Is this the peak of crap Hollywood reboots?
Endless reboots and sequels and and SuperHero flicks, what a terrible time of cinema we are in, so glad we're getting good TV in compensation.
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) Discussion > Is this the peak of crap Hollywood reboo...
Spot on, well said
shareYou're absolutely correct. It's hilarious how the same director, with all the available technology, managed to put out this garbage.
Guess the 80's and 90's were pretty much the only decades to bring out the best in Hollywood cinema IMO.
oh how i miss mid 80ies and 90ies in sci-fi
everything beyond '98 is total shi+
Endless reboots and sequels and and SuperHero flicks, what a terrible time of cinema we are in, so glad we're getting good TV in compensation.
It's curious how people like you mindlessly repeat comments you hear others say without actually stopping to think if what you are saying makes any sense.
Firstly, this movie wasn't a reboot. It was a sequel. If you don't know the difference then you have no business discussing movies.
Second, you complain about "sequels" yet go on to praise TV. How hypocritical.
TV, is basically nonstop sequels. Episode 2, is a sequel to episode 1. Episode 3 is a sequel to episode 2. Episode 4 is a sequel to episode 5. Season 2 is a sequel to season 1. Season 3 is a sequel to season 2.
It's absolutely hilarious and hypocritical how you can complain about sequels for movies yet totally welcome them for TV. So TV shows have the privilege of telling whatever stories they want for how many hours they want to in the form of its own sequels (i.e. seasons) yet movies are limited according to your narrow mind to only 1 two maybe two and a half hour movie (three hours will be permitted if the movie is especially pretentious) and that's it. How the hell are movies supposed to compete with TV with that kind of severe handicap?
Seriously, grow up and think for yourself. You and everyone that approached your nonsense needs to be ashamed of yourselves because you sound like fools. share
Comparing a movie sequel to a TV show that has multiple episodes? Now that is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Not even vaguely hypocritical.
shareComparing a movie sequel to a TV show that has multiple episodes?
So you're just going to ignore me also bringing up multiple seasons and how a TV show's "seasons" are the equivalent of movie sequels.
How disingenuous.
Not even vaguely hypocritical.
No. EXTREMELY hypocritical. share
I almost missed replying in this thread, but JohnBonDon, let me put forth my views before you put a blanket statement like "You and everyone that approached your nonsense needs to be ashamed of yourselves because you sound like fools." without understanding why some people agreed with the OP.
First off, I enjoy a good movie as much as anyone who appreciates quality cinema. However, I'm on the board of Independence Day: Resurgence, a movie, which clearly did not fit the bill of a worthwhile movie for me. Bluntly put, it was total *beep* Then again, a lot of the recent sequels/reboots have done the same.
Regardless of the OP's post being a troll bait or not, it does raise the question of the quality dipping for Hollywood's barrage of big budget movies. I'm sure you have noticed the trend and you can't deny it. The reason why you would see at least a dozen posts on these boards is because a lot of people want to express their disappointment in them, genuinely or otherwise.
From my personal experience, the only super hero movie I was entertained with this year was Captain America: Civil War. Deadpool was pretty good. Batman v Superman was a major disappointment and so was Suicide Squad.
I have lost count with the reboots/remakes; Robocop, Friday the 13th, Total Recall, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Evil Dead and the very recent (yet infamous) Ghostbusters. I'm not saying that the original versions were Oscar worthy material, but they were absolutely entertaining and cult classics, even in their cheesiest form. There is a reason why these movies were even picked to be remade.
I chose to watch this sequel, seeing as how I absolutely love the original one. However, I was left completely baffled with the content. It was even worse when I walked out of the theater for Terminator Genisys. I won't even get into the absurdity of that vile piece of garbage.
Now the very reason I have shifted my focus on TV shows is because the bar that it has raised for delivering entertaining content. I would average 4 movies a day, say about 7-8 years back, before I discovered how entertaining original TV programming had become. It's a medium of visual entertainment, so it has the ability to divide the movie going audience. A single episode of Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad has the can demolish a big budget movie. You do realize that Hollywood movie run-time has also increased. Gone are the days of 90 minutes, the new norm is 120+ minutes. This, I feel, is more than enough time to engage and enthrall the audience. It's not a handicap for movies, as you put it, but a unique opportunity to captivate and deliver a solid experience in a short time.
To summarize, I am not against the idea of these sequels/reboots, but the current crop of releases has slowly made me loose faith in the industry (not completely). TV has become a great fallback source for entertainment. This is my personal stance on agreeing with the OP's statement and no, I'm not a part of the "hate/troll" mob. I still visit the theater, watch a movie, have an opinion of how it was, share it with someone, visit IMDB, observe and respect others opinions too.
You concentrated on something that really has nothing to do with what I wrote. I didn't write anything to defend or criticize this Independence Day sequel. All I wrote was to point out his ignorance in calling this a "reboot" when it isn't and complaining about sequels while immediately going on to praise TV which thrives on its equivalent of sequels which are "seasons". That is hypocrisy. A TV show is allowed to have an infinite amount of season with no one complaining about how TV is being ruined because of endless seasons and so forth. It's nonsense. His post is moronic and the result of someone just mindlessly repeating what he hears rather than arriving at things from his own thoughts.
And from my experience, most people trash on sequels simply because they have been brainwashed to do so because they are just repeating what everyone else says. It's not because they actually believe it. They walk in prepared to say that it is inferior because that's what they've been conditioned to always say.
You do realize that Hollywood movie run-time has also increased. Gone are the days of 90 minutes, the new norm is 120+ minutes. This, I feel, is more than enough time to engage and enthrall the audience. It's not a handicap for movies, as you put it, but a unique opportunity to captivate and deliver a solid experience in a short time.
It's amazing that you wrote this whole paragraph not realizing I've already debunked this thought. Here it is again:
It's absolutely hilarious and hypocritical how you can complain about sequels for movies yet totally welcome them for TV. So TV shows have the privilege of telling whatever stories they want for how many hours they want to in the form of its own sequels (i.e. seasons) yet movies are limited according to your narrow mind to only 1 two maybe two and a half hour movie (three hours will be permitted if the movie is especially pretentious) and that's it. How the hell are movies supposed to compete with TV with that kind of severe handicap?
You mentioned Breaking Bad. Was that show just 2 hours? Absolutely not! Breaking Bad lasted 5 seasons with a total episode count of 62. Do you know how many hours that is? That's more than 54 hours! And somehow you think that is fair to handicap cinema and demand they cannot tell stories more than 1 single 2 hour movie? How the hell can movies compete with TV if they are criticized by going beyond one single 2 hour movie but TV can have multiple seasons that add up to dozens and dozens of hours?
Sorry, but that's asinine. share
You concentrated on something that really has nothing to do with what I wrote. I didn't write anything to defend or criticize this Independence Day sequel. All I wrote was to point out his ignorance in calling this a "reboot" when it isn't and complaining about sequels while immediately going on to praise TV which thrives on its equivalent of sequels which are "seasons". That is hypocrisy.
I think you already knew the message that OP was trying to put forth, yet chose to emphasize so much on his factual mistake of this movie being a sequel and not a reboot that you directly invalidated everyone else who agreed with him as sounding like fools.
Really? Why? Because he called this movie "the peak of Hollywood's reboot crap" in the title? Said we're getting good TV?
It was not a complain against sequels, but a direct statement against the recent plague of unnecessary cash grabbing sequels you'll find in Hollywood. The idea is great from money making standpoint, but detrimental to a movie which go beyond the point of it's milking.
A TV show is allowed to have an infinite amount of season with no one complaining about how TV is being ruined because of endless seasons and so forth. It's nonsense. His post is moronic and the result of someone just mindlessly repeating what he hears rather than arriving at things from his own thoughts.
TV shows do get ruined and have been ruined due to poor performing seasons. Case in point, Showtime's Dexter. The finale episode of the series have turned into an internet meme and a joke. No one said they are immune to it. It's the surge of original TV programming content, the quality, budget and cast that have raised the bar so exponentially that it can almost match Hollywood big budget flicks. That is a feat in itself. The TV industry which was once "handicapped" due to it's budget constraints is now rivaling the movie industry. Regardless of their constraints, they can both accomplish a great deal in their given time frame. TV shows can drag mid season, while movie can also bore the *beep* out of you in an hour.
And from my experience, most people trash on sequels simply because they have been brainwashed to do so because they are just repeating what everyone else says. It's not because they actually believe it. They walk in prepared to say that it is inferior because that's what they've been conditioned to always say.
Correct and everyone who agrees with some part of what they are saying (or propagating) are automatically assumed to be fools. Talk about being awfully presumptuous!
It's amazing that you wrote this whole paragraph not realizing I've already debunked this thought.
Yet you completely failed to understand the purpose of that statement. Movies won't have unlimited length and that is not a handicap. They are allowed to have sequels. However, the sequels need to be justified. Would you see yourself spending money on more of these Transformers, Taken, Terminator, Jurassic Park, King Kong sequels when you know they have gone beyond the point of redemption? I'd be cautious and probably catch them up on Netflix rather than burning my money in the theater.
Same rule applies to TV shows. So length isn't the point of debate here; it's the quality.
You mentioned Breaking Bad. Was that show just 2 hours? Absolutely not! Breaking Bad lasted 5 seasons with a total episode count of 62. Do you know how many hours that is? That's more than 54 hours! And somehow you think that is fair to handicap cinema and demand they cannot tell stories more than 1 single 2 hour movie? How the hell can movies compete with TV if they are criticized by going beyond one single 2 hour movie but TV can have multiple seasons that add up to dozens and dozens of hours?
I mentioned even if you pick a single one hour episode of Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones as a stand alone episode, just to compare it's quality in writing, directing, acting and visual aspect, you'll be amazed on how many 2.5 hours run-time based movies can be overshadowed by it.
Even if we remove TV shows from the equation, go back and evaluate the current state of Hollywood sequel trend and analyze how many movies you account for which truly deserve to exist. Go on.
share
Really? Why? Because he called this movie "the peak of Hollywood's reboot crap" in the title? Said we're getting good TV?
That's not what he said. He said:
Endless reboots and sequels and and SuperHero flicks, what a terrible time of cinema we are in, so glad we're getting good TV in compensation.
That is him complaining about sequels yet going on to praise TV which lives on its own equivalent of sequels (i.e. seasons).
It's a brainless and hypocritical comment.
I'm not sure how that is confusing in terms of what I was replying to.
TV shows do get ruined and have been ruined due to poor performing seasons.
Straw man. I never said that there is no such thing as TV shows having bad seasons nor claimed that anyone said that.
The TV industry which was once "handicapped" due to it's budget constraints is now rivaling the movie industry
And movies are handicapped by being criticized for continuing the story of a previous movies yet this is not held against TV shows and is in fact celebrated that TV shows come back for more seasons. It's hypocrisy.
Correct and everyone who agrees with some part of what they are saying (or propagating) are automatically assumed to be fools.
Anyone who complains about sequels in movies but praises TV which have their own sequels in the form of season should be automatically assumed to be fools.
Movies won't have unlimited length and that is not a handicap. They are allowed to have sequels.
No, they are not. Did you not read the OP's statement that I hung my entire response on? He is hardly alone. That stupid complaint is extremely common and heard all the time. It's nonsensical and hypocritical.
However, the sequels need to be justified.
The only justification they need is if they made their money back to continue making more movies. Guess what? That's how TV works too.
So length isn't the point of debate here
Yes, it is. If you honestly think there is no difference to a person being given only 2 hours to tell one story versus another person being given over 50 hours to tell the same story then you are being very dishonest.
I mentioned even if you pick a single one hour episode of Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones as a stand alone episode, just to compare it's quality in writing, directing, acting and visual aspect, you'll be amazed on how many 2.5 hours run-time based movies can be overshadowed by it.
This is a meaningless comment. I could easily reverse the scenario and say there are countless movies that I could take a single hour of from their 2 hours and it'd be superior to any episode of Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones. What did you prove by this? Nothing.
In fact, you missed the entire point that I made in the response I did so I'll repeat it again:
You mentioned Breaking Bad. Was that show just 2 hours? Absolutely not! Breaking Bad lasted 5 seasons with a total episode count of 62. Do you know how many hours that is? That's more than 54 hours! And somehow you think that is fair to handicap cinema and demand they cannot tell stories more than 1 single 2 hour movie? How the hell can movies compete with TV if they are criticized by going beyond one single 2 hour movie but TV can have multiple seasons that add up to dozens and dozens of hours?
Even if we remove TV shows from the equation, go back and evaluate the current state of Hollywood sequel trend and analyze how many movies you account for which truly deserve to exist.
Bad question since it is subjective. What I consider to be good may not be what you like and vice versa. The point is, if TV is allowed to have endless amount of seasons which allows for any number hours of its storytelling then sequels should not be criticized for movies. It's nonsensical and hypocritical. share
That's not what he said. He said:
That is him complaining about sequels yet going on to praise TV which lives on its own equivalent of sequels (i.e. seasons).
It's a brainless and hypocritical comment.
I'm not sure how that is confusing in terms of what I was replying to.
It was very apparent what OP was trying to say. You know this topic would have been made on endless boards, else you wouldn't have ended up tearing it apart unless you have seen it elsewhere. You just took it way to literally. The praise for TV is only because the quality of original programming has shot up. You know it and everyone else knows it. With you calling the TV show's seasonal format a sequel is not going to change anything. It's a continuous form of entertainment. Unless, it's a mini-series, the format remains seasonal till they decide to end it. That's how it always has been. Hollywood is currently trying to dig up old decade old movies and trying to breathe life into movies which could have been left alone. See the difference?
If you're worried about OP's use of the word "endless", it's not for one movie having endless sequels, but a plethora of movies constantly pumping out ridiculous sequels or going through the reboot factory. Are all necessary? You decide.
Straw man. I never said that there is no such thing as TV shows having bad seasons nor claimed that anyone said that.
Then why make this statement?
A TV show is allowed to have an infinite amount of season with no one complaining about how TV is being ruined because of endless seasons and so forth
Did you assume that no one complains about TV shows having endless seasons because you haven't seen anyone do it on message boards? or was there something in this thread in particular that irked you?
And movies are handicapped by being criticized for continuing the story of a previous movies yet this is not held against TV shows and is in fact celebrated that TV shows come back for more seasons. It's hypocrisy.
You do realize that these criticisms are directly being thrown at movie sequels which are rather frivolous additions right?
Taken was a really good action movie and now it's a trilogy. Wait...may be not? See where I'm going with this.
TV shows aren't glorified or put on a pedestal. There are shows which are consistently engaging and thus reflect well from an overall perspective.
Anyone who complains about sequels in movies but praises TV which have their own sequels in the form of season should be automatically assumed to be fools.
I think I have covered a fair bit of this in my earlier posts, but that's ok. Since you're anyway going to ignore or selectively dissect statements to deem people foolish, I suppose there is not point to the discussion.
No, they are not. Did you not read the OP's statement that I hung my entire response on? He is hardly alone. That stupid complaint is extremely common and heard all the time. It's nonsensical and hypocritical.
Your entire post merely focused on having "sequels" when clearly he had a title which mentioned this movie being the peak of Hollywood crap and also listed reboots and super hero flicks. Nothing was said about that, but just the idea of sequels managed to catch your attention being put up against TV did. I'm not here to justify the OP's entire post, but you seem to be capable of very good conversations. Enough to realize that some of what he has mentioned is true, regardless of it being a troll bait. The quality has dipped and we can see the trend. The reason everyone is taking a jab at movies by pitting them up against TV is with the growth it has experienced.
The only justification they need is if they made their money back to continue making more movies. Guess what? That's how TV works too.
If that's the general logic, then I guess we should have 'The Wolf of Wall Street 2', 'The Revenant 2' etc. Most big budget movies make their money back pretty much in the first week with all the hype culture surrounding it, more often than not, even exceed it. How does that justify having to create it's sequel? If that's the only reason to create sequels without any rhyme and reason for it's genuine continuity, then I think we have established the root cause of the OP's title.
Yes, it is. If you honestly think there is no difference to a person being given only 2 hours to tell one story versus another person being given over 50 hours to tell the same story then you are being very dishonest.
As I have mentioned before, time is not always the issue here. The subject matter which contributes to it's quality is. Do you seriously think people will remember every single detail of that 50 hours of TV show? Of course not. Movies can easily wrap a good story in it's given time and people will remember a lot of it's details for years to come. The point is to have actual purpose behind creating a sequel rather than just making money back to bring out more of it as you mentioned above.
This is a meaningless comment. I could easily reverse the scenario and say there are countless movies that I could take a single hour of from their 2 hours and it'd be superior to any episode of Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones. What did you prove by this? Nothing.
OK then, let's look at Sherlock. It's essentially a 90 minute runtime show and has about 3 episodes per season. I think that could mildly qualify for a small movie saga in itself right?
The point is to see if your time based handicap discussion would always hold it's merit for limiting the movie industry.
Bad question since it is subjective. What I consider to be good may not be what you like and vice versa. The point is, if TV is allowed to have endless amount of seasons which allows for any number hours of its storytelling then sequels should not be criticized for movies. It's nonsensical and hypocritical.
I agree on the bold part. However, I'm just curious to see some options being put forth. I would like to see some good recommendations and I'm not being sarcastic. I genuinely need some recommendations to wash away these recent disappointments.
share
Nobody refers to TV episodes as sequels. To compare them to film sequels is spurious to say the least.
TV episodes are a pre-written continuation of a story to a show told over a season. Film sequels are mostly post-written extensions to a story. It helps to explain why so often film sequels are poor. And that obviously has a large bearing on the point the OP is trying to get across, although I'd admit there's a lot of bad and unoriginal TV out there as well.
Nobody refers to TV episodes as sequels.
You gave yourself away with this comment. You do not think for youself. You need to base yourself on what others say. You are a bandwagon jumper.
To compare them to film sequels is spurious to say the least.
No, it is 100% accurate. To think otherwise only reveals your own ignorance.
TV episodes are a pre-written continuation of a story to a show told over a season. Film sequels are mostly post-written extensions to a story. It helps to explain why so often film sequels are poor.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. First of all, not all of the episodes of one season have been written beforehand. That's because it's all based on the number of episodes the network ordered. If the network only orders 10 episodes then that's all that is going to be written but if while the show is being aired the network decides to order more episodes for that season then that is when more scripts will be written for that very season. This is happening while that show's season is being aired on TV!
Second, if a show lasts more than one season, do you actually think that they have written all of the scripts for all of the future seasons? Like if a show lasted 5 years, do you actually think that they had written all of the scripts for all of the episodes for each season going back before they even filmed the very first episode?
It has to be what you believe because this is the only way that this argument of yours would have any consistency but it can't because that's not how TV works. Scripts for future episodes and seasons are only written when they get the order from the networks to do so. If they don't get the green light then future scripts won't get written because there will be no payment for the work on those scripts.
Third, your mentality is mindbogglingly ignorant of the creative process. You actually think that if a script is filmed then another script is written to continue that story after the filming of the first script then it now magically makes that second script inferior. However, if the second script was written before the first script was filmed then to you it would be just as good even if the content of the second script is the same as the previous scenario. That is pure lunacy!
Never mind the fact that in TV scripts are constantly being written after previously written scripts were filmed which in your mind would mean that everything after the first few episodes of a TV show are inferior because they were written after the first episodes were filmed.
Unbelievable the ignorance on display! share
I can't tell if this is your way of defending the movie or if you're just being anally retentive for the sake of it.
You gave yourself away with this comment. You do not think for youself. You need to base yourself on what others say. You are a bandwagon jumper.
No, I'm thinking like someone who refers to things as what they actually are. They are not TV sequels, they are TV episodes. You try talking to someone about a TV show in terms of a sequel, and they'll either think you've lost the plot or assume there is a spin off of that original show detailing events set after the original events take place.
An awful lot of TV show episodes in a season are pre-written. Equally an awful lot of sequels to movies are written after that original as an after thought. That's about the gist of it. And no, I was not referring to every TV episode from each season being pre-written before the first season airs. So if you wanted to refer to a second, third etc. season as a sequel to align with your rather warped idea for a comparison, then fine, keep it at that.
As for the creative quality aspect; even though you've confused the situation, tell me why so many film sequels are inferior to their originals if the fact they are written as an after thought doesn't at least play some part? True, seasons for TV shows and certain episodes to those seasons may be too, but there are other reasons at play for why they don't fail more often than not, and it has to do with the general differences between TV and film, which you surely don't need me to point out.
share
I can't tell if this is your way of defending the movie
Why would you assume that this has to do with me defending the movie? I quoted the section of his statement I was replying to. I am not defending nor criticizing this movie. If he disliked the movie so much then that is because the movie in and of itself was bad. It being a sequel, reboot, etc... has nothing to do with it although he decided to make it about it.
They are not TV sequels, they are TV episodes.
The definition of "sequel":
sequel
/ˈsiːkwəl/
noun
1.
anything that follows from something else; development
2.
a consequence or result
3.
a novel, play, etc, that continues a previously related story
Link: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sequel?s=t
So yes, episode 2 is a "sequel" to episode 1. Episdoe 3 is a "sequel" to episode 2. Etc...
Also, almost all shows are made with a pilot first. Meaning they don't know if it is going to be continued. That means anything past the first episode was written after the first episode was filmed which according to your logic would make all episodes after the first inferior to the first.
Seasons are definitely the equivalent of movie sequels. I've already gone into depth about that in my previous reply to you.
An awful lot of TV show episodes in a season are pre-written.
As I already explained it's only the amount that they were ordered to write. If they get an order for 13 episodes that's all that they will write. If that season is extended with more episodes ordered then while that season is still being filmed new episodes are written. The same principle applies with future seasons.
As for the creative quality aspect; even though you've confused the situation, tell me why so many film sequels are inferior to their originals if the fact they are written as an after thought doesn't at least play some part?
Except that I don't agree with that at all. I find plenty of sequels to be just as good if not better than the "original". The reason that so many say this is because they've been brainwashed to think that way. So when they walk into a movie they are already walking in with a prejudice that whatever they see is inferior to the first one and will find any excuse to justify that prejudice. Was the sequel longer than the first one? Then it's supposedly not as fast paced. Was the sequel shorter than the first one? Then it's supposedly misses out on character development or whatever.
Because moronic and condescending critics haven't bombarded TV with these nonsensical ideas about seasons, TV doesn't suffer from it. In fact, the opposite reaction is observed with people actually demanding more seasons from a show and celebrating when shows get more sequels (i.e. seasons). Movies however are handicapped with this prejudice that they must only tell one story in no more than 2-3 hours and cannot continue the story past that otherwise it's some kind of end of cinema yet TV can tell its stories for however long they want to. It's hypocritical and nonsensical. share
What is this "good TV" ?
Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun!