A Conversation: Don't reboot, Make a better sequel!

[SethRex]

This is for discussion sake, not arguements.

I think the studios today should not just reboot their franchises. When a film does not do well at the box office, chances are there is something wrong with it that audiences did not like. But rebooting the franchise in question does not mean you're learning from the mistakes of the last one. What studios should do, is take what is already established, learn from what worked, and especially what failed, and make a sequel that's better. The audience will be more forgiving of the sequel if it actually turns out good. Take Fantastic 4. You've already established the universe. Now, make a sequel, and fix what didn't work last time. If all turns out well, you'll have your sequel, the fans who did like the first one will probably like the second one just as much if not more, and the ones who didn't like it, but gave the sequel a chance anyway, might come away with an appreciation of the film, and alltogether thankful that at least the studio actually had the brains to fix its mistakes.

What do you think? I know there are those who are tired of reboots and sequels, but I figure the lesser of two evils would be to just fix things and make the sequel instead.

[Foggy]

Why would people give a sequel to a naff film a second chance? Something like "fool me once...". Heck sequels to good films that underperform tend to do worse, has there ever been a successful sequel to a terrible original film that flopped?

[Hazel Motes]

How about make something original instead.

[Zillamon51]

I'm all for these "reboot-quels" like Halloween (2018) and "Terminator 6," that ditch the shitty sequels, and pick up the pieces from the good ones. I really wish they'd do it with Aliens.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Despite what people think about Rocky IV, it gave us the Creed franchise.

[mpstjohn]

Is there a difference between rebooting and ignoring the previous sequel? For instance should Highlander 3 have acknowledged 2, was it reboot by carrying on the films without the previous entry in continuity or just a matter of fixing things by removing Planet Zyst from the backstory?

While I agree in theory, I would have preferred the Spider-man in Civil War had been Garfield and thusly had a history going in and perhaps could have come closer to what Peter Parker sacrificed and lost in the story of Civil War (and raised the personal stakes for the character more), there are those times when I can't see franchises carrying on much further, such as Halloween after Resurrection or H2. Films like Days of Future Past and Curse of Chucky did a good job of splitting the difference as working simultaneously as sequels and reboots but those are rare. Then you have those films that try to carry on when logically the narrative can't without drastic retconning such as the Puppet Master, Transformers and the Saw movies where they have to backpedal with every new sequel to carry on the story.

I agree that for most franchises reboots/remakes aren't necessary, Ghostbusters: Answer the Call could have easily been Ghostbusters 3 (might as well have been with all the cameos from the original cast), the Evil Dead remake, given an easter egg could be a sequel rather than a true remake, Point Break as a remake was forgettable and I feel given a call to Keanu it could have easily been a sequel, the Flatliners remake, though utterly forgettable, was originally supposed to be a sequel and could have been had a line by Keifer Sutherland's character not been removed and while it wouldn't add much to the franchise it would give at least another layer to the otherwise fairly superficial film.

[Zillamon51]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

Despite what people think about Rocky IV, it gave us the Creed franchise.

Am I missing something? People love Rocky IV.

[tehthomas]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

Despite what people think about Rocky IV, it gave us the Creed franchise.

This is a good point. Regardless of whether someone likes the Creed films or not, you have to admit it was a creative spin-off for a series of films based off of the Rocky universe. They aren't even really prequels in my eyes. It's more of a comic book universe sort of approach and I think some of these franchises (Halloween, Terminator) could've benefited from that. With Halloween III, if you didn't like the film, at least they tried something different at the time that stands out on its own.

[SethRex]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Why would people give a sequel to a naff film a second chance? Something like "fool me once...". Heck sequels to good films that underperform tend to do worse, has there ever been a successful sequel to a terrible original film that flopped?

There's always going to be someone watching it. You can say, that word of mouth can be a powerful thing. Some are more than open to giving a series a second chance. Sometimes, a film is not good but not terrible, and usually if fixed, a sequel can redeem a series.

[Zillamon51]

For the record, we've already had this conversation a couple of times:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=296695

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=297135

Making this very thread a "reboot-quel."

[SethRex]

~Shrugs~ Eh, can't win em all lol.

[Zillamon51]

^ Not trying to be a dick, just pointing out the irony.

Maybe all three threads should be merged?