StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Channel72 wrote: I would agree with you completely, if you said the same thing maybe 5 or 10 years ago. But now I have no idea anymore what the hell studio executives might do. They rebooted/remade Spiderman like 10 times before I lost count. They did the same with Hulk. They don't care - if something is a well known franchise, they're apparently willing to endlessly finance "do-overs", because it's pretty guaranteed that people will go see them.

... Twice. They've rebooted Spider-Man twice. And one of those hasn't come out yet. (And is Marvel/Disney's doing)

Hulk's been rebooted once only. And the second Hulk film was so broad strokes it could have been a sequel. Sort of.

But yeah, studios are in the business of making money and always has been. There's never been a time when they were 'above' this sort of thing,

I don't see reboots as a bad thing.

They're basically win-win. If they're good, they're good. If they're bad, they don't need to affect the original continuity. And its a way for people to explore a different take on a story, try new ideas, without being bound by the existing continuity, casting limitations, etc.

I don't get whiney fans who seem to think a reboot is a personal attack because change is somehow bad.

Except they're not. If they're good they're good, but if they're bad nobody is going to touch the original continuity again so it's effectively dead.
If you're a fan of that continuity I can see where that may distress you.

I don't buy that.

A bad reboot these days could just mean they leave it alone for ten years and then reboot it a second time.

A real downside is that it means that fewer resources go to original projects. That is a serious criticism, but I'm not sure it outweighs the benefits.

That's just the economics of the entertainment business. Properties are endlessly rebooted because they're guaranteed sellers.

If more people go to films that aren't reboots, then non-reboot films will get more funding.

It would be a much better idea to have a completely different (younger) Gungan character that references the lore while showing that the species does have plenty of competent / non-annoying members. If you really wanted to name drop you could have a line about how Jar Jar's backing of Palpatine is still an embarassment whenever a Gungan visits core systems, even 30 years later.

Starglider wrote:It would be a much better idea to have a completely different (younger) Gungan character that references the lore while showing that the species does have plenty of competent / non-annoying members. If you really wanted to name drop you could have a line about how Jar Jar's backing of Palpatine is still an embarassment whenever a Gungan visits core systems, even 30 years later.

For that matter, even TPM had this with Captain Tarpals. While he had a tiny role, he was a solid gungan character that was a reasonably competent soldier. It's too bad Jar Jar wasn't made more like him. I forget where I saw this, but one interesting suggestion for a more intersting Jar Jar was to make him the Gungan representative to the Naboo people. Thus he would have a reason to follow the Jedi off planet, a reason for his people not to like him all that much(because he supported unification with the Naboo), and a serious stake in the matter because he believed that he was doing a job for his people. You could still keep a degree of physical comedy with his character, but it would work better if he also had a slightly more serious role at times. The problem with Jar Jar is that he was written as an oversized child. Having a nine year old character in addition to that was the fundamental problem.

Having another character like Tarpals would be somewhat nice to see in the new films, possibly even in the standalone films. You could have a Gungan soldier fighting in the Rebel Alliance as they steal the Death Star plans.

Unfortunately, I doubt it'll happen outside of Rebels (if even their). Too much hostility from the OT fan whiner base that Disney seems to be trying to cater to a lot.

I hate the prequels more than anyone, but even I wouldn't mind seeing the Gungans again. Hell, I could even stomach Boss Nass if the story warranted his presence.

General cum Senator Binks is an eternal idiot though.

Crazedwraith wrote:

Channel72 wrote: I would agree with you completely, if you said the same thing maybe 5 or 10 years ago. But now I have no idea anymore what the hell studio executives might do. They rebooted/remade Spiderman like 10 times before I lost count. They did the same with Hulk. They don't care - if something is a well known franchise, they're apparently willing to endlessly finance "do-overs", because it's pretty guaranteed that people will go see them.

... Twice. They've rebooted Spider-Man twice. And one of those hasn't come out yet. (And is Marvel/Disney's doing)

Hulk's been rebooted once only. And the second Hulk film was so broad strokes it could have been a sequel. Sort of.

But yeah, studios are in the business of making money and always has been. There's never been a time when they were 'above' this sort of thing,

True, but you have a whole galaxy to play around with. Why rehash the OT?

Peronally, I would like to see a series of spy thriller movies set in the SW galaxy.

Because rehashing the OT sells. Which particular part of 'they're in it for the money' didn't you understand?