380 replies to this topic

[avl]

If you carry on like that, Loomis, Seannery's going to give you and me a reboot.

"He got the reboot"

[Simon]

And if he kicks him off, it will be;

"He got the reboot with my left boot."

And if he kicks him in the while doing it, it will be;

"He got the reboot in the booty with my left boot."

[Seannery]

If you carry on like that, Loomis, Seannery's going to give you and me a reboot.

Spy that's the best idea you've had yet!

Back to changing the main character--if totally changed like Phelps then that is a conceptual reboot. If they made James Bond into Jane Bond then that would be a reboot. Same with a homosexual Bond. Changing the main character radically alters the premise and is a conceptual reboot.

Then clearly THE BOURNE SUPREMACY reboots the Bourne franchise, since a major character who's a goodie in the first one is revealed to be a baddie in the second.

Phelps is exactly the same character in De Palma's M:I - it's just that we learn about his dark side, something he successfully kept hidden for decades (don't you accept the idea of character change within franchises, Seannery? If not, then I guess you view REVENGE OF THE SITH as a reboot of the STAR WARS saga thanks to what becomes of Annakin).

But Loomis Phelps was the main character and they changed him to evil and a supporting character--if they turned Bond into an evil side kick then that would be a conceptual reboot. And character change within a series is fine if that was always part of the character like Annakin--but not a complete change in order to restart the series in a new direction. With Annakin this was always his direction in the series.

[spynovelfan]

Presumably THE GODFATHER III a reboot in your book, Seannery. There's a complete transformation of the central character's belief system and goals in life: Michael Corleone goes straight and gains a conscience!

It's just a trendy word. Series do it the whole time. THE SAINT was never called a reboot - but it was an origin story set in the present day. Bond has done it: not by making him a villain, but by making him quit MI6 in LTK. The whole point is that Bond is secret agent 007 with a licence to kill. He's not for that film.

[avl]

Presumably THE GOFATHER III a reboot in your book, Seannery. There's a complete transformation of the central character's belief system and goals in life: Michael Corleone goes straight and gains a conscience!

It's just a trendy word. Series do it the whole time. THE SAINT was never called a reboot - but it was an origin story set in the present day. Bond has done it: not by making him a villain, but by making him quit MI6 in LTK. The whole point is that Bond is secret agent 007 with a licence to kill. He's not for that film.

Arguably Michale had a conscience in Godfather 1. To begin with at least. Anyway theres no way thats a reboot, its character development. Godfather 111 with Michael having left the mafia to become a tv repair man might consitute a reboot (amongst other things).

The Saint WAS a reboot. Although we didnt know to call it that at the time. Plus it was rubbish #

Bond is a 00 at the beginning of LTK. His licence is revoked. Thats the plot, its not a reboot. Its just an interesting thing to do with the character.

[Seannery]

Presumably THE GOFATHER III a reboot in your book, Seannery. There's a complete transformation of the central character's belief system and goals in life: Michael Corleone goes straight and gains a conscience!

It's just a trendy word. Series do it the whole time. THE SAINT was never called a reboot - but it was an origin story set in the present day. Bond has done it: not by making him a villain, but by making him quit MI6 in LTK. The whole point is that Bond is secret agent 007 with a licence to kill. He's not for that film.

Nah, Michael has same personality and his drive to get out goes back G1 when he tried to stay out of the business at first. Yes reboot is the trendy word but before it was called restart or relaunch or whatever but these things are done sometimes specifically and to broaden it out to all kinds of medium to small changes instead of fundamental changes in character, conception or time is inaccurate IMO. LTK gives a plot change about Bond but doesn't fundamentally change Bond or the series. If Bond quit and became a permanent peace activist then that would be a reboot.

[spynovelfan]

LTK gives a plot change about Bond but doesn't fundamentally change Bond or the series. If Bond quit and became a permanent peace activist then that would be a reboot.

How will CR be a reboot then? It won't fundamentally be a change to Bond or the series either, will it? In fact, it will tell us how Bond became Bond - it'll reinforce the character's key points.

If Bond became a peace activist - and then joined MI6 in the next film, would that be a reboot (or something interesting to do with the character)? Wouldn't his joining the peace movement be a logical character development from being burnt out from all that killing? After all, he wants to quit in the short story TLD - it's just a reference back to that.

[Seannery]

LTK gives a plot change about Bond but doesn't fundamentally change Bond or the series. If Bond quit and became a permanent peace activist then that would be a reboot.

How will CR be a reboot then? It won't fundamentally be a change to Bond or the series either, will it? In fact, it will tell us how Bond became Bond - it'll reinforce the character's key points.

If Bond became a peace activist - and then joined MI6 in the next film, would that be a reboot (or something interesting to do with the character)? Wouldn't his joining the peace movement be a logical character development from being burnt out from all that killing? After all, he wants to quit in the short story TLD - it's just a reference back to that.

CR alters the timeline by going back to the beginning and restarting--the other 20 Bonds aren't part of this universe. Like Batman Begins or the coming young Kirk/Spock Star Trek. With Bond I said if he became a PERMANENT peace activist and then the series revolved around thatthen that is a reboot.

[blueman]

But, will CR be a good film? Boot or reboot, if they make it so I'm captivated and walk out wanting to immediately see it again, then I'll be satisfied. And judging from the teaser trailer, I don't think I'll be confused if it's a Bond film or not...just my first impression.

[Seannery]

But, will CR be a good film? Boot or reboot, if they make it so I'm captivated and walk out wanting to immediately see it again, then I'll be satisfied. And judging from the teaser trailer, I don't think I'll be confused if it's a Bond film or not...just my first impression.

I hope it's great! November will tell.

[spynovelfan]

I hope the plot has MI6 hunting Bond as a traitor, and he has to find out who the real traitor is, who turns out to be none other than... M! Then in the next film they could introduce him to a new M played by Anthony Hopkins and, without mentioning the fact that in the previous film they were trying to kill him and the whole organisation was headed by a Soviet agent, he could go back to saving the world.

As long as they do it in the same time frame, it won't be a reboot.

Imagine if they'd made Bernard Lee's M a traitor! Only to replace him with that Hargreaves joker...

Just trying to make you see things aren't so black and white, Seannery. Reboots aren't that radical. Look at THE SAINT. Everyone got it, and it was a risk that really paid o...

Okay, I'm stopping there.

[Santa]

If you carry on like that, Loomis, Seannery's going to give you and me a reboot.

Let's hope so

Please, I'm begging all of you, I never want to hear the 'R' word again ever. Never ever. Ever. My tiny brain cannot handle it.( Especially now when I'm pissed out of my head )

[Loomis]

If you carry on like that, Loomis, Seannery's going to give you and me a reboot.

Let's hope so

Please, I'm begging all of you, I never want to hear the 'R' word again ever. Never ever. Ever. My tiny brain cannot handle it.( Especially now when I'm pissed out of my head )

These reboots are made for fanwanking
And that's just what we'll do
One of these days these reboots are gonna fanwank all over y---- (That's enough - Ed.)

[Daddy Bond]

Loomis:

No, the original series did not center on Phelps like the movies focus on Ethan. It was VERY MUCH a team show. If anything, Martin Landau's character, during the time he was on, had as much or more air time than Graves. Graves was the leader, but did not dominate the show, and sometimes played a very minor role in several episodes.

If you've never seen the original show - try to. It is so totally different a premis from the movies that it's like two totally different ideas. The movies give you virtually no idea what the TV show was like. It is one of the most different TV to film adaptations I have ever seen.

The TV show was VERY VERY LOW ACTION - very team oriented - sophisticated, more about trickery and deception and stealth - very impersonal, cold, calculating and very BRAINY at times - you had to really think to follow what was going on. About the only real connection fans of the old TV show are able to see with the movies are the name and the music.

Regards

[Santa]

Oh no! My eyes!!! Whyyyyyyyy!!!

[Bon-san]

It's just a trendy word. Series do it the whole time.

Indeed. Kids' shows have always done this: actors replaced with no explanation; characters' personalities, life circumstances, names completely changed with no explanation; characters just plain removed with no explanation; complete conceptual overhauls with no explanation. I grew up with it and just accepted that on Tuesday, Kevin was the brainy, brown-haired fourteen year-old son of the captain of a spaceship travelling the Omega Galaxy in search of a time tunnel in the year 3030; and on Wednesday his hair was blonde, his I.Q. was thirty points lower, he was three years younger, and he lived on a nuclear war-torn Earth with his widower mother and their robot-maid Cheryl in an unspecified point in the future.

Soap operas are even more apt to make sweeping changes to setting, timelines, characters.

Research of the historical records will reveal myriad examples of the unannounced use of rebooting and retconning in literature, cinema and television. No one has ever made much hay over it. Until now.

Internet generation: tireless research resulting in hard-hitting investigative reportage on cultural minutiae. 'How many of you were aware that Richie's older brother Chuck was actually played by two different actors*? ABC never told you. But now, wikipedia has the story...'



*One of them, NSNA's Gavan O'Herlihy

[Loomis]

Presumably THE GODFATHER III a reboot in your book, Seannery.

Definitely a radical-change-in-quality reboot, that film.

[Santa]

Nerds, all of you. How are you not virgins?

[Jim]

Nerds, all of you. How are you not virgins?

Well, I'm driven here because I do have a wife and children.

Who, for some strange reason, do not feel the need to talk about this...

...this piffle.

So I blame them.

[TortillaFactory]

How are you not virgins?

Well, some of us are.

Ahem.

They call it fanwanking for a reason, I think. Still, I applaud myself for not getting involved with the more ridiculous arguments - OMG SO AND SO PLAYED THE SAME "M" AS SO AND SO OMG HOW DARE YOU IMPLY OTHERWISE - and the like. Is CR a reboot? I don't know. What is a "reboot," exactly? Will it adhere closely to the story? I don't know. But I'm going to see it and I'm sure I will enjoy it.

Now back to your regularly scheduled fanwank.

[Lazenby880]

They call it fanwanking for a reason, I think.

Quite. It is just so *dirty*, isn't it? People sitting alone in a darkened room, quietly loading up the CBn homepage so as not to wake anyone else, then furiously fanwanking onto a keyboard.

Be ashamed.

[Santa]

Oh I'm ashamed, but not because I'm doing that (I'm not).

[Flash1087]

Nerds, all of you. How are you not virgins?

You know what they say about assuming...











and by that I mean me. I can't really vouch for anyone else here.

[blueman]

Hi, my name is blueman, and I'm a fanwanker. I haven't fanwanked in, oh, about 12 hours, but I keep thinking about doing it...

Edited by blueman, 11 May 2006 - 10:57 PM.

[Punisher]

This thread sure went downhill fast

[shady ginzo]

lol moving on from masturbation gags! I support what Daddy Bond says in his post yesterday, the Mission Impossible Movies differs greatly from the TV show, the central recurring character, Jim Phelps was nowhere near as central to the plot as Hunt has been in the movies, though whether that constitutes "reboot" i am not sure. of course I must point out I am being very hypocritical here, I posted a few weeks ago on this matter explaining that I saw the movies as a reboot of the franchise, but as I explained then this is just so I can find a reasonable way of bridging the gap in the two very different portrayals of Phelps, where the first M:I film sees him become a traitor. I absolutly adored the TV Show and the first film imsulted Phelp's fans just as if any hero figure, including bond, were re-hased into an evil mastermind. it is difficult for me to see the reboot as anything other than a conseptual approach, because as far as I see they have never really broken continuitym even back to the days of the series, sure, things have changed a lot, the central characters have changed and the movies are almost unrecognisable compared to the show, but I can't see how the timeline has actually been broken!?

[Skudor]

I love that word. Brilliant. And a lot of it goes on here.

Isn't there an open source dictionary someone could put it in?

[Double-Oh Agent]

Now if MI3 was turned into a musical or as a pure farce then that would be a reboot.

Some of us think M:I-3 is a pure farce.

I don't see any fundamental changes to the concept in De Palma's M:I, other than the revelation that Phelps is a bit of a rotter, which hardly counts. Okay, Cruise may get the lion's share of the limelight (but wasn't there also a disproportionate focus on Graves in the TV show, due to his being the first-billed star? I wouldn't know, 'coz I haven't seen it, but I expect there was, since I've always been aware of the series as "Mission Impossible starring Peter Graves"), but he's still surrounded by teams - even when his original one is wiped out he goes and creates another one.

You just want to consider De Palma's M:I a reboot because you don't like what it does to Phelps.

Loomis, there really wasn't a disproportionate focus put on Peter Graves. It really was a team concept. The reason Graves is known more is because he was the leader of the team. Sort of like George Peppard was more well known than the rest of his A-Team members (except for probably Mr. T who was just so different looking that people knew him). The leader is always the most known character/actor. But as for the Mission: Impossible team scenario, they all functioned well together. Some got slightly more screentime like Graves and some less like Peter Lupus, but Martin Landau (or at least his character Rollin Hand), Barbara Bain, and Greg Morris all had significant roles and were integral to the mission. The same cannot be said for the M:I films other than a scene or two in each film.

In the first film the lack of a team concept is understandable since many of the members are killed. In the second, it is virtually non-existent, and in the third the team concept is seen in maybe three scenes and only fully realized in the outstanding Vatican sequence. That scene is what Mission: Impossible is all about (at least the TV version). And that is when M:I3 is flying at his peak. Unfortunately, those types of scenes are few and far between in the series. In the infiltration of the Berlin warehouse in M:I3, it is basically just a Tom Cruise show. Ving Rhames helps out a little but that's about it until they evacuate the area. And in the Asian skyscraper sequence, it's pretty much all Tom Cruise with Rhames as lookout, although I found the initial infiltration part interesting. But teammates Maggie Q and Jonathan Rhys-Myers are just there to pick Cruise up. Ho-hum.

About that last job, I found it difficult to believe that Q and Rhys-Myers would help Cruise out for his personal mission as they hardly knew the guy and more particularly would just say goodbye (along with Rhames) and let him leave with the rabbit's foot without acting as any sort of backup for him.

Oh and by the way, people say there is more depth to Cruise and his relationship with his girlfriend/wife in M:I3? At the end, she's in danger and he has to rescue her. Didn't he sort of do that in M:I2? Thandie Newton, who was Cruise's girlfriend in that film, was essentially captured and poisoned so he had to find the antidote and save her as well in that one. I didn't see that his relationship with Michelle Monaghan was a whole lot more involved than it was with Newton other than he actually married her.

In the end I just find the M:I films entertaining but ultimately disappointing because they radically change the idea of a solid team working brilliantly together and turning it into a one-man star vehicle with two or three sometime agents serving as backups.

Oh and as for not liking what M:I1 did to the Phelps character, I would feel the same if EON turned the "M" character into the bad guy or an A-Team movie turned John "Hannibal" Smith into a bad guy. It is just a blasphemous scenario and is a hot poker in the eye to all the fans of either series.

[Simon]

Nerds, all of you. How are you not virgins?

Classic.

And even if they weren't virgins, participation will incur some sort of male hymen regrowth of sorts.

[avl]

Oh and by the way, people say there is more depth to Cruise and his relationship with his girlfriend/wife in M:I3? At the end, she's in danger and he has to rescue her. Didn't he sort of do that in M:I2? Thandie Newton, who was Cruise's girlfriend in that film, was essentially captured and poisoned so he had to find the antidote and save her as well in that one. I didn't see that his relationship with Michelle Monaghan was a whole lot more involved than it was with Newton other than he actually married her.

Yes I agree and in fact I think MI:2 is far more intense as Thandie chooses to inject herself with the virus setting up a classic romantic quest to save her by Hunt, whereas Mrs Hunt just gets unlucky. And of course a blatant, ahem, homage, ahem, to the classic Michael Mann Last of the Mohicans - "just stay alive, im not going to lose you" then Hunt jumps off the building (rather than Daniel Day Lewis off a waterfall). Fantastic.

Just this nerds opinion.

Oh no! My eyes!!! Whyyyyyyyy!!!

I actually far prefer debating the taxonomy of reboots, reimaginings and reconceptualisations to endless circular arguments about whether Craig is ugly or too blond, no he isnt, yes he is, no he isnt, yes he is blah blah blah. Anyway if you are a regular poster on a fan message board - nerdishness is not something to overly cvoncern yourself with Virginity might be though