Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

After reading some discussion about the new Ghostbusters, I wanted to get some opinions. Some of these remakes/reboots, like the newest Jurassic Park, Star Trek, the Thing prequel, and the newest Mad Max, took deviations from the franchise, but were still regarded well. Others, like the Legend of Tarzan and, in my opinion, the newest Ghostbusters, just fell flat and sucked.

What makes them so different? In the case of the first three, I don't think it's deviations in story/characters, I think it's writing and connection. I think bad writing hurts a ton of movies with a great cast and a good idea. I also think a director not understanding/connecting with the franchise and instead just trying to pump it out for money is also a sign for concern.

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule on how to make a reboot, but I think it's dangerous ground and not something to be done lightly.

Doing a pre/sequel is a completely different ballgame from doing a reboot. So it probably makes sense to talk about them separately. When it comes to pre/sequels, you need to convince the audience that there is more to tell about something they already like. With a reboot, some people in your audience are really familiar with the source material while others have basically never heard of it. Generally, the latter group tends to represent more money so that it who the studios pursue. Reboots along those lines are often well-received by the mainstream but despised by fans of the original. When a reboot fails to appeal to the mainstream audience, it is usually ascribed - by existing fans - to the producers failing to capture whatever made the original worthwhile, in their minds. But I think this is incorrect; it's more likely the case that the studio team failed in more mundane ways: poor communication, unclear vision, money problems.

 Manchu wrote:
Doing a pre/sequel is a completely different ballgame from doing a reboot. So it probably makes sense to talk about them separately. When it comes to pre/sequels, you need to convince the audience that there is more to tell about something they already like. With a reboot, some people in your audience are really familiar with the source material while others have basically never heard of it. Generally, the latter group tends to represent more money so that it who the studios pursue. Reboots along those lines are often well-received by the mainstream but despised by fans of the original. When a reboot fails to appeal to the mainstream audience, it is usually ascribed - by existing fans - to the producers failing to capture whatever made the original worthwhile, in their minds. But I think this is incorrect; it's more likely the case that the studio team failed in more mundane ways: poor communication, unclear vision, money problems.

So what would you say distinguishes the sequels/prequels from a reboot? The plot? I.E. Ghostbusters/Star Trek is a reboot because it's set in a new world and supercedes the original, where as Jurassic Park builds off the original?

Exactly right. Now - those are ideal categories into which films don't always neatly fit. For example, movies that take place (more or less) in the same setting/continuity as films that had been previously released long ago tend to be more like reboots in that their primary target audience is not necessarily people who liked the original. Jurassic World is, to some extent, an example. An even murkier example is Force Awakens. Films like these tend to ignore or at least minimize other franchise entries that were less successful/unsuccessful.

There's a time element, both IRL and in universe.

A pre/sequel will release in time close to the release of the original (or previous sequel,) say, less than 5 years, and feature characters, actors and/or reference to events and characters that took place in the original. Characters and actors more heavily in a sequel, reference to events more heavily in a prequel (but not exclusively to either.)

A reboot will, generally, be separated in cinematic release by a greater period of time, feature different characters entirely, or different actors playing those roles, and may retell events already covered.

There's probably an element of commercial intent too, a sequel is designed to capitalise on the popularity of a movie/franchise, a reboot is more to rejuvenate it.

I think, using all those criteria, Jurassic World is a bit of a hybrid, but I'd probably lean towards sequel, especially with that particular franchise the sequels weren't terribly closely linked to the original in the first place.

 jreilly89 wrote:
where as Jurassic Park builds off the original?

Since it had the same T-Rex and the same building (now ruined) where said T-Rex and the Raptors squared off in Jurassic Park I, the Beginning, I would say it's safe to say Jurassic World built off the original.

I enjoyed Jurassic World very much. There was humor, there was big ass dinosaurs, and there was some throw back to the original film (mentioned above). The plot was straight forward, even formulaic, Jurassic World "Dinosaur(s) escape their cages, gak hits the fan, mass hysteria." I'm not sure why it worked so well, but I enjoyed it more than Jurassic Park 2 or 3. I suppose the story was better, and there was no Chaos theory.

 Manchu wrote:
Doing a pre/sequel is a completely different ballgame from doing a reboot. So it probably makes sense to talk about them separately. When it comes to pre/sequels, you need to convince the audience that there is more to tell about something they already like. With a reboot, some people in your audience are really familiar with the source material while others have basically never heard of it. Generally, the latter group tends to represent more money so that it who the studios pursue. Reboots along those lines are often well-received by the mainstream but despised by fans of the original. When a reboot fails to appeal to the mainstream audience, it is usually ascribed - by existing fans - to the producers failing to capture whatever made the original worthwhile, in their minds. But I think this is incorrect; it's more likely the case that the studio team failed in more mundane ways: poor communication, unclear vision, money problems.

Honestly I find most reboots fail because the original simply wasn't that good to begin with

 LordofHats wrote:

Honestly I find most reboots fail because the original simply wasn't that good to begin with

You've Got Mail was the best tear-jerker I ever saw and you should take that back! (James Stewart's 1940's The Shop Around the Corner was the original)

 jreilly89 wrote:
After reading some discussion about the new Ghostbusters, I wanted to get some opinions. Some of these remakes/reboots, like the newest Jurassic Park, Star Trek, the Thing prequel, and the newest Mad Max, took deviations from the franchise, but were still regarded well

Well I see what your problem is right there.

Except for Mad Max, which was done by the same director who did...we Mad Max, all of those were what we call "gak."

Many originals are products of their time, what makes them work is relevance to their time and the styles and attitudes of that time. When taken out of that, they fall flat. Additionally, later sequels or reboots often will try and hamfist stuff in, such as a love story, a political message, a thematic change, or a big fight, that just dont really have a place within the context of the original, and they then fall flat. Alternatively, many sequels or reboots just lose sight of what made the original work.

With Ghostbusters, i think its a combination of all of the above. I havent seen it, probably wont, but from the trailers it looks like it could just as easily have been a PG Scary Movie or a Scooby Doo movie with a whole lot of forced delivery, nothing that really brings that organic 80's old school SNL vibe that made the original work so well.

Plus any film "sucking" or not is subjective.

One mans "great fun" is another womans "dire, tedious rubbish" and vice versa.

I loved the Thing prequal and Jurasic World, enjoyed both ST films and new Mad Max, others didn't. Watching th Trailers I don't fancy the new Ghostbusters but then I don;t think its aimed at me so I can't say it sucks.

 jreilly89 wrote:

So what would you say distinguishes the sequels/prequels from a reboot? The plot? I.E. Ghostbusters/Star Trek is a reboot because it's set in a new world and supercedes the original, where as Jurassic Park builds off the original?

Star Trek is a bit of a unique case, in that it's a reboot that's also a sequel... Whatever anyone's opinion is on the standard of the actual movie, it's a goshdarned clever way of restarting a dormant franchise.

Back to the future and to some extent pirates shows that sequels can be done right, to many sequels just bank on the popularity of the original instead of putting efforts in the characters and story, i watched the new Independence day and the story just make no sense. Or with the the hellraiser movies where from 3 the backstory was mostly ignored.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Doing a pre/sequel is a completely different ballgame from doing a reboot. So it probably makes sense to talk about them separately. When it comes to pre/sequels, you need to convince the audience that there is more to tell about something they already like. With a reboot, some people in your audience are really familiar with the source material while others have basically never heard of it. Generally, the latter group tends to represent more money so that it who the studios pursue. Reboots along those lines are often well-received by the mainstream but despised by fans of the original. When a reboot fails to appeal to the mainstream audience, it is usually ascribed - by existing fans - to the producers failing to capture whatever made the original worthwhile, in their minds. But I think this is incorrect; it's more likely the case that the studio team failed in more mundane ways: poor communication, unclear vision, money problems.

Honestly I find most reboots fail because the original simply wasn't that good to begin with

I disagree Ghostbusters, Total Recall, Robocop, Halloween, Pink Panther, Get Smart, Psycho, etc are real good properties (well the originals were).

I will stand up and say that I don't think Ghostbusters, Total Recall, or Halloween were good. Maybe enjoyable, and at the time they came out good, but watching them when I was growing up none of them impressed me. EDIT: I'll actually go farther and say that I found Ghost Busters very mediocre, and have never understood why people like it so much.

 LordofHats wrote:
and have never understood why people like it so much.

Nostalgia, mainly.


It's a helluva drug.

Total Recall was the one that had the chick with 3 boobs, right? I think that's right.

 kronk wrote:
Total Recall was the one that had the chick with 3 boobs, right? I think that's right.

Indeed.

I would also consider it one of Arnold's better movies. (Though my favorite will always be Commando).

 LordofHats wrote:
I will stand up and say that I don't think Ghostbusters, Total Recall, or Halloween were good. Maybe enjoyable, and at the time they came out good, but watching them when I was growing up none of them impressed me. EDIT: I'll actually go farther and say that I found Ghost Busters very mediocre, and have never understood why people like it so much.

Did you see Ghostbusters in the theater in the 80s? If not, thats why.

Thats not meant as a disbaragement. Many films do not hold up well over time. Other times films need to be seen on the big screen to really get it.

As an example. Watch Midway. Its very meh on the small screen.
Watching it in the balcony of the Tower Theater, when the engines of the airplanes made the floor vibrate...wow.

Disagree RE: GB, it's a great comedy and the premise is pitch perfect.

Ghostbusters is darn near a perfect film for its category. It's also perfect as a standalone story, and the mistake was with producing a sequel.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
and have never understood why people like it so much.

Nostalgia, mainly.


It's a helluva drug.

I've watched Ghostbusters probably half a dozen times I was born in 1993 so I have no reason to be nostalgic towards it (and am not) it seriously holds up its got funny lines, fun characters, a cool premise, easy to follow story, etc it's almost a perfect movie. The only aspect that maybe isn't

super great is some of the effects look a little dated or unconvincing but I can easily forgive it because so many other elements work so well, plus it's like 30 years old so I don't expect it's effects to necessarily to age perfectly and I see GB as comedy first and foremost so having pretty effects

isn't my first priority. Also I'm tired of people throwing the nostalgia line (it's overused and lazy observation) around sure sometimes it's applicable but a lot of times these remade properties are coming from works of art that are genuinely good and these remakes often fall way short of that

(there are exceptions of course 3:10 to Yuma is great same with The Departed, etc).

 LordofHats wrote:
I will stand up and say that I don't think Ghostbusters, Total Recall, or Halloween were good. Maybe enjoyable, and at the time they came out good, but watching them when I was growing up none of them impressed me. EDIT: I'll actually go farther and say that I found Ghost Busters very mediocre, and have never understood why people like it so much.

Yeah, same here. I haven't seen ghostbusters in well over a decade, and I always found it kind of 'eh'. It wasn't bad, but it didn't strike me as the kind of movie to inspire rabid fandom, especially 30 years later. And I'm 32, so I *think* I'm in the age range of fandom for the movie. It's just odd seeing a bunch of 30-somethings on youtube complaining about how it ruins a franchise that effectively hasn't existed for ~25 years.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
but it didn't strike me as the kind of movie to inspire rabid fandom, especially 30 years later

And yet it did ...

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
that effectively hasn't existed for ~25 years

LOL just because you haven't been paying attention to something doesn't mean it "effectively hasn't existed," unless that statement applies only to yourself, in which case, the retort is ... so what?

 Cheesecat wrote:
Also I'm tired of people throwing the nostalgia line (it's overused and lazy observation) around sure sometimes it's applicable but a lot of times these remade properties are coming from works of art that are genuinely good and these remakes often fall way short of that

Agreed ... dismissing the popularity of something because of nostalgia is pretty weak, especially when many of the people who like the thing were not around for the original. That tactic also totally ignores that feelings of nostalgia are often caused by the underlying object having been good. For example, I have no feelings of nostalgia regarding Phantom Menace.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I've watched Ghostbusters probably half a dozen times I was born in 1993 so I have no reason to be nostalgic towards it (and am not) it seriously holds up its got funny lines, fun characters, a cool premise, easy to follow story, etc it's almost a perfect movie. The only aspect that maybe isn't super great is some of the effects look a little dated or unconvincing but I can easily forgive it because so many other elements work so well, plus it's like 30 years old so I don't expect it's effects to necessarily to age perfectly and I see GB as comedy first and foremost so having pretty effects isn't my first priority. Also I'm tired of people throwing the nostalgia line (it's overused and lazy observation) around sure sometimes it's applicable but a lot of times these remade properties are coming from works of art that are genuinely good and these remakes often fall way short of that (there are exceptions of course 3:10 to Yuma is great same with The Departed, etc).

I didn't say it wasn't good, only that most people cling to it because of nostalgia. Also, noting the value of nostalgia isn't lazy; it's very much a real phenomenon that studios, among other people/groups, know how to mine for profit. I mean, there was a guy in the Ghostbusters reboot thread that claimed it's the best action comedy from the 80s and arguably one of the greatest films of all time. That's just laughable.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
but it didn't strike me as the kind of movie to inspire rabid fandom, especially 30 years later

And yet it did ...

Sure, it has its devotees, but let's be real, Ghostbusters isn't one of the "great fandoms" of the world. However, like anything that has hardcore fans, there's a tendency to become irrational (they deserve a movie that caters directly to them, anyone else be damned) and the entire kerfuffle over the reboot is a perfect example of it. And to be clear, the Ghostbusters fandom is nowhere near the only fandom guilt of it.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
that effectively hasn't existed for ~25 years

LOL just because you haven't been paying attention to something doesn't mean it "effectively hasn't existed," unless that statement applies only to yourself, in which case, the retort is ... so what?

But it really hasn't.

There hasn't been a theatrical Ghostbusters since 1989, and it wasn't that good. The half-way decent animated show went off the air in 1991 and the horrible Extreme Ghostbusters lasted one season in the late 90s. There's also been various comics/mangas based on the franchise, too, but that's it. It isn't a fandom or franchise that's saturated popular culture in years.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Total Recall was the one that had the chick with 3 boobs, right? I think that's right.

Indeed.

I would also consider it one of Arnold's better movies. (Though my favorite will always be Commando).

Ah but the remake has the Divine Ms Beckinsale swishing her hair and everything

@SPJr - I think you're arguing to argue. GB has been around, as you yourself admit, outside of films or TV shows. It has been around even between the comics and games. This is how IPs survive, the fans carry the torch. Early Trek fandom is probably the foremost example. Voltron is another, lower key example. There was also a period when Star Wars fans were high and dry. GB fandom (or, again, Voltron fandom) may not be as huge as Star Wars and Star Trek but it has always carried the torch for the property.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
but it didn't strike me as the kind of movie to inspire rabid fandom, especially 30 years later

And yet it did ...

Sure, it has its devotees, but let's be real, Ghostbusters isn't one of the "great fandoms" of the world. However, like anything that has hardcore fans, there's a tendency to become irrational (they deserve a movie that caters directly to them, anyone else be damned) and the entire kerfuffle over the reboot is a perfect example of it. And to be clear, the Ghostbusters fandom is nowhere near the only fandom guilt of it.

SO, what? It's okay to trash beloved movies because the fans just need to "Get with the times". Guess what? I've never seen the original Universal Pictures monster movies like the Wolf Man, but I can tell you right now I think remaking them with Tom Cruise and other aging actors is in poor form. Maybe fans aren't pissed people are remaking movies, they're pissed people are remaking them with no care of how it influences or tarnishes the original. That's why I'm normally not a huge fan of covers, I think artist's should produce new songs instead of remaking them. Very few covers stand up to or surpass the original.

I think it's funny that "Ghostbusters fans are just babies", but if someone did this to Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, ANY of the other crazy popular movies/books/etc. people would be up in arms.

Since attending GenCon and other conventions since 2000, I've seen Ghostbusters Cos-Players at every event.

Since movie #2, there were 2 cartoon series, right?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I've watched Ghostbusters probably half a dozen times I was born in 1993 so I have no reason to be nostalgic towards it (and am not) it seriously holds up its got funny lines, fun characters, a cool premise, easy to follow story, etc it's almost a perfect movie. The only aspect that maybe isn't super great is some of the effects look a little dated or unconvincing but I can easily forgive it because so many other elements work so well, plus it's like 30 years old so I don't expect it's effects to necessarily to age perfectly and I see GB as comedy first and foremost so having pretty effects isn't my first priority. Also I'm tired of people throwing the nostalgia line (it's overused and lazy observation) around sure sometimes it's applicable but a lot of times these remade properties are coming from works of art that are genuinely good and these remakes often fall way short of that (there are exceptions of course 3:10 to Yuma is great same with The Departed, etc).

I didn't say it wasn't good, only that most people cling to it because of nostalgia. Also, noting the value of nostalgia isn't lazy; it's very much a real phenomenon that studios, among other people/groups, know how to mine for profit. I mean, there was a guy in the Ghostbusters reboot thread that claimed it's the best action comedy from the 80s and arguably one of the greatest films of all time. That's just laughable.

Yeah that guy you're talking about is rather hyperbolic. My main concern about the nostalgia thing, was it feels a bit like an attack on the things I enjoy as I see it as "you only like this because of rose tinted glasses, it's nowhere near a good as you think it is (not saying you're that person it's

just how I feel when I see that word thrown about)" when no, that's not how I feel I really thought that piece of work was well made in fact I just consumed it recently and I still thoroughly enjoy it. While I agree it isn't always a baseless accusation like your example about studios using older

well known and liked IP for exploitative purposes is legitimate criticism or somebody has fond memories of liking this 80's hair metal band in their mid-teens and they go back to listen to a couple albums only to find it to be embarrassing schlock that does not hold up at all. My problem

with people throwing around the word "nostalgia" is to basically tell me the things I like are overrated (another overused term which basically boils down to "that this thing that people like, shouldn't be liked so much") and that I have such piss poor, pedestrian tastes and that only they, an

official arbiter of fine art can discern what makes for quality entertainment, to be smug and obnoxious. If someone is going to criticize something because of nostalgia I expect them to follow up with a more in depth reason why they don't think whatever property is as great as people

remember, otherwise I feel their opinion is not informative enough to be worthwhile.