How many years should pass before a reboot?

I'm really looking forward to a reboot. 🍿

mistyseal8 said:I'm just sitting here waiting for a reboot. 🍿

🤣🤣

Richard Wilson4 said:How long does it actually take to get an idea off the ground? I mean, whether we're talking about a superhero like Spider-Man or Superman, or maybe a gritty series like Conan the Barbarian, RoboCop, or The Terminator—how much time does it really take to go from zero to hero?

Sheldon Cooper would probably be like, "Which Spider-Man are we even talking about? The Amazing Spider-Man? The Spectacular Spider-Man? Spider-Man Unlimited? Ultimate...?"

Honestly, when it comes to movies like that, I don't really care. It’s almost like I'm just catching up on a new comic book series or some fresh episodes of a show... does that make sense?

Honestly, I’m pretty much totally against that four-year limit:
It feels like it happened just yesterday.
When did Atif leave us?
He’s got a beer in one hand and a badge on his lapel. What else do you need?
Chicago Fire...

I’ve got the memory of a goldfish, honestly—everything feels like it happened way too fast. But looking back, this whole techno-heavy era of filmmaking really hits home. It seems to perfectly suit today's superficial generations, right? Everyone just wants to consume something in five minutes and forget it ten minutes later. They're all about that instant "wow" factor and what looks "cool." It's wild, though; when you consider how much filming tech jumps forward, four years of progress can feel like an absolute eternity.

Michael Jackson10 said:With movies like that, I don't really care about the specifics. It’s like picking up a new comic book series or just catching the next issue...

Exactly. 🙂

Richard Wilson4 said:I mean, how much time does it actually take for an idea—whether we're talking about a superhero like Spider-Man or Superman, or even a franchise like Conan the Barbarian, RoboCop, or The Terminator—to go from square one back to being ready again?

Like, enough time to just recycle the first movie entirely, maybe just with better CGI and some younger actors?

If you ask me, four years tops.

Give it like 15 to 20 years.

Four? 😲 So you're seriously saying we should be doing remakes or reboots just four years after the original? 😲 That's way too soon, man.

It would actually be pretty interesting to watch a new version of an old Batman every four years.🤣

Great movies don't need a reboot...
For truly great films, you should probably wait at least 15 or 20 years.
For decent ones, maybe give it a decade.
As for the absolute trash? Five years should be plenty, assuming they actually manage to do better next time.

cosmiclynx57 said:Maybe 15 or 20 years.

4 😲 So you’re saying we should be doing remakes or reboots just four years later? 😲 That's way too soon, man.

I'm with you. It's way too early.

For a group of teenagers aged 12 to 17, though? Nah, four years is plenty of time. By then they'll have binged a thousand movies and shows, not to mention all the absolute garbage they scroll through on the internet every single day.😉

Richard Wilson4 said:...It’s not for teenagers aged 12 to 17, but you can easily show it to them in four years; by then, they’ll have binged a thousand movies and series, not to mention all the absolute garbage they encounter on the internet every single day.😉

Honestly, what these kids need is a couple of firm slaps to get them focused on studying or finding a job, rather than having some studio churn out a mindless reboot every four years. And let's be real, even the adults haven't been able to resist watching a new reboot every four years themselves.

A reboot is nothing more than a cash grab—period. Any other theory is just some pseudo-intellectual nonsense from people who don't actually care about cinema, or perhaps they're just too busy rushing through the runtime while stuffing their faces with popcorn or a burger.

Richard Wilson4 said:How much time does it actually take for a single concept—whether it’s a superhero like Spider-Man or Superman or even a franchise like Conan the Barbarian, RoboCop, or The Terminator—to go from square one?

Why would we keep going back to the beginning? Honestly, I’m just over watching the same loop of Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man, dealing with some high school crush like Mary Jane Watson who’s busy dating the popular guys while he watches shyly from the sidelines only to save her so she falls for him... man, it feels like watching Little Red Riding Hood on repeat. 🤦 And for the Record: before he ever met Mary Jane Watson, Peter was jumping from one relationship to another; local girls were constantly hitting on him, and frankly, it just annoyed him.

Superhero movies have been around for over 50 years now (at least the big ones), and you get everything from trash that insults your intelligence to genuinely solid stuff. It would be way smarter to release films following the James Bond model... there is plenty of inspiration and material to pull from the comics.

To me, The Dark Knight is the textbook example of how to weave together comic book elements that aren't even connected. You’ve got The Killing Joke regarding The Joker and Long Halloween regarding Two-Face. Both are top-tier comics.
The result is one of the most successful and highest-quality superhero films out there. Sure, it’s part of a trilogy, but that trilogy isn't even necessary. It’s a standalone masterpiece that isn't affected by the quality of the other films in the series, whether they're good or bad. The Dark Knight wouldn't have been any less impressive if BB hadn't been filmed at all.

It's true that Christopher Nolan messed up with the sequel when he tried to repeat the formula by mashing together Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, Knightfall, and others... but honestly, the idea itself was flawed because those two stories just don't fit together.

Simply put: find a good comic, or maybe a couple, and try to blend them into a single film or a trilogy with the same lead actor, whatever... just stop telling the exact same story every single time. Let them move like Bond.

Exactly! We need fresh villains, new faces, just something new. I am seriously sick and tired of these endless origin stories every few years where they drag us back to the damn beginning, again and again. Just let them actually move the plot forward for once.

Look at Guardians of the Galaxy as the perfect example; they threw in a bunch of "nobodies" that nobody had ever heard of, and the movie was a massive hit. People aren't stupid—anyone who actually cares will do a little bit of digging to learn about the lore and the characters.

My biggest fear is:

I suspect we might see a Harry Potter reboot eventually—though probably not for another 10 to 15 years. It will be fascinating to see just how much the experience differs from the original, especially given how rapidly technology is advancing these days.

Rachel Fowler61 said:I think we'll see a Harry Potter reboot, but probably not for another 10-15 years. It’ll be wild to see how much technology has changed since the original films.

🤔 I highly doubt it.

That’s like saying they’re going to reboot Lord of the Rings—it just isn't happening.

Oh, please! I am begging you—no one needs a reboot of Lord of the Rings. Any attempt at this would be an absolute disaster because the bar has been set impossibly high.

In my opinion, you really need to wait at least a decade before jumping into another movie reboot.
For instance, I heard rumors—though I'm not sure if they're actually true—that they're planning to reboot Spider-Man again with a completely different actor instead of using Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield. I honestly don't see the point in rebooting a franchise that just had a reboot only a few years ago.
Plus, I feel like remakes and reboots should only happen if the original movie actually had potential but turned out poorly, giving them a chance to fix it.

mistyseal8 said:I'm just waiting on a LOTR reboot. 🍿

It’s totally doable. The Hobbit is pretty much played out now, so in ten years, someone’s gonna swoop in and grab those rights.

Maybe we get some adventures featuring a young Aragorn or something. 😁

Do people really reboot book series like this? I don't think so. If an art form that has existed for centuries doesn't need constant reboots, then surely an industry that employs as many people as Hollywood shouldn't either. It seems to me that rebooting is just a byproduct of laziness and greed. I imagine there are probably hundreds of original stories sitting in the desks of film executives, but maybe they just don't want to take any risks with new material if they can sell the same old junk to the same crowd over and over again.

electricbison21 said:🤔 I doubt it.

It’s kind of like saying they’re going to reboot LOTR—it just won't happen.

They'll probably end up rebooting both, almost like it's nothing.

There is absolutely no way Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter could just vanish. We are talking about two of the most critically acclaimed and massive financial juggernauts in Hollywood history. You aren't going to see them disappear for at least another fifty years, guaranteed. 😁

When you really sit down and think about the industry, it feels like they just go back to rebooting stuff because the last installment was either a critical disaster or a total box office bomb. It’s like, "Hey, let's try this again..." whether it flopped financially or just left everyone hating it. Take Spider-Man, for example. Hmm, nothing else is jumping out at me right now 😁 ... but honestly, look at RoboCop or Judge Dredd.