Anyone else pissed

A remake takes the original source material and copies it directly. A sequel is a continuation of the original source material. A prequel is a story that takes place before the original source material and ties into it. A reboot is a re-imagining of the original source material and draws inspiration from it.

"Dark Knight" is a sequel to the alternate story line of the comics collectively known by the same name. I should have have listed it as an 'alternate story line sequel', you are correct.

"Rise of The Planet of The Apes" is a story that takes place before the original story of "Planet of The Apes" and ties into it by explaining how the apes came to possess advanced intelligence.

"Star Trek" takes place before either the series or "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", but it also explores an alternate time line.

If you want to lump all sequels, prequels, reboots, and remakes into the same category, that's fine. I thought that we were focusing specifically on movies that simply redo what has already been done without adding anything to them.

Yep, we must've been typing at the same time. I take it back -- reboots and remakes are definitely very different from each other.

On a side-note, "Apes" is definitely a reboot, not a prequel. Ditto for "Trek". If you're familiar enough with the franchises, it is clear that they took it in a very different direction; different stories, completely.

Whatever, you're right -- reboots, remakes, etc., should not all be lumped into one category.

How about "Dawn of the Dead"? That's pretty awesome, and it's definitely a remake!
 
I saw the stage production of Footloose at the Kennedy Center for the last show before its (limited) run on Broadway, and ever since then, the movie just doesn't compare. I'm really curious to see the new one, to see where it stacks up against the play and the original film...
 
Just saw it (mostly). I walked out (sort of). I've never actually completely walked out on a movie, in the sense that I decided that my money was lost and that I'd prefer not to waste any more of my time.

The only way I've ever walked out on a movie has been to sneak into a different movie at the same multiplex. Tonight, I was rather bored by "Footloose", so I snuck in to "The Thing". It wasn't much better. :(
 
Loose, footloose kick off your Sunday shoes
Please, Louise pull me off a my knees
Jack, get back c'mon before we crack
Lose your blues everybody cut footloose

Was the dancing scene at least similar, did they have the Kevin Bacon actor dancing in a random abandoned warehouse/train station?
 

directorik

IndieTalk's Resident Guru
indiePRO
On a side-note, "Apes" is definitely a reboot, not a prequel.
Couldn't "Rise" be considered a prequel to the 1968 film?

As I recall there is even a reference to the rocket ship carrying
Taylor, Landon and Dodge. The story doesn't really take the 1968
story into a different direction - it seems to be a logical set up to
that story. If that reference was intentional by the writers I think
an argument could be made that "Rise" is in the same timeline
as Rod Serling's script.

However, if "reboot" is the proper term, then wouldn't "Rise" be
a reboot of “Conquest of the Planet of the Apes”?
 
Loose, footloose kick off your Sunday shoes
Please, Louise pull me off a my knees
Jack, get back c'mon before we crack
Lose your blues everybody cut footloose

Was the dancing scene at least similar, did they have the Kevin Bacon actor dancing in a random abandoned warehouse/train station?

I don't remember but I do remember that for a long time, I HATED that Footloose song, Hated "Let's Hear It For The Boy". :rolleyes:

-- spinner :cool:
 
Was the dancing scene at least similar, did they have the Kevin Bacon actor dancing in a random abandoned warehouse/train station?

Cotton gin. It's totally there, and a pretty nice tribute.

For the record, I don't think the remake is necessarily a bad movie, per se. I think I'm just not really part of the target demographic. I don't know, but I would think that the age-group that enjoyed the original is probably the same age-group that would enjoy this one. I think it's probably best for a high-school crowd, nothing wrong with that.

Couldn't "Rise" be considered a prequel to the 1968 film?

As I recall there is even a reference to the rocket ship carrying
Taylor, Landon and Dodge. The story doesn't really take the 1968
story into a different direction - it seems to be a logical set up to
that story. If that reference was intentional by the writers I think
an argument could be made that "Rise" is in the same timeline
as Rod Serling's script.

However, if "reboot" is the proper term, then wouldn't "Rise" be
a reboot of “Conquest of the Planet of the Apes”?

Yes, there is the news report of the lost ship, and I assume/hope that they're not just nodding to the original, but setting up a sequel. However, the details are very different. I suppose you could call it a "reboot" of "Conquest", but I think I'd just call it a "reboot" of the entire franchise.

The overall concept is extremely similar, but I think there are enough differences (that are really significant) that it can't be considered in the same timeline.

In the original, it is nuclear holocaust that leads to humankind's downfall. In the new version, it is an acute epidemic virus.

In the original (series), apes are made to be human pets, because a virus wipes out all dogs and cats. Eventually, the apes are enslaved. Ceasar leads a revolt. Ceasar's very existence is due to the fact that a couple of super-smart apes have traveled back in time, and begat him in the modern era. It's just like the "Terminator" paradox -- Ceasar is the super-smart chimp that gives rise to the enslaved apes, allowing for his future-parents to be born and flourish, and to travel back in time, so that they can give birth to him, in the past. Totally doesn't make sense, but it makes for fun Sci-Fi.

In the new version, there is no such paradox, regarding Ceasar. He is super-smart because of the biological experiments done on his mother, and he leads a revolt, giving a bunch of other apes the same smart-smoke that worked for him.

If none of the other "Apes" movies existed, I think this new version would actually work really well, as a prequel to the 1968 original. But if you consider the rest of the cannon, the pieces just don't fit together.
 
Cotton gin. It's totally there, and a pretty nice tribute.

For the record, I don't think the remake is necessarily a bad movie, per se. I think I'm just not really part of the target demographic. I don't know, but I would think that the age-group that enjoyed the original is probably the same age-group that would enjoy this one. I think it's probably best for a high-school crowd, nothing wrong with that.

I think I might actually check it out this weekend.
 
Top