No Right Answer: Worst Reboot Ever

[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!

 

[MorganL4]

Includes Planet of the Apes book spoiler that kind of defends Burton's ending.

Spoiler

] To be fair, The ending of Burton's planet of the apes where he shows up and sees a Chimpraham Lincoln memorial is kinda what happened at the end of the book. In the book, they go back and a gorilla politician gets out of a limo and introduces himself to the main character, and he main character's new wife (kind of, technically just his mate) freaks out and runs back on the space ship cradling their child.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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!

Really? If I was feeling charitable I'd give the first film a C+ and Into Darkness a D-. I will admit that the first film was enjoyable, but Into Darkness is only enjoyable if your planning on riffing it. Neither of them did the franchise any favours.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

Man of Steel gets way too much flak for how not-awful it was. It wasn't amazing, it wasn't even as good as Superman Returns, but it wasn't a terrible movie.

Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes was a TERRIBLE movie.

 

[Korskarn]

How is the winner (loser?) not Highlander? They've had to reboot that franchise 4 times!

(Original) Immortal dudes cut each others' heads off.
(Reboot 1) Scrap the "immortal" thing, this time they're aliens.
(Reboot 2) Nope, they're immortals again, but the original ending never happened
(Reboot 3) Hi, I'm a cartoon!
(Reboot 4) Live action series, the movies never happened (although the main character from the original still exists)

...and there's a 5th reboot in the works. They're *technically* sequels and spinoffs, rather than reboots, but each one changes the previously established mythology so much I consider them more as Do-Overs.

EDIT - Wow, I misremembered when the series actually started. In 1994 there were actually 3 different Highlander mythologies at the same time - the live action series, the cartoon series, and the third movie.

 

[Arppis]

Whoa, whoa, whoa... WORST reboot ever?

So wait you guys aren't listing these two reboots instead: The Thing or Total Recall? Instead you guys pick these two?

Seriously? Those two movies sucked HAAAARD they were really boring. Atleast Man of Steel had fun action and it was entertaining to watch. Planet of the Apes wasn't great or anything... but atleast I could bare watch trough it.

But Total Recall and The Thing were horrible. Absolutely horrible.

 

[Korskarn]

Whoa, whoa, whoa... WORST reboot ever?

So wait you guys aren't listing these two reboots instead: The Thing or Total Recall? Instead you guys pick these two?

Seriously? Those two movies sucked HAAAARD they were really boring. Atleast Man of Steel had fun action and it was entertaining to watch. Planet of the Apes wasn't great or anything... but atleast I could bare watch trough it.

But Total Recall and The Thing were horrible. Absolutely horrible.

Because they were remakes, not reboots.

Reboots = Franchise; there was an attempt at a continuous story across multiple films and/or series.
Remakes = 1-off; there was no forward momentum for the reboot to kill (Chris' rule #3).

Robocop, Predator, Aliens, Superman, Highlander, Planet of the Apes, all had multiple stories contributing to the franchise.

The Thing, Total Recall, Day the Earth Stood Still, War of the Worlds, none of them had a franchise to "kill".

(Incidentally, rule #3 is why Amazing Spider-Man and Star Trek get a pass because the franchise has continued on. Chris' loophole with Man of Steel is that the sequel is going to be a team-up movie rather than a solo sequel)

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Really? If I was feeling charitable I'd give the first film a C+ and Into Darkness a D-. I will admit that the first film was enjoyable, but Into Darkness is only enjoyable if your planning on riffing it. Neither of them did the franchise any favours.

Except make a buttload of money and get non-Trekkies to see a Star Trek movie. Which was their entire reason for existence.

That didn't do the franchise any favours, that only did the Executives' pocket books favours.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

That didn't do the franchise any favours, that only did the Executives' pocket books favours.

And "Into Darkness" has like an 87% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. And non-Trekkies like Star Trek for once. Mission Accomplished.

Am I supposed to care what Rotten Tomatoes thinks? And non-Trekkies like Star Trek eh? Well actual Trekkies don't. ...or maybe that's just me.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Am I supposed to care what Rotten Tomatoes thinks? And non-Trekkies like Star Trek eh? Well actual Trekkies don't. ...or maybe that's just me.

And when it comes down to it, hardcore Trekkies are not who the new movies are aimed at. They're aimed at younger viewers and the public at large. And it worked. The DC superhero movies weren't aimed at the comic book fanatics but the Marvel movies are designed to pander and appease them.

So attracting a new audience by alienating the audience you already have is considered a sound strategy is it? In any case I think a reboot could have been done that would've done the whole "appeal to a younger new audience" thing without being this stupid.

 

[Ratty]

How is the winner (loser?) not Highlander? They've had to reboot that franchise 4 times!

(Original) Immortal dudes cut each others' heads off.
(Reboot 1) Scrap the "immortal" thing, this time they're aliens.
(Reboot 2) Nope, they're immortals again, but the original ending never happened
(Reboot 3) Hi, I'm a cartoon!
(Reboot 4) Live action series, the movies never happened (although the main character from the original still exists)

...and there's a 5th reboot in the works. They're *technically* sequels and spinoffs, rather than reboots, but each one changes the previously established mythology so much I consider them more as Do-Overs.

EDIT - Wow, I misremembered when the series actually started. In 1994 there were actually 3 different Highlander mythologies at the same time - the live action series, the cartoon series, and the third movie.

Forcefully forgotten the mythology rewriting in Highlander: Endgame and Highlander: The Source eh? I'm not that big a fan of the series but can't say I blame you.

 

[duchaked]

the moment people start bashing Man of Steel I just sort of shut out nowadays. heard plenty of it in the past year haha. I don't particularly love the movie (or the older ones, or the character in general), but I recently went back to re-watch some scenes and...yeah still think it's pretty good. well shot if anything.

that being said...Amazing Spider-Man I disliked a lot. I guess my gauge is that Man of Steel made me want to see more Superman (after hearing news of its sequel however...not anymore haha not even a bit). Amazing Spider-Man made me NOT want to see more Spider-Man lol