Well, They Decided to Kill the Spider Man Franchise...

[AdminAssistant]

I don't know if he'll be able to get Bruce Campbell to make another movie. I thought he was still doing "Burn Notice"?

I was, of course, joking. The Evil Dead series, while fantastic, should remain as is, no additions, 'reboots,' or anything. Sometimes, Hollywood, a series runs its course and should be left alone. Quite frankly...do we need more Spiderman or Batman or Superman movies? ugh. It's been....done. Troubled person gets powers, can't deal with powers, must juggle personal issues while also saving the world from a super-villain who also happens to be the hero's father/friend/lover/trusted authority figure.

While Bruce Campbell is on Burn Notice, that doesn't exclude him from doing films. Burn Notice runs on a different schedule than most network series, but I'm sure the actors have several months of hiatus. What would B-horror and indie movies do without The Chin?

[Kara]

Or perhaps, they saw that the third movie got less than stellar reviews and wanted to scrap it and start over.

Actually, the third film was supposed to wrap up the Peter/Harry/MJ conflict. Then the studio said, "Put Venom in it!" and Sam had to comply (which is precisely why everything with Venom seemed so out-of-place and forced). They always intended to go forward with a fourth film, which would have had John Malkovich as the Vulture. But, Sony had already planned to reboot the series after SM4, so since they couldn't get Sam to play their games they decided to just do it now.

I was, of course, joking. The Evil Dead series, while fantastic, should remain as is, no additions, 'reboots,' or anything.

There's already a remake in the works

Although I have to admit that the Freddy vs Jason vs Ash comic book miniseries (both of em) were fan-f*ing-tastic. But this is because they kept the characters true to their original film counterparts. Freddy was a psychotic smartass, Ash was a smug asshole, and Jason was... well Jason. That's what made them good. Don't change, update, revamp, or otherwise try to give a "new perspective" on classic characters. The fans loved them for who they were, not for who you think they want them to be.

[Broomjockey]

Yes, we do need more Batman movies, as long as they continue in a similar vein to Batman Begins, rather than Batman and Robin.

I think Superman's gone about as far as he can. Most people just aren't very familiar with Supes' classic enemies, so you'd be always falling back on Luthor, which means the movie goes: Luthor hatches plan, Superman stops plan, but falls victim to Luthor's kryptonite thing (be it a rock, shard, island, whatever), Superman looks like he's going to lose, then he doesn't. There's no money to be made in a Superman movie without Lex Luthor.

Spider-man, if they weren't doing a reboot, again, they could stretch that out for a while. A lot of people know Spidey's villains. We've barely scratched the surface. Hell, they could whip out the Sinister Six. Spider-Man vs. six villains. It'd be an awesome way to showcase his intellect, rather than just his fighting. It wouldn't be terribly hard to come up with a personal subplot, if they really need to shoehorn that in.

I think as long as they can tell new stories without rehashing the old ones, then new movies should be made. A reboot should be done because you can't tell more stories with the continuity you've established, not because you're trying to hit a new demographic.

[Jester]

Yes, we do need more Batman movies, as long as they continue in a similar vein to Batman Begins, rather than Batman and Robin.

"Batman and Robin" was one of the worst movies I have ever had the displeasure to see in a theater. I saw it with my best friend Neets and her hubby (boyfriend at the time). All three of us just sat there silently, which is quite out of character for two of us. It was simply godawful. I have often described it as having only one redeeming feature: Uma Thurman in skimpy green.

It wouldn't be terribly hard to come up with a personal subplot, if they really need to shoehorn that in.

Call me crazy, but it's my opinion that the Spider-Man movies worked and were so much better than most comic book movies because of the personal subplots they had. The first one especially was a love story first, and an action movie second. And that was hardly "shoehorned in."

A reboot should be done because you can't tell more stories with the continuity you've established, not because you're trying to hit a new demographic.

I am not a Hollywood-basher, but honestly, when has Hollywood ever done something because it's what they should do, not because they think it will make them money?

[Broomjockey]

Call me crazy, but it's my opinion that the Spider-Man movies worked and were so much better than most comic book movies because of the personal subplots they had. The first one especially was a love story first, and an action movie second. And that was hardly "shoehorned in."

Unfortunately, with the continuity in the movies, I think it'd be rather difficult by this point to do a legitimate personal plot that wasn't stupid. If they can do it, I'm all for it. I just don't think it'd be easy to do a good one, and I rather they leave it out than have a crappy one.

I am not a Hollywood-basher, but honestly, when has Hollywood ever done something because it's what they should do, not because they think it will make them money?

What's scary is that usually what will make them more money is usually the right thing. It's just their advisors suck, and test audiences are usually comprised of twats, if the general quality of "theatrical endings" vs. "originally scripted endings" is anything to go on.

[Gravekeeper]

What's scary is that usually what will make them more money is usually the right thing. It's just their advisors suck, and test audiences are usually comprised of twats, if the general quality of "theatrical endings" vs. "originally scripted endings" is anything to go on.

See Original Morally Thought Provoking Ending of "I Am Legend" vs Theatrical Hoorah For Dipshits That Like Explosions Ending. That happened specifically because the test audience didn't like the intended ending. I assume because it made them use more then 6 braincells all of a sudden.

Test audiences are cawks. If the test audience for GI Joe had been comprised of the right demographic that grew up in the 80s we would have heard about a studio exec being stabbed to death in a parking lot in the dead of night to the bitter cries of "YO JOE" with each vehement blow.

But, it might have made them consider rewriting the script. So it would have been all good.

Its just so aggravating because so many things could be so awesome if just done by people who had a shred of respect for the source material and its fans. Instead you get shit like GI Joe, Transformers 2, Spiderman 3, X-Men 3, the first Hulk movie ( <shudder> ), etc, etc.

But when someone gets it right its a huge success yet studios still don't seem to grasp that concept. Considering how many times "Skullfuck someone's childhood for a quick buck" or "Pull one over on a fanbase for a quick buck by luring them in with the title" has failed thus far compared to just how successful it is when you treat it with a shred of respect.

Word of mouth can kill your movie entirely inside of 24 hours now. You'd think they'd learn.

[Jester]

You'd think they'd learn.

Nope. Not me. It's been proven to me over and over that the entertainment industry is both lazy and greedy, which combines to get you a lot of the shit they give us.

Look at The Beatles. No, relax, I'm not saying they were shit. But when they came out and were a huge success, what did the record labels do? Started searching for The Next Beatles. The problem with that whole philosophy is that there aren't any Next Beatles. There are only The Beatles. An original act like them worked because they were talented and good. Not because they tried to copy some other successful act. Sure, they were influenced by other music, but they didn't try to BE the bands that influenced them.

Had the people in charge of the music industry not been lazy and greedy, they would spend the time and energy they spent looking for the Next Beatles in trying to find another new, good, talented band, that might sound or look nothing like The Beatles. Many bands that went on to great success met with a stone wall when trying to sign a record deal because they weren't The Next Beatles. How many bands that were talented and good do you think we never heard of because of this very phenomenon?

And this has played out time and time again through the history of music. How many times have we heard "the Next Who" or "the next U2," etc.? Hell, when I first heard about U2, someone described them as "the next Who" to me. But they weren't the next Who. They were U2, which was good for them and good for The Who, as there never will be another Who.

Movie and television execs are no different than their counterparts in music. They are lazy. They are greedy. They see something that works, and try to use the same formula to create something else in the original's image. And the few times it works, they justify it to themselves and others with the success. But when it doesn't work, they just move on to finding the Next Whatever, because it is just too hard to actually go find another talented or good Original. And while talented entertainers are losing on chances of success because of this laziness and greed, the execs in charge just move on to the next thing, rarely being held accountable for their actions, or lack thereof.

This is why they make sequels. This is why they make reboots. This is why they make remakes. They are lazy, they are greedy, they are stupid. And it is not coincidence that most sequels, reboots, and remakes suck, or at worst, pale next to the original.

I figured this all out by the time I was about 10. So this kind of stuff rarely, if ever, surprises me any more.

[Gravekeeper]

I figured this all out by the time I was about 10. So this kind of stuff rarely, if ever, surprises me any more.

Sigh, I know its wishful thinking on my part. I'm just clinging to that last little shred of hope. =p

You're right about the music industry however, no where is it more pronounce nowadays then the music industry. Which at this point has so degraded into "Find the next x because they made us y money" that everything literally sounds like the same recycled shit over and over. Whatever talent was out there is pretty scarce now unless you search indie labels or in some cases get away from American labels ( which are the worst for it ).

Then charge $25 a CD for it and sit there in bafflement over why people are pirating the hell out of your industry. Then try to extract millions of dollars by suing people's grandparents. -.-

[Jester]

And how exactly do you think that is any different than pop music has been for the last, oh, I dunno, several decades?

There is a saying in life that "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." In the entertainment industry, that has been twisted into "imitation is the fastest way to an easy buck."

Lazy and greedy. Welcome to show business, kid!

[AdminAssistant]

There's already a remake in the works

It's been scratched, but there might be a sequel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evi...28franchise%29 Which could actually work, if they play up the camp and ridiculousness and do indeed have a Bruce Campbell cameo.

Actually, I think Evil Dead: The Musical is one of the more awesome ideas I've heard of in a while. Musical theatre....with a splatter zone! Oh hells yes! (Not that my lame-ass theatre department would ever want to do it, but OH WELL.)

Yes, we do need more Batman movies, as long as they continue in a similar vein to Batman Begins, rather than Batman and Robin.

Meh. Christian Bale is an egotistical ass with an anger management problem. I can't support anything he's in. Bale can't compare to Michael Keaton at any rate, and I still think the Burton films are the best of the series. (Batman Forever would have completely sucked were it not for the brilliant casting of the villains. Tommy Lee Jones in anything is a good time, and Jim Carrey is the freakin' Riddler)

"Batman and Robin" was one of the worst movies I have ever had the displeasure to see in a theater.

One of the many reasons I admire George Clooney (beyond the fact that he is sex in a suit RAWR) is his sense of humor regarding that little error in judgment. He's been quoted several times as saying that if someone admits to seeing Batman and Robin in the theatres, he will personally reimburse them for the ticket. I believe he even made a crack about it when accepting his Academy Award.

[Gravekeeper]

I prefer the Dark Knight style personally, as its a more "real" Batman. But Dark Knight's strength came from its villains. Bale functions decently enough ( though his Batman Voice(tm) is distracting ), but it was Ledger and Eckhart that made Dark Knight really eclipse Batman Begins.

Still my favourite superhero/actor combo in a movie thus far is Robert Downey Jr/Ironman with Tobey/Spiderman coming in second.

Waitin' on Ironman 2 <3

[lordlundar]

I prefer the Dark Knight style personally, as its a more "real" Batman.

I have to disagree with you there GK, as I don't equate "darker" with "real". Dark Knight's batman is darker, along the lines of the Batman: The Dark Knight graphic novel. But the batman from the 80's movie and Batman returns I would equate to being just as real.

[AdminAssistant]

I have to disagree with you there GK, as I don't equate "darker" with "real". Dark Knight's batman is darker, along the lines of the Batman: The Dark Knight graphic novel. But the batman from the 80's movie and Batman returns I would equate to being just as real.

Um...it's a comic book. It's not real, even in the slightest little bit. Batman Begins isn't "real" and neither was Dark Knight. And I really don't care how un-PC it is to admit this, but I liked Jack Nicholson's Joker better than Heath Ledger's. Aaron Eckhart carried The Dark Knight for me anyway.

[Broomjockey]

Um...it's a comic book. It's not real, even in the slightest little bit. Batman Begins isn't "real" and neither was Dark Knight.

No offence, but "duh." We know it's not real. That's not what we mean when we say real. As a theatre person, you should be more familiar with this concept. By real, it means the illusion of possibility. That what's happening is something you could accept as a whole. It works, it hangs together in a complete fashion. The fictional world created has been brought to life.

[Gravekeeper]

I have to disagree with you there GK, as I don't equate "darker" with "real". Dark Knight's batman is darker, along the lines of the Batman: The Dark Knight graphic novel. But the batman from the 80's movie and Batman returns I would equate to being just as real.

I must bring up the term "remote controlled penguins" as a counterpoint to your argument. >.>

Burton is extremely creative, just not overly grounded in the real world. He makes his own little worlds ( and does so quite well most of the time ). The original movie was a good movie, Returns was pretty shaky though ( Remote controlled penguins. ). Although they were still dark movies in their own ways. Still, the original movies retained enough camp to be movies that were fun to watch and rewatch.

Dark Knight is more grounded in a reality you can relate too and as a result ends up a more intense movie. Its a very good movie and a very entertaining one but not one that's "fun" to watch and you don't really want to rewatch it as its a long, unsettling movie at times ( unlike Burton's style ) and Bale's Batman is more a force then a person ( and thus has no sense of humour. -.- ).

Although Batman Begins was pretty....whats the word? I remember it being a good movie but I remember absolutely nothing of it ( Bale doesn't stick out much and I don't even recall who the villain was suppose to be. ). Whereas Dark Knight was elevated by its villains, who both easily outshine Bale.

Sort of the reverse of the originals. Batman was elevated by Jack Nicholas's Joker. Whilst Batman Returns was let down by the Penguin ( Though no real fault of Devito's ).

I guess the rule is if you can find a good Joker you get a good Batman movie. ;p

Basically:

Bale Batman = Dark, but very realistic grounding and as a result very good movies that don't come across as traditional "superhero" movies. But also not fun rewatch kind of movies.

Burton Batman = Also Dark, but in its own little world. Definitely "superhero" movies but as a result fun to watch and rewatch.