Is anybody tired of people automatically dismissing a film for being a "reboot" or "sequel?"

I'm a fan of the Doctor Who/James Bond sort of model where the franchise isn't defined by lead actors so much as it is defined by aesthetic and stylistic staples that stay (relatively) constant through otherwise large thematic changes. This lets the franchise be original while still being recognizable. Put another way. You could just as easily make 20-something spy movies about spies other than James Bond using the plots of James Bond movies, but by having them all be "James Bond" we build a more palpable and enjoyable relationship with the genre at large.

I think that's a good place to be in, that allows for originality and creativity while still building on shared cachet of franchising.

Outright originality is great too of course, but it is also just simply harder to accept. We're primed against it in a lot of ways, particularly in today's climate when there is an expectation of lore and universe building attached to just about every major IP. Marvel Movies get to fast track this stuff by having mixed media and decades of cultural awareness support. Something like Jupiter Ascending, by contrast, has to do it all 'in situ' which is asking a lot for a modern audience who is already keeping track of countless other canons. But even for the failure that Jupiter Ascending was(to use your example) the movie did still contain interesting ideas and was at the very least technically very well produced and I don't doubt there'll be people out there who did find a way to relate to the characters(though lord knows how) and if so they'd have likely had as enjoyable of an experience as you had with, say, The Avengers or Star Trek 2009.

/r/movies Thread