The legend ends

[ctc]

>Rebooting franchises has been going on for decades, and certainly predates the SW Special Editions.

Oh yeah! That's why you'll see refrences to the "Showa era Godzilla" or "Adam West Batman" or "Golden age" etc....

I think what's relatively new is how much hype has become attached to the concept. Rebooting has been sold as a way to tailor a given franchaise to YOU; the hip, relevant audience!

Not that it wasn't BEFORE.... but there's more attention paid to the idea now. More resistance, too. I somehow feel it's the expression of that resistance which is the current defining factor.... moreso than the fact that rebooting is done, and that it's a selling point.... but I haven't figured out the exact mix yet.

Don C.

[samurainoir]

^^^^
exactly right. It's also down to the fact that "reboot" is a home computer era term. They would just refer to it as a good ol' fashioned remake back in the day.

After all, how many times were properties like Flash Gordon, or Lone Ranger, or Tarzan suffer from "reboots"? Pretty much every time they entered a new medium... Novel, radio, film, and tv. And again, it's generational. However, they are realizing that these former kids characters have nostalgic value as well so your now trying to go Multi generational... Thus Batman has this fascinating rotation of Brave and Bold vs Dark knight existing alongside each other now... I certainly don't know many parents who took young kids to see DK.

[johnmiic]

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?

You have a habit of connecting the dots in the wrong order and when someone disagrees you try to say, "Oh no. You got it wrong. You're ignoring the context."

But back on topic...

How is it off topic if I am responding to examples you put forth? You want to say it's off topic when I can point to examples where I think you are wrong? This is not personal. You said it; I respond. I disagree. We'll talk it out.

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.

This is where I strongly disagree with you. That is just your opinion and I think, incorrect in that assumption. You can't divorce the films "preformance" at the box office, disregard the fact that people liked the films and claim it was a bad film due to content. Bad by what measure? Your opinion only. Do you think you're Rex Reed or something? Lol!

The fact that they rebooted with Craig is not because they were unhappy with Brosnan. Brosnan could have continued playing Bond if he wanted to. He decided it was time to move on. They had to recast and thought, Hmmmm, what can we do differently now?

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.

While Austin Powers cherry-picked James Bond films for elements to satirize it also draws from the films Our Man Flint and In Like Flint which were parodies of JB as well. Austin Powers is also centered on the differences between the`60's as compared to the`90's. Mike Meyers was concentrating on a specific era of spy film genre-not necessarily taking the Brosnan JB films into account. Also please tell me if Brosnan's Bond films became a "spectacle of cliches" as compared to the Austin Powers films please point out where James Bond:

Was cryogenically frozen? Or the evil villain was?
Hibernated into the future?
Slept and fought with Robotic women?
Where the evil villain had a son cloned from his DNA with Father figure issues?
Travelled Back in time?
Had his Mojo stolen?
Had a 500lbs Scotsman nemesis?

Austin powers does broadly satirize James Bond cliche's but Mike Meyers adds whole new levels to Austin Powers that JB does not have. The JB elements that were spoofed are all too obvious; any good film-maker would have used them as fodder, (see the spoof version of Casio Royale`).

...They would just refer to it as a good ol' fashioned remake back in the day.

No kidding. I said the exact same thing on page 3 but why acknowledge it, eh?

...I think a re-boot, (and a re-imagining), is really just a spin on the idea we all recognize:a re-make.

[The Bat]

My thinking is...since Nolan is staying on as executive producer, that what he means by the "re-boot" statement is, that there will be an entirely NEW cast. Not necessarily that they will be re-telling Batman's origin.

[kingdom warrior]

My thinking is...since Nolan is staying on as executive producer, that what he means by the "re-boot" statement is, that there will be an entirely NEW cast. Not necessarily that they will be re-telling Batman's origin.

That's what I think too

[Earth 2 Chris]

^Me three. They may silently reboot the storyline too. But hopefully no retelling of the origin. It's not needed. See the new Spider-Man.

Chris

[samurainoir]

You have a habit of connecting the dots in the wrong order and when someone disagrees you try to say, "Oh no. You got it wrong. You're ignoring the context."



How is it off topic if I am responding to examples you put forth? You want to say it's off topic when I can point to examples where I think you are wrong? This is not personal. You said it; I respond. I disagree. We'll talk it out.



This is where I strongly disagree with you. That is just your opinion and I think, incorrect in that assumption. You can't divorce the films "preformance" at the box office, disregard the fact that people liked the films and claim it was a bad film due to content. Bad by what measure? Your opinion only. Do you think you're Rex Reed or something? Lol!



No kidding. I said the exact same thing on page 3 but why acknowledge it, eh?

Sounds Pretty personal to me given how you have taken to jumping on whatever flip comments I make off the cuff. Why are you being so needy about me acknowledging you my friend? (and yes, I am quite ham fingered tapping on my IPad)

Regarding my Austin Powers comment, I'll hold up my sarcasm sign.


I get it, you <heart> Brosnan. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with spectacle films either if they make bank. It's an opinion. We all have our Rex Reed moments here. I don't think it's really worth sticking my line of comment under a micrscope. It's not the da vinci code. My statement is just merely my wish I could care about Brosnan's bond, he's quite suitable and charismatic, but I can only think of one moment where I had an emotional reaction, which is the cold opener where he was captured and tortured, and ican'teven be bothered to remember which film that was.

Let me put this in context... I loved the moment of vulnerability Lazenby showed when he sat there in that scene in her majesty's secret service, where hewas waiting for his enemies to descend upon him. I like that Dalton's Bond experiment involved him hating what he did and going on a personal vendetta of sorts (I just wish it were better executed). And I fully realize I'm in the minority for Bond fans who want the cookie cutter quips, violence, girls and gadgets Formula That Austin Powers was sending up (which I will watch and get pleasure for in the moment, but completely forget once I step out of thetheatre)

[The Bat]

Hmm...i thought this was a Batman thread?

Not to add fuel to the fire...but I LOVED Brosnan Bond film(except the last one with Halle Berry:(). The two Timothy Dalton films bombed so bad, that they didn't make a Bond film for 7 years.
Then Martin Cambell(Casino royal) revived the franchise with Brosnan and Golden Eye. The Brosnan films were very successful except for the last one.

[emeraldknight47]

Hmm...i thought this was a Batman thread?

Not to add fuel to the fire...but I LOVED Brosnan Bond film(except the last one with Halle Berry:(). The two Timothy Dalton films bombed so bad, that they didn't make a Bond film for 7 years.
Then Martin Cambell(Casino royal) revived the franchise with Brosnan and Golden Eye. The Brosnan films were very successful except for the last one.

I actually LOVED the Dalton Bond film "License To Kill." Bond felt real; he got hurt. Dalton managed to turn him into more of a bad@$$ and less of a ladies man. Perhaps that's why people didn't care for his turn at Bond...

[The Bat]

I actually LOVED the Dalton Bond film "License To Kill." Bond felt real; he got hurt. Dalton managed to turn him into more of a bad@$$

Ironically, that's how I feel about the Daniel Craig Bond movies. Craig(with Cambell directing)made Bond feel more real. I like Dalton as an actor...just couldn't see him as James Bond.

[emeraldknight47]

Ironically, that's how I feel about the Daniel Craig Bond movies. Craig(with Cambell directing)made Bond feel more real. I like Dalton as an actor...just couldn't see him as James Bond.

Don't get me wrong---I like Craig as Bond, too. Still no Sean Connery, but then who is...?

[kingdom warrior]

Ironically, that's how I feel about the Daniel Craig Bond movies. Craig(with Cambell directing)made Bond feel more real. I like Dalton as an actor...just couldn't see him as James Bond.

Actually Dalton was supposed to play Bond when Connery left the role in the 60's. but Dalton had other commitments and couldn't do it. so the part went to Lanzeby......


Daniel Craig could play one hell of a sinister Riddler if you ask me..........

[The Toyroom]

Actually Dalton was supposed to play Bond when Connery left the role in the 60's. but Dalton had other commitments and couldn't do it. so the part went to Lanzeby......

Dalton would have been 23 for "OHMSS"...a young Bond. Connery was 32 when he first took the role...

[kingdom warrior]

Dalton would have been 23 for "OHMSS"...a young Bond. Connery was 32 when he first took the role...

Yeah but everyone looked old back then.......

[The Bat]

Actually Dalton was supposed to play Bond when Connery left the role in the 60's. but Dalton had other commitments and couldn't do it. so the part went to Lanzeby......

Yeah, I remember hearing that. But I liked Roger more in his early movies. He just played the part a little too long...until he had liver spots.