No Right Answer: Worst Reboot Ever

[Icehearted]

Star Trek Into Darkness.

Spoiler

1) Star Trek II did not need to be rebooted. At all. Ever. You can argue that Into Darkness is not a reboot of Wrath of Khan and I would agree untill the last 30-45 minutes of the movie when it decides, "welp we got nothing here's Wrath of Khan with the equivalent of an M. Night Shamylan twist"

2) Missed the whole point of Kirk learning that he is not invincible and the weight of having Spock die, to be replaced by "Opp Kirks only dead for 5-10 minutes" Also defeats the whole point of the Star Trek reboot period if we're going to keep calling up Old Spock every time there's a problem.

3) Portable transporter and "cure all" blood.

Why don't we just say the Star Trek reboot PERIOD.

I couldn't agree more. Honestly thought the rewrite of a lot of the original movie's most iconic moments crosses the line into parody well before they "catch" Khan. Hell, the movie's opening has Spock paradoxically speaking out about not violating the Prime Directive while violating the pri-

*flips table*
*leaves room*

Of course I meant the entire J.J. Abrams Star Trek reboot universe not just Into Darkness, but yeah that was pretty bad. I mean should I go over all the things about the first one that didn't make sense? Starting with Red Matter, a plot device that presumably was pulled out of somebody's ass, Abrams' I'm guessing.

No no! You don't have to do that, and it hurts too much anyway. I thought it wasn't as bad, even if it was way off (wait, where was Spock when Vulcan was destr-AAARG!), best not to think about it too deeply. The second one was definitely worse, almost like they just said "Let's see how much we can get away with". Was Carol Marcus supposed to be the genius in the narrative or the token tits and a-

*sets table upright*
*flips table again*
*leaves room*

 

[Kyrian007]

I can't really comment to the No Right Answer argument this week, because I never bothered to see Burton's Planet of the Apes. But I did see Man of Steel, and while I totally agree that movie completely sucks taint... I don't really get the arguments against it Chris used. Mostly because I couldn't get that "deep" into the story presented by that movie. I never could ask myself if Jon Kent was confusing his son about his identity, if Superman was party to too much destruction, if the Jesus allegory was too heavy handed, about tornadocide, or the necksnap. I never found myself questioning any of those things.

Because ALL I was thinking was, "WHY IS THE CAMERA STILL SHAKING?" All movie. For all 146 minutes.

Well, not all. It made a little sense during the Krypton scenes. The planet was unstable and about to blow up. I was willing to let that go. But then they get to Earth, camera still bouncing around like a superball in a dryer. I was still kind of willing to accept it. This part of the story is little Clark's perspective... he's still trying to adjust and that's a little visual clue. A stretch but I'm willing to allow it. But a gimick like shaky-cam only has any kind of meaning if it contrasts with another more conventional shot. So, since the movie never let go of its irritating shaky-cam, there's only 2 rational explanations. 1: this is supposedly a "found footage" movie? That makes no sense, who the hell found the Krypton scenes? That makes no sense, leading to 2: low budget "indie" films are popular despite not being able to afford good rigging and a dolly truck or two. So the shaky-cam in MoS is pretention to an "arty, indie" style of film that MoS is obviously NOT. That's gotta be it, it's all that makes any kind of sense. Either that or the post-prod editor was using the shaky-cam button as a coaster while editing.

 

[red ant]

Planet of the Apes was bad, but the minute simpsons parody was great.
Superman Returns- he lifts a mountain of krytonite and throws it into space wtf after he was almost killed by a shard
The amazing spiderman was fine, watch spiderman 3 for proof, thought the first 2 were better though
Even the worst batman movies were so bad they were good in some respects

Will probably watch robocop in the future, has to be better than Total Recall an okay movie when you do not compare it to the original ahh one liners

 

[Strazdas]

Worst reboot ever? Easy - Halloween.
It was a good franchise that didnt need rebooting. It wasnt even old. Everyone knew who it was, and yet somehow Rob Zombie managed to make a shitty movie and just slap a halloween name on it (since it had nothing to do with actual halloween anyway). It was badly directed and badly acted and when looked closer it didnt even make any sense. The original halloween actually had reasons behind every character, the reboot was closer to "omg hes a psychopath, omg he kills people, teens are going to buy tickets"

 

[mattttherman3]

Man of steel, and ABYSMAL piece of shit. I was so upset with that movie I actually cried afterwards, no movie has ever incited that much rage within me before.

 

[Fifty-One]

Man of Steel 2 directed by Tim Burton and starring Helena Bonham Carter as Lois Lane!

 

[Firefilm]

Man of Steel 2 directed by Tim Burton and starring Helena Bonham Carter as Lois Lane!

Done. You're funded. Start pre-production now

 

[Fifty-One]

Man of Steel 2 directed by Tim Burton and starring Helena Bonham Carter as Lois Lane!

Done. You're funded. Start pre-production now

I'm going to need a few bottles of rye, a pen, sticky notes and a dart board.

 

[The Apple BOOM]

I feel like this comparison fails up front because there is a large amount of people, including myself, who like and appreciate what Man of Steel did, where as Planet of the Apes was just garbage that is universally panned.

 

[Mr_Terrific]

And here I go with the usual unpopular answer of Batman Begins.

Nolan's Batman films are what set WB on this path of ruining all of DC. Right there in the beginning they screwed up Batman. A young Bruce Wayne witnesses his parents murder of which the killer goes free for years, he falls down a cave filled with bats, he goes off to train is mind and body to be the world's greatest detective, and decides to spare the people of Gotham by going on a mission of Justice by becoming the Batman.

In Batman begins, Joe Chill is caught and put on trial for the murder that basically turned Gotham to shit. Bruce shows up with......get this....a gun and is dead set on shooting and killing Chill, until surprise, one of Gothams crime families does the job for him. So Batman was going to shoot a dude and kill him. Yes Batman in comics has used a gun...but never to outright murder someone. It's stupid and defeats the purpose of Batman. Nolan almost immediately destroys Batman's mission within the first 15mins of the trilogy. So now that the killer is dead, what is his motivation? Taking down a crime boss? He goes of to train with Ras (Raz wtf?) and the league of Assassins......ASSASSINS...then comes back as the Batman which basically attracts Raz and his gang of ASSASSINS. They plan to kill the city of Gotham by.....lmao the most comic book comically bad evaporator machine thingy instead of dropping a bomb in Gotham's Lazarus pit like in the comics. The entire movie shits on Batman's origins much like The Man of Steel does to Superman.

So while I'll agree that TMoS was trash, it's not worst that Batman Begins because it does not break the franchise to the point where it is incompatible with a Justice League film.

That's how bad Nolan's Batman films are. The freakin broke the DCU. People love to scream about how good those trash films are but think about this. Why is the Tumbler the only trace of Nolan that made the comics? Meanwhile, Agent Coulson is everywhere and Nick Fury is now Black in one universe.

Yeah...Begins is the worst reboot imo, followed by The Man of steel, the Amazing Spider-Man, and Star Trek (which I can go on for days).

 

[lead sharp]

man of steel was to film what John Wayne Gacy was to children's entertainment. Planet of the Apes was a stupid movie movie, yes but mos was such a mess they feel the need to push a JLA movie into the 'sequel'.

 

[RTR]

Chris was significantly funnier this week.

Oh BTW, congrats future dad!

 

[gorfias]

Star Trek Into Darkness.

Spoiler

1) Star Trek II did not need to be rebooted. At all. Ever. You can argue that Into Darkness is not a reboot of Wrath of Khan and I would agree untill the last 30-45 minutes of the movie when it decides, "welp we got nothing here's Wrath of Khan with the equivalent of an M. Night Shamylan twist"

2) Missed the whole point of Kirk learning that he is not invincible and the weight of having Spock die, to be replaced by "Opp Kirks only dead for 5-10 minutes" Also defeats the whole point of the Star Trek reboot period if we're going to keep calling up Old Spock every time there's a problem.

3) Portable transporter and "cure all" blood.

Why don't we just say the Star Trek reboot PERIOD.

BECAUSE!!!!

Spoiler

Star Trek II Wrath of Khan did not satisfy a real need I had for some 30 years!!! Khan tells Kirk, "I have 5 times your strength" Why, so does Spock! I was dying to see the 2 of them to get it on. Yes, magic blood that cures all is awful. But I had fun at this flick. The Dalton Bonds? Not so much.

 

[Weaver]

It took me awhile to figure out you were talking about Man of Steel (which isn't titled Superman ).

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Star Trek Into Darkness.

Spoiler

1) Star Trek II did not need to be rebooted. At all. Ever. You can argue that Into Darkness is not a reboot of Wrath of Khan and I would agree untill the last 30-45 minutes of the movie when it decides, "welp we got nothing here's Wrath of Khan with the equivalent of an M. Night Shamylan twist"

2) Missed the whole point of Kirk learning that he is not invincible and the weight of having Spock die, to be replaced by "Opp Kirks only dead for 5-10 minutes" Also defeats the whole point of the Star Trek reboot period if we're going to keep calling up Old Spock every time there's a problem.

3) Portable transporter and "cure all" blood.

Why don't we just say the Star Trek reboot PERIOD.

BECAUSE!!!!

Spoiler

Star Trek II Wrath of Khan did not satisfy a real need I had for some 30 years!!! Khan tells Kirk, "I have 5 times your strength" Why, so does Spock! I was dying to see the 2 of them to get it on. Yes, magic blood that cures all is awful. But I had fun at this flick. The Dalton Bonds? Not so much.

Did you see those ridiculous dress uniforms with the stupid plastic hats? Also speaking of Spock, in the original show/movies Spock often had more emotional control than many full-blooded Vulcans and yet in this Abrams' Universe we often see him throwing hissy fits. WTF is up with that?

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

I have to agree - Tim Burton can direct a film, no doubt, but only when it's HIS project does he seem to actually give a shit about it. Planet of the Apes was pretty abysmal, as was that Alice disaster. I know the guy has a loyal following, and it's not like I don't enjoy a few of his films, but I'll never understand the people that love him just because he's 'dark and Gothic' and feel like he can do no wrong. Still, I think Man of Steel felt like a bigger slap in the face than anything Tim Burton could manage.

Personally, I feel the worst reboot ever is probably the Amazing Spider-man. Even ignoring the two good movies that Sam Raimi directed, the Amazing Spider-man felt like a terrible cash-in of a movie that was no better than Green Lantern or even Catwoman for that matter.

 

[gorfias]

in the original show/movies Spock often had more emotional control than many full-blooded Vulcans and yet in this Abrams' Universe we often see him throwing hissy fits. WTF is up with that?

He breaks a couple of times, though, usually under some other influence. But here?

 

[Ratty]

I don't like the Star Trek reboot. But, to be fair, the problem of a too-emotional Spock can be partially blamed on the feature film format itself.

In the TV show you could give a glimpse of Spock getting emotional 2 or 3 times a season and it would get the point across that he's more vulnerable than he'd like to admit. In the movies, especially where everything is supposed to be "more Xtreme!" that turns into one or more hissyfits within a 2 hour period.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Did you see those ridiculous dress uniforms with the stupid plastic hats? Also speaking of Spock, in the original show/movies Spock often had more emotional control than many full-blooded Vulcans and yet in this Abrams' Universe we often see him throwing hissy fits. WTF is up with that?

I can answer this sort of with a possible one. If we take it that Vulcans average life expectancy is about 200 it means if we take it that Spock is not much Older than Kirk and Kirk 25. Lets say spock is 30 it means potentially due to slower maturation, hormonally he's a 16 year old lol

That's speculation and as long as we're speculating, presumably Vulcans are taught the whole bury your emotions pure logic thing from the time they're old enough to speak.

in the original show/movies Spock often had more emotional control than many full-blooded Vulcans and yet in this Abrams' Universe we often see him throwing hissy fits. WTF is up with that?

He breaks a couple of times, though, usually under some other influence. But here?

Yes I'm aware of that hence my use of the term "often." Still that doesn't justify Spock doing Kirk's "KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHN!" line and then going into a rage and trying to beat Kahn to death.

I don't like the Star Trek reboot. But, to be fair, the problem of a too-emotional Spock can be partially blamed on the feature film format itself.

In the TV show you could give a glimpse of Spock getting emotional 2 or 3 times a season and it would get the point across that he's more vulnerable than he'd like to admit. In the movies, especially where everything is supposed to be "more Xtreme!" that turns into one or more hissyfits within a 2 hour period.

True, but that doesn't make it any less stupid or any more forgivable. Besides it's the "more Xtreme!" part that's the problem.

 

[gorfias]

Still that doesn't justify Spock doing Kirk's "KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHN!" line and then going into a rage and trying to beat Kahn to death.

Maybe he has learned the importance of some level of emotional existence, as he did in the 1970s "Star Trek: The Motionless Picture".

But your point is taken. And I think they later said it was a mistake to have Saavik shed a tear at Spock's "funeral".

It hasn't spoiled the movies for me. They are B+ rather than Empire Strikes Back level A+, but they're fun. Hardly the worst reboots ever. Given the rules for this thread, I'd still give it to Dalton's Bond movies. I think people still want to see Star Trek III with Abrams at the helm. Another Dalton Bond movie? Please, in the name of all the is good and holy, don't let it happen!