Total Reboots or Fix-it Jobs?

[Gothamite]

Just to clarify:

- A total reboot is when the history of a character is completely started anew, with no leftover continuity from the previous incarnation. (i.e. Superman: Man of Steel)

- A 'Fix-It' job is when a controversial story element is covered-up with a story that resolves the issue in question by giving it a botch-job resolution so to the untrained fan, it's as though it never happened (for example, when they brought Doc Ock back to life in the nineties using a goddamn' witchdoctor! Or, when Harvey decided to become Two-Face again, so he cut his face causing 'irreparable damage' so he's Two-Face forever, no matter what Jeph Loeb decides.)

Personally, I prefer reboots. As much as I like the ongoing saga of Spider-Man, it started to weigh a bit thin in the mid-to-late nineties. There was just SO MUCH continuity and the concept of all that stuff happening to Peter within ten years was just ridiculous.

 

[Gemini]

Fix-its, they only defy one or two stories, while reboots defy everything

Bru is the king of fix-its Bucky, Iron Fist, etc.

 

[ProjectX2]

Reboots. I'd rather have to start again than deal with stupid retcons (and most of them are stupid).

 

[Random]

Reboots. I'd rather have to start again than deal with stupid retcons (and most of them are stupid).

Agreed. I dont mind a few fix-its but the majority are ridiculus, reboots have the ability of hindsight and can side step the problems (Something Bendis knows nothing about)

 

[compound]

In general, I'm partial to reboots. But I've seen fix-its that have been handled very competently. So I guess the answer really depends on the specific case.

For 'iconic' properties, with a large fanbase and widespread familiarity outside of their inital medium (e.g. Spider-Man, Transformers, Batman), I prefer reboots.

For properties that have a cult following, or are only known within a particular medium (e.g. Dr. Strange, Animal Man, Bucky), i'd rather see a well-handled, reasonable fix-it.

But there are always exceptions -- as a long-time James Bond fan, I absolutely HATED the reboot in Casino Royale, for example (both the idea of ditching existing continuity AND how the reboot was handled, in the movie itself).

And while I'm personally excited about the possibility of a Star Trek reboot, I can understand the perspective of fans who don't want to see decades of continuity being abandoned, no matter how convoluted.

 

[moonmaster]

Depends on the story.


And whenever I see "reboot", I think it says "robot".


In that case, I have to say that I'm in favor of robots.

 

[Gemini]

the only good reboot

 

[moonmaster]

:rockon: :rockon: YES!!! :rockon: :rockon:

 

[TwilightEL]

the only good reboot

*wistful sigh* Man, whatever happened to that show? It was a staple of my childhood.

 

[Joe Kalicki]

Fix-its all the way. I can't stand reboots.

 

[E]

Reboots all the way. Few writers are clever enough to write a decent fix-up.

Earth X being a notable exception.

 

[Joe Kalicki]

Reboots just lead to the same stories you already read once, twice, three times before with slight twists. Makes for very boring comics.

 

[E]

Reboots just lead to the same stories you already read once, twice, three times before with slight twists. Makes for very boring comics.

Fix-its make a bad, convoluted story even worse and more convoluted.

 

[Joe Kalicki]

Fix-its make a bad, convoluted story even worse and more convoluted.

Not necessarily. No story should be devoted to simply correcting a mistake. Fix-its can be doen within the confines of a normal story without being the basis os the story.

The whole point of a retcon is to fix a mistake. It can't possibly stand alone.

Everything you say is undeniably true. You're a winner.

I rebooted your post so it makes more sense now.

 

[E]

I rebooted your post so it makes more sense now.

SHENANIGANS!!

 

[ourchair]

And while I'm personally excited about the possibility of a Star Trek reboot, I can understand the perspective of fans who don't want to see decades of continuity being abandoned, no matter how convoluted.

Star Trek's problem isn't that the continuity is convoluted. As such, that isn't the reason why a reboot (or fix-it) is desirable.

The problem is that Star Trek has been, for the most part, really badly written --- it has great ideas, but absolutely no meaningful plot momentum.

 

[Planet-man]

In general, fix-its, because I'd rather something be a little convoluted and make progression than have a clean slate but be different takes on the same stories over and over.

Reboots are only necessary after a couple decades of solid, progressive, fully-explored stories.

Worst of all is when reboots get turned into a huge physical event a la Crisis that gets made bigger than any of the stories leading up to it, essentially becoming the only possible endgame for any generation of stories. What's the point? If you want to write new stories, go ahead, but don't pull some horribly metaphysical universe-imploding bull****.

 

[Gothamite]

But there are always exceptions -- as a long-time James Bond fan, I absolutely HATED the reboot in Casino Royale, for example (both the idea of ditching existing continuity AND how the reboot was handled, in the movie itself).

I disagree, completely. As a fellow long-time Bond fan, I don't take the continuity of the Bond films very seriously. I don't believe that Moonraker and Licence to Kill happened in the same continuity. It's just not credible. I believe every Bond actor has their own personal continuity for their individual intrepretations of the role and it's just unfortunate for Daniel Craig that the first film in 'his' continuity happened to be the origin story, because all this confusion came about. I would also like to point out that Daniel Craig is my favourite Bond actor and Royale is my favourite Bond-film, with On Her Majesty's Secret Service coming a close second.

And while I'm personally excited about the possibility of a Star Trek reboot, I can understand the perspective of fans who don't want to see decades of continuity being abandoned, no matter how convoluted.

I'm not too against the idea of Trek being rebooted, but the way they're handling it doesn't appeal to me. First of all, Kirk is Shatner and Shatner is Kirk. It's one of those roles that shouldn't be played by another actor. It would be like having a different actor playing Walker, Texas Ranger. It's just plain wrong.

I also don't like the emphasis the press releases have been putting on the 'bigger budget' and 'more action than any of the previous Star Trek films'. For me, Star Wars is sex and Star Trek is a loving relationship.

In Star Wars, it's all action, lasers and robots. Sure, there's a story there about evil dads and redemption of the soul or something, but people expect brilliant dogfights and lightsabre duels. I couldn't give a hot-damn about the action in Star Trek. In fact, it actually bores me sometimes. The characters and the themes of evolution and exploration are the reasons I'm such a Star Trek fan. It doesn't look like they're going this direction at all with the new one.

 

[ourchair]

I disagree, completely. As a fellow long-time Bond fan, I don't take the continuity of the Bond films very seriously. I don't believe that Moonraker and Licence to Kill happened in the same continuity. It's just not credible. I believe every Bond actor has their own personal continuity for their individual intrepretations of the role and it's just unfortunate for Daniel Craig that the first film in 'his' continuity happened to be the origin story, because all this confusion came about. I would also like to point out that Daniel Craig is my favourite Bond actor and Royale is my favourite Bond-film, with On Her Majesty's Secret Service coming a close second.

Knowing compound like I do, I don't think he meant that he was slavishly devoted to the continuity, just that he felt that both ideas --- the 'new continuity' AND the 'tone' --- were both things he found distasteful... it's an execution thing more than anything else, especially since he likes the campy Bond more than the resolutely self-serious cool that is attributed to the 'ostensibly better' Bond films.

I'm not too against the idea of Trek being rebooted, but the way they're handling it doesn't appeal to me. First of all, Kirk is Shatner and Shatner is Kirk. It's one of those roles that shouldn't be played by another actor. It would be like having a different actor playing Walker, Texas Ranger. It's just plain wrong.

I disagree, but I DO think a NEW starship crew is more preferable. In that sense, it's not that 'recasting Kirk SHOULDN'T BE DONE' but that there're just more interesting things to do than that.

Of course, since Enterprise had limited success with building its 'reimagining' on a new crew, Paramount's not likely to want to do that again.

I also don't like the emphasis the press releases have been putting on the 'bigger budget' and 'more action than any of the previous Star Trek films'. For me, Star Wars is sex and Star Trek is a loving relationship. [/QUOTe[I'm giving this and J.J. the benefit of the doubt, as I seriously think this action focus isn't as big as theyre making it out to be, just something they play up to counter the general perception the franchise has as being ponderous and laden with pseudoscientific technogeekery.

 

[Gothamite]

Knowing compound like I do, I don't think he meant that he was slavishly devoted to the continuity, just that he felt that both ideas --- the 'new continuity' AND the 'tone' --- were both things he found distasteful... it's an execution thing more than anything else, especially since he likes the campy Bond more than the resolutely self-serious cool that is attributed to the 'ostensibly better' Bond films.

That's fair enough, I suppose. Campy Bond has his moments. The Spy Who Loved Me is in my top three and Die Another Day really isn't that bad.

I disagree, but I DO think a NEW starship crew is more preferable.

If they were to do a new crew, I'd prefer them to attempt a TV show first, so that they could get some momentum with the characters and plots, etc. I don't know if kicking off a new crew with a movie would work.

Of course, since Enterprise had limited success with building its 'reimagining' on a new crew, Paramount's not likely to want to do that again.

There's that too.

I'm giving this and J.J. the benefit of the doubt, as I seriously think this action focus isn't as big as theyre making it out to be, just something they play up to counter the general perception the franchise has as being ponderous and laden with pseudoscientific technogeekery.

Possibly. If your theory is correct, we could be in for some truly awful, cookie-cuttery trailers, but an eventually brilliant movie.