4 ms·

I am glad that this article brought up the elephant in the room. Eventually we have to get a re-boot of these characters, and I think that moment is fast approa

I am glad that this article brought up the elephant in the room. Eventually we have to get a re-boot of these characters, and I think that moment is fast approaching. These actors are getting older, and we already see someone of them stepping down, such as Hugh Jackman, and possibly RDJ. Furthermore we have two movies coming out which hint at major character deaths/reboots (Thor 3:Ragnakor and Cap 3:Civil War). I know Marvel has plans to add more characters with Black Panther, Inhumans, Ant-Man, Doctor Strange via movies and Iron Fist, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones via TV. However, that is what they are new characters. They are not going replace Cap, Wolverine, Iron-Man, or Thor. With the start of the DC Cinematic Universe coming out next year and continuing for the next 5+ years,I think we are going to see a saturation of new heroes and people are simply going to lose interest or get bored. You can only drag someone to see an origin story so many times.

morley 11y ago
Why is rebooting the characters a bad thing? The rich comics universe shows that there are endless stories to tell with these same characters. It's true that a reboot could be a worse take on a character, but plenty of reboots -- Daredevil, Nolan's Batman, and more yet to come -- are welcome reexaminations of their heroes. Audiences won't get bored as long as their are good stories to tell.
- therobot24 11y ago
  Thank you. The easiest analysis is that people will move on to something else. I must have read it a hundred times (at least!) in the last month alone. Based on a few 'superhero' examples, clearly, a reboot can work: Box Office (in millions of dollars): -Spiderman 2002: $821 -Spiderman 2012: $757 -Batman 1989: $411 -Batman Begins 2005: $374 -Hulk 2003: $245 -The Incredible Hulk 2008: $263 -Robocop 1987: $100 -Robocop 2014: $242
- smusings 11y ago
  Rebooting is not a bad thing. It isn't something that I mind at all, unless it is done in mass. I mentioned this in another comment, but I am worried we may get into a situation where every other movie is a reboot or origin story. I would not mind soft-reboots such as Kate Bishop Hawkeye, Bucky Barnes Captain America, Dick Grayson Batman, or even Miles Morales Spider-Man.
digitalzombie 11y ago
It's ok once X-men is burned to the ground by Fox. Marvel can have it back and team up with Netflix. Then perhaps Wolverine can be true to the comic, womanizer and short 5'3''.
talmand 11y ago
Well, for one, they could stop doing origin stories on well established characters. For example, the next Spider-Man movie will supposedly be a non-origin story as it is rebooted to be part of Marvel's cinematic universe. If they wish to start a new actor as a character it doesn't necessarily mean a reboot of the character. But issuing new actors over-and-over with reboots and origin stories for these characters would be the boring part. I, for one, like seeing the new heroes being introduced into the mix such as Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man. Marvel has a large number of characters to rely on that haven't been introduced into the cinematic universe. Just because they are relatively unknown doesn't mean it won't work. Guardians was considered a risk because most people had no idea what they were, yet it did big numbers at the box office. These stories can be told endlessly if they are done correctly. Not all of Marvel's characters are super-powered beings and some of the normal characters have interesting stories to tell. Daredevil on Netflix is a good example of this. It didn't even feel like a typical Marvel enterprise until the suit came into play. Up to that point it was an interesting drama with occasional action pieces. Agents of Shield is another; stories about mostly ordinary people dealing with living in this new world of super-beings and gods. Where comic book movies/shows go wrong is when they are created to be commercials for selling toys and the story comes second. So far, Marvel has avoided this. Hopefully DC can do the same. If telling the story is always the most important aspect, then these things can last a long time before they get boring.
Touche 11y ago
I don't want to spoil anything but Steve Rogers dying doesn't mean Captain America won't still be in the Marvel universe.
untog 11y ago
They don't need to do a standard reboot, though - I don't follow the comics but hasn't Captain America been multiple people?
- vidarh 11y ago
  He has. Just in recent years Bucky Barnes and the Falcon has all taken up the mantle. Both of those after the events of the comic version of Civil War. But there's been other versions too.
kenrikm 11y ago
Before superhero movies took off there was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_X5C6e3ZeY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_X5C6e3ZeY Shame it was never released. Apparently it was so bad they tried to erase it from history.
- pronoiac 11y ago
  The Corman Fantastic Four? If memory serves, it was quickly filmed just to keep the license.
  - pkroll 11y ago
    It was: but the actors (and possibly others) weren't told that. As Red Letter Media says in their review, it actually tries and has some competence... just no budget. http://redlettermedia.com/best-of-the-worst-supergirl-captain-america-1990-and-roger-cormans-fantastic-four/ http://redlettermedia.com/best-of-the-worst-supergirl-captai... (worth watching just to see the insanely bad Supergirl movie get torn to shreds).
jerf 11y ago
I have to disagree with the article a bit... certainly "endless, absurd complexity" is a strong strange attractor (in the chaos theory sense) for this sort of iterative, ongoing story, but it is possible to escape from it. Counter-example, most of the Star Trek series, the vast majority of which has episodes that stand on their own, or as part of a two-parter. It's OK to make a big universe if it doesn't all intertwine and tie together and it turns out that in Movie #14 the real bad guy behind the apparent bad guy (from Movie #13) was a minor villian from Movie #2 who was secretly being mind controlled by someone who seemed like a good guy in Movie #9 but there was a small hint that something was wrong with him in Movie #11 and there was a side story in Movie #4 explaining the motivation. Also because time travel. This isn't really that hard to avoid, you know? You just need someone with enough central authority to stop the writers from doing this. It's not clever or compelling storytelling, it's just complicated. Said central authority doesn't have to write the story, per se, just prevent this from happening. I'd also observe there's abundant cinematic precedent for having to change actors, and the Hulk has already been changed without it being a reboot or "new character". Handled carefully there's no reason this universe MUST become crufty, overpopulated, and stale. It's just... the natural thing that happens when you aren't careful. And I have hope that they may be careful. One of the undercurrents of the article they never quite called out all the way is that the Hollywood blockbuster machine is broken. Look at how well Marvel is doing, and by and large, they're doing it on good, solid storytelling. Not uniformly across the board, no, but much better than the average blockbusters. Hollywood is apparently willing to pour millions upon millions into special effects but often appears to spend about "$5.12 + whatever the director has in his wallet" on story... or, more accurately, they treat the story like that's the investment they have in it. Marvel is not hitting it out of the park every time, but they clearly care more than the Hollywood machine. Right now, if there's anybody who can hold this all together without an endless series of reboots, it's the Marvel movie guys.
mhurron 11y ago
> Eventually we have to get a re-boot of these characters Why? For instance James Bond worked just fine with simply replacing whomever was playing Bond from time to time. > You can only drag someone to see an origin story so many times. But rebooting ends up simply retelling origin stories over and over. How many times do you need to tell how Superman (yes I know that's DC) or Batman (again, DC) or Spiderman became themselves, or how their villains became them. Apparently it's every 10 years for Spiderman. The actual actor for these parts shouldn't matter. That they play the character and in the continuity should. But maybe I'm missing something, I never really got into comic books.
- smusings 11y ago
  I agree with you on James Bond there, and I think that is how things should work. I think someone else in the comments did point out that is what they did with the Hulk. I don't mind new actors, or re-boots. What I am worried about is 6 new movies coming out, and an origin story movie being half of them. Before it was one every 4-5 years, now it is one every two-years, pretty soon you get into a origin-movie-fatigue situation with two being made every year. That could just be me, but who knows?
  - amyjess 11y ago
    If it helps, RDJ said in an interview a couple of years ago that when he retires from playing Stark, they should just Bond him.

morley 11y ago

Why is rebooting the characters a bad thing? The rich comics universe shows that there are endless stories to tell with these same characters. It's true that a reboot could be a worse take on a character, but plenty of reboots -- Daredevil, Nolan's Batman, and more yet to come -- are welcome reexaminations of their heroes. Audiences won't get bored as long as their are good stories to tell.

therobot24 11y ago
Thank you. The easiest analysis is that people will move on to something else. I must have read it a hundred times (at least!) in the last month alone. Based on a few 'superhero' examples, clearly, a reboot can work: Box Office (in millions of dollars): -Spiderman 2002: $821 -Spiderman 2012: $757 -Batman 1989: $411 -Batman Begins 2005: $374 -Hulk 2003: $245 -The Incredible Hulk 2008: $263 -Robocop 1987: $100 -Robocop 2014: $242
smusings 11y ago
Rebooting is not a bad thing. It isn't something that I mind at all, unless it is done in mass. I mentioned this in another comment, but I am worried we may get into a situation where every other movie is a reboot or origin story. I would not mind soft-reboots such as Kate Bishop Hawkeye, Bucky Barnes Captain America, Dick Grayson Batman, or even Miles Morales Spider-Man.

digitalzombie 11y ago

It's ok once X-men is burned to the ground by Fox. Marvel can have it back and team up with Netflix. Then perhaps Wolverine can be true to the comic, womanizer and short 5'3''.

talmand 11y ago

Well, for one, they could stop doing origin stories on well established characters. For example, the next Spider-Man movie will supposedly be a non-origin story as it is rebooted to be part of Marvel's cinematic universe. If they wish to start a new actor as a character it doesn't necessarily mean a reboot of the character. But issuing new actors over-and-over with reboots and origin stories for these characters would be the boring part. I, for one, like seeing the new heroes being introduced into the mix such as Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man. Marvel has a large number of characters to rely on that haven't been introduced into the cinematic universe. Just because they are relatively unknown doesn't mean it won't work. Guardians was considered a risk because most people had no idea what they were, yet it did big numbers at the box office. These stories can be told endlessly if they are done correctly. Not all of Marvel's characters are super-powered beings and some of the normal characters have interesting stories to tell. Daredevil on Netflix is a good example of this. It didn't even feel like a typical Marvel enterprise until the suit came into play. Up to that point it was an interesting drama with occasional action pieces. Agents of Shield is another; stories about mostly ordinary people dealing with living in this new world of super-beings and gods. Where comic book movies/shows go wrong is when they are created to be commercials for selling toys and the story comes second. So far, Marvel has avoided this. Hopefully DC can do the same. If telling the story is always the most important aspect, then these things can last a long time before they get boring.

Touche 11y ago

I don't want to spoil anything but Steve Rogers dying doesn't mean Captain America won't still be in the Marvel universe.

untog 11y ago

They don't need to do a standard reboot, though - I don't follow the comics but hasn't Captain America been multiple people?

vidarh 11y ago
He has. Just in recent years Bucky Barnes and the Falcon has all taken up the mantle. Both of those after the events of the comic version of Civil War. But there's been other versions too.

kenrikm 11y ago

Before superhero movies took off there was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_X5C6e3ZeY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_X5C6e3ZeY Shame it was never released. Apparently it was so bad they tried to erase it from history.

pronoiac 11y ago
The Corman Fantastic Four? If memory serves, it was quickly filmed just to keep the license.
- pkroll 11y ago
  It was: but the actors (and possibly others) weren't told that. As Red Letter Media says in their review, it actually tries and has some competence... just no budget. http://redlettermedia.com/best-of-the-worst-supergirl-captain-america-1990-and-roger-cormans-fantastic-four/ http://redlettermedia.com/best-of-the-worst-supergirl-captai... (worth watching just to see the insanely bad Supergirl movie get torn to shreds).

jerf 11y ago

I have to disagree with the article a bit... certainly "endless, absurd complexity" is a strong strange attractor (in the chaos theory sense) for this sort of iterative, ongoing story, but it is possible to escape from it. Counter-example, most of the Star Trek series, the vast majority of which has episodes that stand on their own, or as part of a two-parter. It's OK to make a big universe if it doesn't all intertwine and tie together and it turns out that in Movie #14 the real bad guy behind the apparent bad guy (from Movie #13) was a minor villian from Movie #2 who was secretly being mind controlled by someone who seemed like a good guy in Movie #9 but there was a small hint that something was wrong with him in Movie #11 and there was a side story in Movie #4 explaining the motivation. Also because time travel. This isn't really that hard to avoid, you know? You just need someone with enough central authority to stop the writers from doing this. It's not clever or compelling storytelling, it's just complicated. Said central authority doesn't have to write the story, per se, just prevent this from happening. I'd also observe there's abundant cinematic precedent for having to change actors, and the Hulk has already been changed without it being a reboot or "new character". Handled carefully there's no reason this universe MUST become crufty, overpopulated, and stale. It's just... the natural thing that happens when you aren't careful. And I have hope that they may be careful. One of the undercurrents of the article they never quite called out all the way is that the Hollywood blockbuster machine is broken. Look at how well Marvel is doing, and by and large, they're doing it on good, solid storytelling. Not uniformly across the board, no, but much better than the average blockbusters. Hollywood is apparently willing to pour millions upon millions into special effects but often appears to spend about "$5.12 + whatever the director has in his wallet" on story... or, more accurately, they treat the story like that's the investment they have in it. Marvel is not hitting it out of the park every time, but they clearly care more than the Hollywood machine. Right now, if there's anybody who can hold this all together without an endless series of reboots, it's the Marvel movie guys.

mhurron 11y ago

> Eventually we have to get a re-boot of these characters Why? For instance James Bond worked just fine with simply replacing whomever was playing Bond from time to time. > You can only drag someone to see an origin story so many times. But rebooting ends up simply retelling origin stories over and over. How many times do you need to tell how Superman (yes I know that's DC) or Batman (again, DC) or Spiderman became themselves, or how their villains became them. Apparently it's every 10 years for Spiderman. The actual actor for these parts shouldn't matter. That they play the character and in the continuity should. But maybe I'm missing something, I never really got into comic books.

smusings 11y ago
I agree with you on James Bond there, and I think that is how things should work. I think someone else in the comments did point out that is what they did with the Hulk. I don't mind new actors, or re-boots. What I am worried about is 6 new movies coming out, and an origin story movie being half of them. Before it was one every 4-5 years, now it is one every two-years, pretty soon you get into a origin-movie-fatigue situation with two being made every year. That could just be me, but who knows?
- amyjess 11y ago
  If it helps, RDJ said in an interview a couple of years ago that when he retires from playing Stark, they should just Bond him.