- Pronouns
- he/him
Discuss this article by @Thande here
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress -
Thank you to everyone who reached out with concern about the upcoming UK legislation which requires online communities to be compliant regarding illegal content. As a result of hard work and research by members of this community (chiefly iainbhx) and other members of communities UK-wide, the decision has been taken that the Sea Lion Press Forum will continue to operate. For more information, please see this thread.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Fiction Friction: When Reboots End With The Beginning
- Thread starter Gary Oswald
- Start date
Great article.
I should clarify as the unofficial Tom and Jerry Movies expert of the forum that the 1992 movie was the way it was not only due to HB desperately wanting to remain relevant in the changing animation scene of the times,but also due to William Hanna’s desire to prove that HB was capable of competing with the big boys like Disney,Don Bluth or WB and maybe,just maybe,be respected. No longer were they gonna view him and Joe as sellouts or small time but as worthy competitors. In Hanna’s mind,this was gonna be the movie that showed that he and Joe were capable of growth,of adapting to the times but most of all prove that they’re also artist,goddamnit. The world will have to respect them now.
And then the movie bombed and Bill was forced to sell Hanna Barbara to Ted Turner.
If anything the movie should be seen as the last failed attempt for William Hanna to be accepted in the big boys club and be viewed as an actual artist and not a hack. And unfortunately for him,it just didn’t work.
The rest of Tom and Jerry movies,despite their many differences,have one thing in common: Tom and Jerry never talked again.
I would also bring in to the discussion of “reboots of classic slapstick duos/trios” the existence of the Laurel and Hardy reboot from 1999,The All New Adventures of Laurel & Hardy in 'For Love or Mummy',that suffered from the fact that Laurel and Hardy really feel out of place living in 1999,but still acting like it’s the 1930’s,not to mention that’s basically a really poor man’s version of The Mummy.
Also F Murray Abraham being in this is weird.
I should clarify as the unofficial Tom and Jerry Movies expert of the forum that the 1992 movie was the way it was not only due to HB desperately wanting to remain relevant in the changing animation scene of the times,but also due to William Hanna’s desire to prove that HB was capable of competing with the big boys like Disney,Don Bluth or WB and maybe,just maybe,be respected. No longer were they gonna view him and Joe as sellouts or small time but as worthy competitors. In Hanna’s mind,this was gonna be the movie that showed that he and Joe were capable of growth,of adapting to the times but most of all prove that they’re also artist,goddamnit. The world will have to respect them now.
And then the movie bombed and Bill was forced to sell Hanna Barbara to Ted Turner.
If anything the movie should be seen as the last failed attempt for William Hanna to be accepted in the big boys club and be viewed as an actual artist and not a hack. And unfortunately for him,it just didn’t work.
The rest of Tom and Jerry movies,despite their many differences,have one thing in common: Tom and Jerry never talked again.
I would also bring in to the discussion of “reboots of classic slapstick duos/trios” the existence of the Laurel and Hardy reboot from 1999,The All New Adventures of Laurel & Hardy in 'For Love or Mummy',that suffered from the fact that Laurel and Hardy really feel out of place living in 1999,but still acting like it’s the 1930’s,not to mention that’s basically a really poor man’s version of The Mummy.
Also F Murray Abraham being in this is weird.
Okay, I thought "nothing will top the absurdity of What If Tom And Jerry Talked And The Excuse Was They Just Never Did It Around Each Other Bfore And Then They Became Friends", and then I saw "so these two guys Laurel and Hardy who were real men called Laurel and Hardy for real, what if we rebooted them".
The interesting thing with Casino Royale doing this is that we never actually see Daniel Craig play Bond in his prime. He becomes 'Bond, James Bond" as the credits roll on CR, then QoS starts ten minutes later. So he's only just become Bond.
Then Skyfall appears, and he's old, and past it. Not sure whether audiences need a modern Bond to have a weakness, or whether it was a mixture of timing and the theme of New Bond moving to the end of Dame Judi's M.
Then Skyfall appears, and he's old, and past it. Not sure whether audiences need a modern Bond to have a weakness, or whether it was a mixture of timing and the theme of New Bond moving to the end of Dame Judi's M.
- Pronouns
- he/him
QoS does bugger the reboot, yes, but Skyfall gets away with it because it knows that while Bond has only had three films, he simultaneously has had over twenty.
The audience is entirely happy to accept that yes, Bond is tired- because we know this is the twenty something'th film.
Mind you, I always feel that I've stumbled into a bizarro universe whenever Craig's Bond gets discussed on this site.
I've literally never met anyone in real life who doesn't think that Casino Royale and Skyfall are high points of the series, that the reboot was a tremendous success and that Craig has done sterling work keeping the franchise relevant in an age where its core fans are rapidly aging out of cinemas.
On this forum though, it seems to be an article of faith that it's a mediocre money-spinner devoid of ideas or charm.
Which is a perfectly valid perspective, to be clear, it's just odd to see it as accepted wisdom.
The audience is entirely happy to accept that yes, Bond is tired- because we know this is the twenty something'th film.
Mind you, I always feel that I've stumbled into a bizarro universe whenever Craig's Bond gets discussed on this site.
I've literally never met anyone in real life who doesn't think that Casino Royale and Skyfall are high points of the series, that the reboot was a tremendous success and that Craig has done sterling work keeping the franchise relevant in an age where its core fans are rapidly aging out of cinemas.
On this forum though, it seems to be an article of faith that it's a mediocre money-spinner devoid of ideas or charm.
Which is a perfectly valid perspective, to be clear, it's just odd to see it as accepted wisdom.
Oh, I really like both Casino Royale and Skyfall, prevailing wisdom of this site or others be damned. Neither are perfect, but I like them. Its just interesting that the stories told there mean we never quite see Craig's Bond in his pomp.
Last edited:
- Location
- Derbyshire
I've only ever heard qualified praise for Casino Royale myself- too much shakey cam, too much trying to be Bourne are the usual issues. Maybe it's a transatlantic divide?
- Pronouns
- he/him
Transpacific in my case, but it's certainly possible.
Mind you, I think the shakey cam complaint isn't really fair to Casino Royale- if you look at the parkour chase or the stairwell fight, for example, there's very little shakey cam.
Quantum of Solace, on the other hand, opens with not one but two of the worst action sequences in modern cinema- a nigh-unintelligible mess of shaking cameras and quick cuts.
Mind you, I think the shakey cam complaint isn't really fair to Casino Royale- if you look at the parkour chase or the stairwell fight, for example, there's very little shakey cam.
Quantum of Solace, on the other hand, opens with not one but two of the worst action sequences in modern cinema- a nigh-unintelligible mess of shaking cameras and quick cuts.
- Location
- North Alabama
I've only ever heard qualified praise for Casino Royale myself- too much shakey cam, too much trying to be Bourne are the usual issues. Maybe it's a transatlantic divide?
Yeah that sounds like far more like Quantum of Solace which is pretty much universally regarded (including by Craig himself and the producers) as the nadir of his run. In part due to how it's made but also because the writer's strike and a can't be moved release date meant they had to go into production or else. Which makes what they did letting Boyle go for what became No Time To Die all the more intriguing.
QoS does bugger the reboot, yes, but Skyfall gets away with it because it knows that while Bond has only had three films, he simultaneously has had over twenty.
Something that Eon and the the Bond video game makers used to their advantage. There was the revamped version of Goldeneye 007 released in 2010 and then 007 Legends the same year as Skyfall. Both blatantly premised on "Craig's Bond having a version of that movie that X starred in." Though 007 Legends itself ended up fairly rushed and its inclusion of a mission based on OHMSS looks odd given what happened with bringing back Blofeld later on.
TR1996
Well-known member
- Location
- Adelaide, South Australia
This article is wrong.
John Carter is not flawed in any way.
John Carter is not flawed in any way.
You're certainly entitled to that opinion. Really, I was more thinking of the marketing fiasco than the film itself, which isn't entirely fair.This article is wrong.
John Carter is not flawed in any way.
The style of John Carter, at the time, reminded me a lot of a better version of the Star Wars prequels.
Okay, I thought "nothing will top the absurdity of What If Tom And Jerry Talked And The Excuse Was They Just Never Did It Around Each Other Bfore And Then They Became Friends", and then I saw "so these two guys Laurel and Hardy who were real men called Laurel and Hardy for real, what if we rebooted them".
Fun fact: if the movie was somehow successful,it was gonna lead to a whole series of sequels where Laurel and Hardy fight Dracula or an alien invasion.
TR1996
Well-known member
- Location
- Adelaide, South Australia
You're certainly entitled to that opinion. Really, I was more thinking of the marketing fiasco than the film itself, which isn't entirely fair.
The style of John Carter, at the time, reminded me a lot of a better version of the Star Wars prequels.
I'm joking, in case that wasn't clear.
But the film does have a special, and on the whole rather undeserved, place in my heart.
- Location
- Colwyn Bay/Manchester
- Pronouns
- He/him
Quite enjoyed this
Though I am now being distracted by how I quite like the pulpiness of the original John Carter books but have never seen either of the films and am just vaguely aware there were two, they're different and I'm not sure which is meant here.
Though I am now being distracted by how I quite like the pulpiness of the original John Carter books but have never seen either of the films and am just vaguely aware there were two, they're different and I'm not sure which is meant here.
- Location
- Western New York
Quite enjoyed this
Though I am now being distracted by how I quite like the pulpiness of the original John Carter books but have never seen either of the films and am just vaguely aware there were two, they're different and I'm not sure which is meant here.
Wait, what? There are two John Carter movies?
/Googles
Oh, naturally The Asylum made one, too. I think we can assume it's the big budget bomb, not that one, that's being referred to in the article.
Avian Overlord
Mystical American Freedom Bird
There's a really good youtube video on King Arthur and Robin Hood movies that touches on some of this:
(That part starts at 10:30, but it's all interesting.)
(That part starts at 10:30, but it's all interesting.)
Last edited:
There's a really good youtube video on King Arthur and Robin Hood movies that touches on some of this:
(That part starts at 10:30, but it's all interesting.)
That reminds me, the 2010 Ridley Scott Robin Hood film is another example of a 'reboot that ends with the beginning' (or new adaptation or whatever).
That reminds me, the 2010 Ridley Scott Robin Hood film is another example of a 'reboot that ends with the beginning' (or new adaptation or whatever).
While implying in the ads it was going to have the stuff you expect in it but grumpier. Which is a bit of a swizz.