Imprinting on media

[briggart]

I was going to say yes, but on second thought I'm not so sure. For me at least.

First Star Wars I remember seeing is Jedi in theater, when I was 8-9, and today my favorite SW is still the OT (and Rogue One/Andor). I think the prequels are OK, but not great, and the sequels felt like a wasted opportunity. I'm particularly annoyed by things like The Acolyte or Solo (which I liked as a SW movie, just not as Han backstory).

First Superman I was exposed to were Reeve's movies. I think I liked them as a kid, but now I'm mostly indifferent to them. As a teen I was mostly into X-Men comics so I don't really know much about comic Superman, and to me Man of Steel is the best superman movie (haven't seen the last one though).

I was never fond of Spider-Man in the comics, didn't particularly like the first two iterations of movie Spidey, but I really like the current MCU one.

I could go on and find lots of cases in which the first iteration of piece of media I was exposed to defined how I feel about reboots/sequels/etc. but also several examples in which I grew to like something long after I first encountered it. I'm not sure which of the two groups is larger.

 

[pukunui]

I think my most visceral reaction to a new version of an old property was Mission: Impossible, because of the way it utterly betrays the old shows. The TV version (both 60s and 80s) were ensemble shows, where a group of exceptionally skilled agents with specialized skills go on missions all over the world to overthrow dictators or catch international criminals and so on. I had good memories of the 80s show – it was schlock, but good schlock. So I was looking forward to the Mission: Impossible movie... where they pretty much started with eliminating Ethan Hunt's team, making it mostly a Tom Cruise solo show, and then turning Jim Phelps into a traitor on top of that! Yuck. Do not want. I hear the other movies are pretty good action movies, but I can't bring myself to watching them.

I've never watched the original Mission: Impossible show myself, but my parents did, and this was exactly their reaction to the first M:I movie when we went to see it in the theater together however long ago that was.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think my most visceral reaction to a new version of an old property was Mission: Impossible, because of the way it utterly betrays the old shows.

I saw the movie trailer for the first one, and single-handedly stayed away in droves.

I had a similar reaction to Nick Cage’s version of The Wicker Man. The trailer revealed changed premises galore, so I didn’t bother with it.

 

[Ryujin]

I think my most visceral reaction to a new version of an old property was Mission: Impossible, because of the way it utterly betrays the old shows. The TV version (both 60s and 80s) were ensemble shows, where a group of exceptionally skilled agents with specialized skills go on missions all over the world to overthrow dictators or catch international criminals and so on. I had good memories of the 80s show – it was schlock, but good schlock. So I was looking forward to the Mission: Impossible movie... where they pretty much started with eliminating Ethan Hunt's team, making it mostly a Tom Cruise solo show, and then turning Jim Phelps into a traitor on top of that! Yuck. Do not want. I hear the other movies are pretty good action movies, but I can't bring myself to watching them.

Another blatant case of a property being sacrificed on the altar of making it a vehicle for a star. Stallone's "Judge Dredd" was another.

 

[payn]

For my money, that man did ONE good movie- Legend- and so far, everyone has had the sense to leave it alone.

I loved Tom Cruise in the first Jack Reacher movie. They did not have the sense to leave it alone and made a really bad sequel.

 

[Ryujin]

I loved Tom Cruise in the first Jack Reacher movie. They did not have the sense to leave it alone and made a really bad sequel.

Fans of the books were really annoyed that they picked 5'7" Tom Cruise to play a character that's supposed to be a genius level 6'5", 250 pound meat wall. Alan Ritchson, in the streaming series, is a much better fit.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

One example is Blade Runner. It came out nine years before I was born, but I saw it when I was around 15 or 16 and it's been one of my favorite, if not my favorite movie since then. I was so ready to dislike Blade Runner 2049. I kept saying that Blade Runner didn't need a sequel, and it would ruin the original. I walked into the theater ready to hate it. And I left in love. It's just a good movie, very respectful of the original. It builds on it but is its own thing.

First time I watched Blade Runner 2049, I turned it off when Deckard showed up because I was so afraid they were going to try to wrap the central mystery of the first movie up in a neat bow. I was very relieved that they did not.

I think that some source material is just better suited to being either campy, or serious. Some can go wither way equally well. I think that Conan needs a certain degree of camp for it to be the most true to its source. Robocop? Serious just doesn't work for it, as the source is meant to be a cutting criticism of capitalism. Battlestar Galactica was campy more because of when it was made, than it was inherent to the story. The themes were generally pretty serious, so it could work in a serious adaptation.

(I will not mention "Starship Troopers." I will not mention "Starship Troopers." I will not mention "Starship Troopers.")

Agreed. Jason Momoa was a decent Conan, but it lacked the over-the-top quality of the original. Like, the 1982 Conan is positively operatic. It's full of bombast, great mirths and melancholies.

Robocop without the satire is a shell. The remake proved that. It had its moments, don't get me wrong, but it lacked the touch of the original. It's star Joel Kinnaman has said that they would've been better off just making their own movie than calling it Robocop. I would've loved to see the movie we glimpse in the first couple of minutes, about the military use of robots abroad and a sinister corporation trying to manipulate sentiment into allowing it at home.

Paul Verhoeven is the man!

Yes, especially for that which shall not be named!

He really is. Dude managed to produce subversive blockbusters at every turn.

For my money, that man did ONE good movie- Legend- and so far, everyone has had the sense to leave it alone.

I would also put Interview with the Vampire out there. It's since been surpassed by the TV series in my opinion, but Tom Cruise played so far against type with that one, and nailed it.

 

[payn]

Fans of the books were really annoyed that they picked 5'7" Tom Cruise to play a character that's supposed to be a genius level 6'5", 250 pound meat wall. Alan Ritchson, in the streaming series, is a much better fit.

I agree Richardson is a better physical fit, but Cruise nailed the smarts bit. I wasnt too worried about being a "HUGE" dude im more interested in the smarts and snappy line delivery (Richardson does well there too)

 

[Ryujin]

I agree Richardson is a better physical fit, but Cruise nailed the smarts bit. I wasnt too worried about being a "HUGE" dude im more interested in the smarts and snappy line delivery (Richardson does well there too)

The problem comes when people, who know the character as physically intimidating, see a small man in that role. I wouldn't exactly call Cruise physically intimidating, in appearance. It's kind of a core part of the character, for readers.

EDIT - For context I'm a whole 2" taller than Cruise. Arms like pipe cleaners. Shaved head. Grey/white Van Dyke. Only a small subset of people find me intimidating, possible because I don't emote much and have RBF, but I'm not sure that I'd call it physically intimidating. At least not in the same manner.

 

[payn]

The problem comes when people, who know the character as physically intimidating, see a small man in that role. I wouldn't exactly call Cruise physically intimidating, in appearance. It's kind of a core part of the character, for readers.

EDIT - For context I'm a whole 2" taller than Cruise. Arms like pipe cleaners. Shaved head. Grey/white Van Dyke. Only a small subset of people find me intimidating, possible because I don't emote much and have RBF, but I'm not sure that I'd call it physically intimidating. At least not in the same manner.

I think they went in a good direction where Cruise wasnt intimidating physically in appearance, but once the fight starts folks quickly understood they had made an error in judgement. It added to the intelligence part that attracts me to the character. I wasnt as married to HUGE dude as a lot of other readers I guess.