The legend ends

[CaptainTrenchcoat]

Amen, brother. But ONLY if they can get Clint Eastwood to play the elderly Bruce Wayne. No one else could pull it off....!

What if they got Kevin Conroy to play Bruce? Just make him look old. Can you imagine what the fanboys would do? lol

[thunderbolt]

Unless Nolan decides to direct another, the next one needs to be a reboot. This cycle was all his vision and style, a new director would be like Schumacher coming in after Burton to continue the series.

[emeraldknight47]

What if they got Kevin Conroy to play Bruce? Just make him look old. Can you imagine what the fanboys would do? lol

Conroy could do it, too, but I think that Eastwood just had the persona to make elderly Bruce the legend he needs to be....!

[torgospizza]

Are all the Bond movies with different actors playing Bond (Connery, Moore, etc) reboots when a new actor comes along?

I've always considered the different Bonds to be the same dude (that made no sense, I know), up until Craig took over. I've also thought WB wanted us to consider Keaton, Kilmer, and Clooney the same Batman, then it was rebooted with Bale.

What constitutes a reboot? Is Man of Steel a reboot? If so, why?

[samurainoir]

Regarding the Bond comparison, I think the days when the entire library of bond films continue to exist in non stop cultural rotation ended around the time when Moore did. Having recently attended a James Bond themed party, there was definitely a huge generational gap between those of us that grew up with the bond films and those that were merely aware of the the character and his trappings.

Given the decline of the bond franchise into a spectacle of cliches during the Brsnan years, I can see the reasoning why they "rebooted" with Craig. Particularly when you realize that at the time, there really wasn't a huge difference between the current crop f bond films and Austin Powers' broad spoofs other than perhaps tone.

There are rumors of Blofeld returning to the series, which when you think about it, was pretty much the last time there were any continuity elements or character developement prior to the Craig reinvention. The only wo anbond ever loved and the villain who killed her were the highest stakes of the franchise, beginning with the much maligned Lazenby performance of a much more vulnerable bond, and ending with Moore dumping Blofeld into a smokestack.

[ctc]

>Given the decline of the bond franchise into a spectacle of cliches during the Brsnan years, I can see the reasoning why they "rebooted" with Craig.

I think the biggest problem with the reboots is that there's so much attention paid to the idea. Changing stuff isn't new; each new permutation of ANY established character does it, but the obsessive cataloguing and overpowering pre-hype we get now is different. People who grew up with the Batman '66 tv show were perfectly content to read "The Dark Knight Returns" in the 80's.

Don C.

[clemso]

Hm .. looks familiar, Bat Man No More?

[Earth 2 Chris]

Don't forget this one:



Chris

[johnmiic]

Given the decline of the bond franchise into a spectacle of cliches during the Brsnan years, I can see the reasoning why they "rebooted" with Craig. Particularly when you realize that at the time, there really wasn't a huge difference between the current crop f bond films and Austin Powers' broad spoofs other than perhaps tone.

You are wayyyyy off base with that statement. I recall in the `80's when every new Bond film came out with Roger Moore there was a concerted groan of dissapointment. Moore had long ago jumped the shark by the `80's and people were clamoring for Pierce Brosnan to take the role. He was all set to do so and got sucked back into the last season of Remington Steele instead. Timothy Dalton got the role and people were-not too happy. Brosnan took the role, for a brief period of time, ( Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies , The World Is Not Enough, Die Another Day ), and left when he felt he had done enough with the role. He didn't leave because his films bombed. He could have continued playing James Bond for years to come if he wanted to. After all Timothy Dalton only got to play Bond 2x's, (The Living Daylights, Licence to Kill), and he was out.

What constitutes a reboot? Is Man of Steel a reboot? If so, why?

I think this "re-boot" nonsense started first with the term "re-imagined" when Ron Moore kicked out all the old trappings of Battlestar Galactica and re-made the series in his own image. Tho I've seen all the seasons of "re-imagined" Galactica and have to admit he did some outstanding work with it. I think a re-boot, (and a re-imagining), is really just a spin on the idea we all recognize:a re-make. They coined a new term to excite audiences. It doesn't excite me. I just get pizzed off about it.

I would guess re-boot means, you start the series over again. Re-tell the origin, (being a re-boot you can ignore many important details that are relevant), re-cast all the roles, bore people with wasted screen time when you could just tell a good story. Necessary re-boots could be seen as Lost In Space, (1997) and Doctor Who. Tho in Doctor Who's case it is the same guy, same show, same continuity. Uneccessary re-boots would likely be, Spider-Man, Batman Begins, Nikita,(TV), Star Trek.

[doctor09210]

this is the end for nolan and bale, their contract only gave him 3 movies

next time around it is going to be a will smith batman. He signed onto the role.

[samurainoir]

He didn't leave because his films bombed. He could have continued playing James Bond for years to come if he wanted to. After all Timothy Dalton only got to play Bond 2x's, (The Living Daylights, Licence to Kill), and he was out.
.

You are developing an odd habit of reading into my statements exactly what I don't say at all.

Listen please. I did not say anything about popularity or box office. My opinion of "decline" was purely around the content of the Brosnan films, not performance if you were actually reading what I was saying within it's context. "spectacle of cliches" ... The comparison to the Austin Powers films? Savvy?

[samurainoir]

But back on topic... I believe why "rebooting" has become such a marketing technique is pretty much the age old "this ain't your Dad's" whatever. Something every brand seems to need to eventually embrace... Alienating a previous aging customer base to appeal to a younger crowd. Always a risk.

Plus the last two decades of Bond films are pretty much self contained and relatively continuity free. Something that all the most popular franchises now embrace... Thus you have an entire generation growing up on the Harry Potter films and running out to see the next one every year just like generations decades alone went to watch weekly cliffhangers.

So for the first time since the Blofeld stuff, we have a newly introduced continuity of the Craig films building on each other. Starting with Casino Royale (initially marketed as a prequel to all that had come before in an attempt to bridge the eras), and following through on the Quantum thing through the next two films.

[ddgaff1132]

Re-boots to me are just another attempt to cash in. Re-package the same story. Just make dumb changes to make it "Your Own". I'm probably on my own with this. But I think the germ of this started with Lucas re-doing the Star Wars original trilogy! Now they do more than beef up the special effect. They re-do the whole charactor's universe

[Bruce Banner]

Re-boots to me are just another attempt to cash in. Re-package the same story. Just make dumb changes to make it "Your Own". I'm probably on my own with this. But I think the germ of this started with Lucas re-doing the Star Wars original trilogy! Now they do more than beef up the special effect. They re-do the whole charactor's universe

Rebooting franchises has been going on for decades, and certainly predates the SW Special Editions (which wasn't even a reboot).

The distinction must be drawn between merely making cosmetic changes to existing works, and totally revamping/relaunching a property with new cast, director, continuity, etc.

[thunderbolt]

>Given the decline of the bond franchise into a spectacle of cliches during the Brsnan years, I can see the reasoning why they "rebooted" with Craig.

I think the biggest problem with the reboots is that there's so much attention paid to the idea. Changing stuff isn't new; each new permutation of ANY established character does it, but the obsessive cataloguing and overpowering pre-hype we get now is different. People who grew up with the Batman '66 tv show were perfectly content to read "The Dark Knight Returns" in the 80's.

Don C.

I think Hollywood assumes that the audience is a bunch of idiots and can't accept different takes on characters, so they really push the reboot promo thing when it occurs. I bet when the new Superman starts cranking up we will see lots of bits about how its a clean slate or whatever. Its the same syndrom that WB uses on its characters in cartoons or tv shows or movies, only one version can exist at a time, because the public "gets confused".