3 ways to kill a sequel/reboot by OPPYH

OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

3 ways to kill a sequel/reboot

POSTED BY: OPPYH
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 9, 2010 10:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3471
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, February 7, 2010 9:15 AM

3. Introduce offspring. Shia Lebouf in Indy 4. Pointless. Ruined the film for me. Superman's son in Superman returns...stupid. What the hell were the writers thinking? The introduction of offspring can suck the life out of a film.

2. Clueless director. Michael Bay in Transformers 2. Apparently there was a decent story in there(according to the screenwriters). Michael Bay tampered, and fiddled with it. In the end we got a pile of garbage so huge that Michael Bay was pleased. The man just loves making crap. Uwe Boll would have done better. Much better.

1. Multitasking/studio tampering. Ok, here I'm singling out the Spiderman franchise(as it was). The first one..pretty good, the second one...awesome. The third Sam wants Sandman to be the villain[STUDIO STEPS IN] "we hear that Venom is pretty cool throw him in too". Sam "I don't want that" [STUDIO BRASS] "Do it".

The end result is the death of a perfectly good series(cast, and director). Spidey gets a reboot because Sam's reluctance(bad memories of the third movie) to make a deadline. Shame.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 7, 2010 9:25 AM

CHRISISALL

I liked Indy 4 & Spidey 3. Yeah, they both coulda been better, but whatca gonna do?
I agree with ya for the most part, though.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 7, 2010 9:51 AM

OPPYH

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I liked Indy 4 & Spidey 3. Yeah, they both coulda been better, but whatca gonna do?
I agree with ya for the most part, though.

I'm getting to the point of Spidey 3 being "OK", but it could have been so much better.

As far as Indy 4, well in my opinion Indiana Jones is the coolest character in cinema...period. Funny, smart, and tough. My standards were way, way too high for the fourth film. Of course I was disappointed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 7, 2010 9:58 AM

DEWRASTLER

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:

As far as Indy 4, well in my opinion Indiana Jones is the coolest character in cinema...period. Funny, smart, and tough. My standards were way, way too high for the fourth film. Of course I was disappointed.

For me it wasn't the introduction of Indy's kid that ruined Indy 4, it was the whole survive the nuclear blast in a refrigerator scene. And the worst part was that it added nothing to the story. Remove that ridiculous scene and the movie still works, so why have it?

________________________________
People who don't care about anything will never understand the people who do

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 7, 2010 10:01 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Dewrastler:
My standards were way, way too high for the fourth film. Of course I was disappointed.

I heard it sucked, so I did a cautious blind-buy, & ended up liking it easily as much as Mummy Returns.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 7, 2010 1:48 PM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Apparently there was a decent story in there(according to the screenwriters). Michael Bay tampered, and fiddled with it.

NITPICK: Th'other way around, actually.

Michael Bay wrote the script himself during the Writers' Strike (demonstrating how much respect he has for us pencil-pushers

). By the time the Strike was resolved, the script was pretty much locked and all Kurtzman & Orci could do was to tweak the dialogue a bit.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 7, 2010 4:16 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
2. Clueless director. Michael Bay in Transformers 2. Apparently there was a decent story in there(according to the screenwriters). Michael Bay tampered, and fiddled with it. In the end we got a pile of garbage so huge that Michael Bay was pleased. The man just loves making crap. Uwe Boll would have done better. Much better.

I thought "Uwe Boll" was German for "Michael Bay".

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 7, 2010 4:42 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

I thought "Uwe Boll" was German for "Michael Bay".

Isn't it?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 7, 2010 5:42 PM

THESOMNAMBULIST

Originally posted by OPPYH:

Quote:
3. Introduce offspring. Shia Lebouf in Indy 4. Pointless. Ruined the film for me. Superman's son in Superman returns...stupid. What the hell were the writers thinking? The introduction of offspring can suck the life out of a film.

Not sure I agree with you on this. Godfather part 2 was all about the offspring :D Ok,Ok not the same thing... However I think if a script is good enough things like offspring showing up shouldn't be a problem. It's just when things are contrived that problems arise. (And all directors are prone to this. Look at Gangs of New York. The relationship between DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz is so dreadfully contrived it simply jarred with the narrative flow). Although I don't have a problem with Shia LeBeouf in the Indian Jones and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I thought he was great. He's just an easy target.

Quote:
2. Clueless director. Michael Bay in Transformers 2. Apparently there was a decent story in there(according to the screenwriters). Michael Bay tampered, and fiddled with it. In the end we got a pile of garbage so huge that Michael Bay was pleased. The man just loves making crap. Uwe Boll would have done better. Much better.

Well I won't argue too much with you on your thoughts about Michael Bay - but the guy did deliver with the first Transformers so you can kind of understand why the studio would give him more control. Bare in mind he delivered Transformers under budget and ahead of schedule. These are two things studios love about a director, and when that directors effort goes on to make a shed load of money it's no wonder they asked him to repeat the thing, and all in the wake of a writers strike. However you are correct. This a good film does not make....

Quote:
1. Multitasking/studio tampering. Ok, here I'm singling out the Spiderman franchise(as it was). The first one..pretty good, the second one...awesome. The third Sam wants Sandman to be the villain[STUDIO STEPS IN] "we hear that Venom is pretty cool throw him in too". Sam "I don't want that" [STUDIO BRASS] "Do it".

I'm not a fan of the Spidey films. They're basically the same thing through-out. I actually found it offensive that they kept revisiting Uncle Ben's death and spitting out yet another villain responsible for his murder. It was lazy writing to the extreme. The first one was acceptable. Willem DeFoe was perfect and the genesis of Spidey was brilliant. But thereafter. Nope!

Quote:
The end result is the death of a perfectly good series(cast, and director). Spidey gets a reboot because Sam's reluctance(bad memories of the third movie) to make a deadline. Shame.

Yes it is a pity. Sam Raimi is a class act - but really these kinds of directors should just dip there toe into the corporate animal that is hollywodd and the whole studio system and then move on. I think this will be better for him in the long run. He's best making rogue movies like Evil Dead and Crimewave. Edgey contrary work is best when it flies opposed to the mainstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 8, 2010 2:16 AM

CORNCOBB

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

I'm not a fan of the Spidey films. They're basically the same thing through-out. I actually found it offensive that they kept revisiting Uncle Ben's death and spitting out yet another villain responsible for his murder. It was lazy writing to the extreme. The first one was acceptable. Willem DeFoe was perfect and the genesis of Spidey was brilliant. But thereafter. Nope!

Couldn't agree more. In fact, I think Spider-man 3 is a rare example of a film where the director should have listened to the studio. The Sandman plot was epic fail throughout. So was the Harry Osborne plot. The Venom storyline might've actually worked, except Raimi practically sabotaged it. Seems like he was so annoyed with having to use the Black Costume/Venom that he decided to rebel by treating it as a bad joke. Hence, rubbishness ensues. Really unprofessional.

Spider-man 2 was just the same thing over and over again. Character A discovers spideys secret identity, character B discovers spidey's secret identity, Extras A through J discover spidey's secret identity... etc. Dreadful.

"Gorramit Mal... I've forgotten my line."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 8, 2010 6:18 AM

ZEEK

Quote:
Originally posted by Corncobb:
Couldn't agree more. In fact, I think Spider-man 3 is a rare example of a film where the director should have listened to the studio. The Sandman plot was epic fail throughout. So was the Harry Osborne plot. The Venom storyline might've actually worked, except Raimi practically sabotaged it. Seems like he was so annoyed with having to use the Black Costume/Venom that he decided to rebel by treating it as a bad joke. Hence, rubbishness ensues. Really unprofessional.

I agree. I don't think the problem was with the studio. I think the problem was with Raimi not listening. If he completely dropped sandman and made the movie about Venom it could have been much better IMO.

Did he really think Sandman would be a sympathetic villain just because he has a sick kid at home? Please.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 8, 2010 7:53 AM

OPPYH

Well, I have heard for some time there is going to be a final Evil Dead film with Raimi, and Bruce. So maybe leaving the Spidey films was in his best interest?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 8, 2010 8:39 AM

STORYMARK

I was dissapointed with Indy 3, but none of that had to do with his having a kid - it was all down to other silly crap in the script.

I didn't love the kid in Superman Returns, but again, I didn't feel like he hurt the film too much (though he did complicate any potential sequel) - the worst problems were elsewhere.

And BTW, Bay conceived the story for Trannies 2, so it's odd to say he screwed up the writer's story - since they just built on what he gave them (not to defend it - I HATED that movie).

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 8, 2010 9:47 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:

I agree. I don't think the problem was with the studio. I think the problem was with Raimi not listening. If he completely dropped sandman and made the movie about Venom it could have been much better IMO.

Did he really think Sandman would be a sympathetic villain just because he has a sick kid at home? Please.

Do you really think the movie would have been that much better if it had centered around a character the director doesn't like?

Also - Sandman was always going to be in the movie, and there was always going to be another he teamed up with. The Vulture was the character Raimi wanted to use and had the script written around, until he was forced to replace him with Venom. But Raimi was clear since the first film, he never liked Venom.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 8, 2010 10:14 AM

OPPYH

The thing about Raimi is....he GOT Spiderman.

He knew the character well, and that is why he was such a good fit. Now if we get some yahoo that doesn't know Spiderman to make the new movie, it will be horrible. Spiderman 1, and 2 were very, very close to the original comic books(especially the second film) and Raimi got the atmosphere just right. Many people complained that the first two films were overly dramatic. Well, if they read issues 1-50 of the Amazing Spiderman they would understand it was spot on. Peter Parker is an everyman(teen) with real troubles, and dilemmas.
Kudos to Raimi for keeping true to the original comic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 8, 2010 11:47 AM

ZEEK

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Do you really think the movie would have been that much better if it had centered around a character the director doesn't like?

Also - Sandman was always going to be in the movie, and there was always going to be another he teamed up with. The Vulture was the character Raimi wanted to use and had the script written around, until he was forced to replace him with Venom. But Raimi was clear since the first film, he never liked Venom.

I think a three yearold with a crayon could have edited the film and made it better. So, yeah I think think even the crummy addition of Venom was probably an improvement. That was about the only interesting thing in the movie.

So, Raimi thinks he's smarter than the studio and all the tons of Venom fans? Is that supposed to be a good quality?

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
The thing about Raimi is....he GOT Spiderman.

He knew the character well, and that is why he was such a good fit. Now if we get some yahoo that doesn't know Spiderman to make the new movie, it will be horrible. Spiderman 1, and 2 were very, very close to the original comic books(especially the second film) and Raimi got the atmosphere just right. Many people complained that the first two films were overly dramatic. Well, if they read issues 1-50 of the Amazing Spiderman they would understand it was spot on. Peter Parker is an everyman(teen) with real troubles, and dilemmas.
Kudos to Raimi for keeping true to the original comic.

He seemed to get that Peter never really has anything go right for him, but that's about all he got. He didn't get the comedy side at all. I can't think of a single wise crack delivered well in his movies. They also didn't show Spiderman doing anything particularly smart to beat his opponents. It was always just fight, fight, fight, win.

I really think there's a lot of room for improvement in his movies. Even the vaunted Spiderman 2.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 8, 2010 12:12 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:

So, Raimi thinks he's smarter than the studio and all the tons of Venom fans? Is that supposed to be a good quality?

Seriously? Yes, on both counts. Hell, this is a Firefly site, yes? I thought it was SOP to consider any studio suits to be morons.

And fanboys.... oy. Expecially Venom fanboys.

'Nuff said

It would have been a different movie, but better - that's pure speculation. But if you think a director is going to do a good job with a character they hate..... keep dreaming.

Funny though, that big venom fans think he would have saved the movie. Everyone else thinks that he was one of the... you know.... bad things.

Personally, I'm not a big Venom fan, but I think the story could have been a decent movie. But forcing someone who hates the character to do it aint the way to make that happen.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 8, 2010 1:58 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
3. Introduce offspring. Shia Lebouf in Indy 4. Pointless. Ruined the film for me. Superman's son in Superman returns...stupid. What the hell were the writers thinking? The introduction of offspring can suck the life out of a film.

I think you might even disagree when we discover in Serenity 2 ( don't know the title yet )

that Zoe had a little Wash baby 8 months after the end of the first movie...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 8, 2010 3:45 PM

MISSTRESSAHARA

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
I was dissapointed with Indy 3, but none of that had to do with his having a kid - it was all down to other silly crap in the script.

I didn't love the kid in Superman Returns, but again, I didn't feel like he hurt the film too much (though he did complicate any potential sequel) - the worst problems were elsewhere.

And BTW, Bay conceived the story for Trannies 2, so it's odd to say he screwed up the writer's story - since they just built on what he gave them (not to defend it - I HATED that movie).

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Curious Storymark, you mean Indy 4 right? NOT the one with Sean Connery.

<<<"You want to rule the world. What you don't understand is, there is no world anymore, only corporations.">>> Dr Evil's #2

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 8, 2010 4:05 PM

CORNCOBB

Quote:
OPPYH wrote:
Monday, February 08, 2010 10:14
The thing about Raimi is....he GOT Spiderman.

He knew the character well, and that is why he was such a good fit. Now if we get some yahoo that doesn't know Spiderman to make the new movie, it will be horrible.

This is a worry, but there are a lot of Spider-man fans out there. What puts me right off Spider-man 4 is the rumour that it's a reboot. While I'd love to pretend Spider-man 3 never happened, and I'm pretty indifferent about Spider-man 2, it's way too soon for a remake.

"Gorramit Mal... I've forgotten my line."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 8, 2010 7:24 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Corncobb:
Quote:
OPPYH wrote:
Monday, February 08, 2010 10:14
The thing about Raimi is....he GOT Spiderman.

He knew the character well, and that is why he was such a good fit. Now if we get some yahoo that doesn't know Spiderman to make the new movie, it will be horrible.

This is a worry, but there are a lot of Spider-man fans out there. What puts me right off Spider-man 4 is the rumour that it's a reboot. While I'd love to pretend Spider-man 3 never happened, and I'm pretty indifferent about Spider-man 2, it's way too soon for a remake.

"Gorramit Mal... I've forgotten my line."

That's no rumor - that's a done deal.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 9, 2010 3:33 AM

CORNCOBB

In that case, I doubt I'll watch it unless it looks fantastic.

"Gorramit Mal... I've forgotten my line."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 9, 2010 10:50 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
He didn't get the comedy side at all. I can't think of a single wise crack delivered well in his movies. They also didn't show Spiderman doing anything particularly smart to beat his opponents. It was always just fight, fight, fight, win.

Which "Spider-man" movies were YOU watching?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE