequel just looked so bad I stayed away from it, especially after the piece of shit that X3 was. I don't know if Origins Wolverine would be counted among this, but that movie was the shit. The Wolverine looks pretty bad ass too.

Now sequels, those are always the ones that worsen the further into the franchise it goes. Kinda like how Activision is over-killing Call of Duty, churning out a new game every year. The worst sequel movie was Batman and Robin. Tim Burton should have continued to make the Batman movies of the time because they were damn good. Batman Forever was meh, Jim Carey as Riddler was good but Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face...not so much. Men In Black 2 and 3 were so bad I don't even want to remember them. My woman and I left in the middle of MIB 3 it was so bad. Terminator 3 was a shit fest. The Dark Knight was the only true good sequel since Terminator 2. I don't count trillogy movies in with this like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.

The only reboot I'm looking forward to is actually a fan film for Power Rangers. MMPR (shameless plug), there's a link in my siggy to view the trailer on their kickstarter page. Honestly, this is the Power Rangers I wanted to see, something dark and grim. I want to see how they do it and if they can pull it off for a fan film. They've already raised a shitton of money and looks like they'll raise at least $30,000+ in funding. Now the one I'm least looking forward to is the new Star Wars saga. When Disney bought rights to it and announced they were making new movies, I thought it had the potential to be good....until it was announced that Darth Vader was returning. He's D-E-A-D, DEAD!! How the fuck is he going to be brought back from the dead?!? Also they're wanting to bring back all the old actors to reprise their roles....all of them in their wrinkly, saggy glory. Really, I think they should make movies based off of the Knights of the Old Republic. That would be bad fucking ass. I'm looking forward to the Superman reboot, Man of Steel as well as the sequel to Kick Ass. That's my two cents...

 

[Broomhandle45]

You're praising prequels yet harking on sequels? That makes absolutely zero sense, the only reason prequels aren't seen so quick to set shit on fire is because no matter how bad or good they are, they don't ruin the original movie that they're based on generally. You're forgetting that another movie is still a sense of progression and even more so, an establishing plot line that like it or not...it happened.

Arguably, MIB3 could be seen as a prequel in the first place considering J goes back in time and establishes a lot of things that fit with the rest of the movies (not saying they fit well, or good...because I haven't seen MIB3 yet but read the plot, but I thought MIB2 was hilarious) Just because they put a progressive number on it or no number at all doesn't mean the plot won't suffer, in the vein of the Star Wars prequels most of my Star Wars friends agree that Anakin was a whiny, self-entitled bitch that kind off killed the whole Vader being awesome in life thing. III is the only one I know of that actually got ANY kind of praise whatsoever, and only if because Kenobi ripped Anakin a new one. (At the least anyway).

Really, the only thing that destroys some movies is expectations based on the original concept they loved. Sometimes it never fits, sometimes it fits okay...other times they hate what they think is a destruction of their favored movies. Which is completely possible, but so is the opposite.

 

[darkangel76]

Indeed. Look at Oz. Perfect example of a revamp and a prequel all rolled in one and my god it was astounding and has me looking forward to more within the franchise. If they keep with the theme and ideas they have started, it will be wonderful and I personally won't care if they redo the classic 'Wizard of Oz'.

As for expectations? That may or may not be said with an example like 'The Matrix'. Though, in my own opinion, I do think the story just deteriorated and they relied to heavily on the revolutionary cinematography they established in the first film. I think they went away from the story idea they created in the first film entirely, if you ask me. I'm not saying that my own thoughts are what should have happened--though I do have my own thoughts on where the story could have gone, but really there were several possibilities--but I don't think any consideration to anything as far as storytelling was taken into account with the latter two films. At all. If it had been, I know for a fact I'd have acknowledged it because I'm fairly lax and easy to entertain. XD

 

[XXtraPrince]

One of these days, when I've got my DVR properly loaded, and when I can get away from this damned thing long enough, I'm going to watch the Matrix trilogy back-to-back-to back, because I thought the original was SO COOL and I never got the chance to see even one in its entirety. Just sayin'.

As for "Blade Runner", when Rutger Hauer shoved his face through the back of that mirror, well, it was one of the God-damnedest things I've ever seen!

 

[JayMatthews1125]

I read back over my post and I realized that I didn't make myself clear on a couple of things. I guess I have a bad tenancy to give sequels too much of a hard time because what history with sequels prove. I'm going to try and make some sense on my views of things. That and I was half asleep when writing that post.

I enjoyed the Star Wars prequels to an extent. The stories I felt had their heart in the right place, but the actors who gave the characters life had no place in doing so. Hayden Christensen being the worst of them all, there was no depth in his portrayal of Anakin Skywalker, hell even Jake Lloyd sucked playing him. He was a little too robotic in most cases, and when it came to having to show emotion, he went into overkill mode. I think the reason Sith was the best of the three prequels was not only due to the fact that it tied everything up, but the story was a bit darker than most other Star Wars movies, and it was called for in this one. Sith had it's flaws don't get me wrong, but IMHO, I thought it was solid.

Prequel or sequel, it doesn't matter, if your movie is strong enough to make it credible to the core of the story it's trying to portray, then it's good to go. I haven't seen the new Oz movie yet but I've read about it and it seems like a great idea on paper, exploring more of this world called Oz. Not all sequels are bad though, case in point: The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises (the sequels following Batman Begins), Toy Story 2 and 3, Spider Man 2, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, Superman 2, The Empire Strikes Back, and The Godfather Part II.

As far as reboots go, I look at them as a whole new chance for a series or a franchise to have new life brought into them. I've been hearing so many raved things about Man of Steel and honestly it's got me really interested. When Nolan rebooted Batman, I was still burned from Batman and Robin but when I saw Batman Begins I was blown away. The reboot of Hulk with Edward Norton was solid, and honestly he should have been in The Avengers. And let's not forget Xmen Origins: Wolverine, that was probably the best above X-men and X2.