old-fool wrote:JJA didn't make the reboot movies for Star Trek, that was the job he was hired to do. Don't misunderstand, I'm an old ST fan, (in every way these days) but I don't mind new movies being made. Like I said, Enterprise killed the TV series, ST;TNG had already made their last film, and thre was no more milage left in Voyager, and DS9 was never going to have films made. So what next? I would've love Captain Sulu films, but it was judged too late by the producers. It was decided upon a reboot, and it's been a partial success. Even if the plot was contrived, it did at least make some sense. But it was the film company who wanted the reboot, JJA just directed it.
If real "Star Trek" was no longer "good enough" for the morons in managment, then why bother re-creating it?? The whole reboot silliness makes no sense from any angle. Making ill-fitting changes is likely to make fans angry (they're called "fans" because they like it how it is) and not bother watching any more of it, while people who don't like "Star Trek" would (if they had any brains) not bother going to see something called "StarTrek" - only a complete idiot would go along to see it expecting something different. Either way, by re-using the same name for a very different show / movie, you're throwing away half your potential audience. Simply by giving it a differnet name would mean everyone would give it a chance just to see what it is.
Disney want a continuation, and I've said this before so I know I'm either not being read, am being misunderstood or just disbelieved. It's SW Ep VII, not a reboot, not a new SW Ep I, (though frankly that would be jolly nice) it's a continuation of a still popular story.
True, the new Star Wars movies are not a "reboot" (thank God!), but it is a different person in charge ... and someone who has a massive ego and over-hyped portfolio. He's almost certainly going to want to do things "his way". There have already been other franchises ruined by someone who claimed to be a fan, and yet still made lots of silly ill-fitting changes.

If you want to say that Batman is a good example, I disagree. The 1960's Batman was a comedy, camp and cartoonish. Was it enjoyable, absolutely.
Yep, the Adma West TV series was THE version of Batman. The only one remotely similar to the actual comic books. All these fools who say the Dark Knight versions are like the original comic books never actually read them - they were not dark and nasty stories at all.
But in your concept, all Batman series, films would need to be the same. The films by Tim Burton et al were superb, then good, then dire. The same chap didn't play Batman in all films, there were changes, but I agree, at least it was a continuation.
The same style, etc. yes. Not necessarily the same actor, although that helps tremendously where possible.
A franchise is defined as a set of compatible, fitting parts ... making changes means it no longer fits and therefore is no longer part of the same franchise. If it's no longer part of the same franchise and in reality a different show / movie, then why bother re-using the same name? It's simply senseless.
If they want to make a different show / movie, if they want to make a new franchise, then make a NEW franchise. Don't go around lazily butchering someone else's hard work.
Like ST Enterprise though, that continuation killed the franchise. So, they started again, and the films have been much better than they ended.
Enterprise was the first attempt by Berman & Braga to reboot the "Star Trek" franchise, and another good example of why you don't do that. It made a mess of the franchise by making lots of silly, ill-fitting changes and ignoring what came before ... that and the fact that "Beavis" & "Butthead" don't have any clue how to make TV shows, let alone a Star Trek show (they're own later shows failed miserably).
It's rather like any story. When it has been put down by one generation, left for a while, the next want to see what it is and put their finger prints all over it.
Why?? It makes no sense. Again, if the original is no longer "good enough", then make something actually new with a new name that is "good enough".
There's a similar silliness where some people want a "grown up" version of Star Wars / Battlestar Galactica /etc. Again, why?? The show was created to be as it was - a kids' show or a family show, it's MEANT to be like that and that's how the fans like it. Trying to make a "grown up" version is ludicrous, and they probably expect a "grown up" version of Barney and Sesame Street as well. If people want a "grown up" sci fi series, then there's already Space: Above & Beyond or Babylon 5, or simply make a new franchise.
Again, sorry about the rant, but I DETEST the idiocy of rebooting / reimaging / remaking old things and re-using the same name ... it makes no sense whatsoever.
