Voltron

[vcassel]

If all you want is butts in seats...

Well, yeah. That's usually the main goal for a movie like this that needs a bunch of money thrown at it. You kinda want to make back investor monies and turn a profit so you can hopefully do it all over again. Otherwise, why should a studio bother with this? Because Voltron really needs to be done some sort of artistic justice? It's a kid cartoon used to sell toys! That's exactly the point of wanting to make this into a film now--it's multi-profitable. It's not like they're going to stick to Voltron's roots (however ridiculous they may be), slap a hard R rating on it, and survive on integrity alone.

Interestingly, I'm reminded of the hubbub over 2009's Star Trek. I had a lot of people tell me that it was imperative that it be adapted to appeal to a wider audience.

And that's exactly why it worked. You didn't have to be a geek to get it; it was by far the most universal Trek film.

I for the life of me never understood why it was so imperative -- so that people who didn't like Star Trek suddenly would?

I'm really sorry, but, um, yeah. If you're knowingly trying to restart a franchise and make it profitable again to keep it going, then it's probably a good idea. This isn't a given?

Why would I, as a fan, want to support the continuation of the franchise if it was turned into something I hated?

Then don't. But if the previous incarnation of that particular franchise was truly able to survive on fan/geek cred alone, they would never of had to go the route they very eventually did.

Sounds like a girlfriend who tries to change everything about you.

Nah, don't take it so personally. To misquote a great teacher on the matter of becoming a profitable filmmaker (i.e. one who continues to work): "It's show business, not show art. Renting seats and selling sugar. But, no, you're right--it is an art."

Does anyone here truly believe the studio is planning to sink or swim this on the nostalgia of a bunch of 30 to 40 year olds? It's going to be the same thing the original cartoon was--a commercial for a toy that you have to buy multiple pieces of to complete the whole.

 

[David Jimerson]

I don't take it personally, but the point is -- why bother preserving it if you're going to change everything about it which actually makes it . . . it? There's no requirement that something live on. If it isn't viable as it is, then just let it go. Come up with something new.

Or don't, but it was impressed upon me that if I didn't support the name in whatever the incarnation, then I wasn't really a fan. Me, I'd think it makes me more of a fan if it takes more than just slapping the name on it to move me.

 

[Kholi]

If the Spirit is there then I'm fine with it.

Unlike the Uncharted Movie which will have no sense of the spirit, I wager.

 

[vcassel]

why bother preserving it if you're going to change everything about it which actually makes it . . . it? There's no requirement that something live on. If it isn't viable as it is, then just let it go. Come up with something new.

Because name recognition is the most powerful of marketing tools. That's why the industry is currently crushed under the weight of so many needless prequels, sequels, remakes, and reboots. The studio marketing machine doesn't trust you, the viewer, to want to take a chance on anything new and unfamiliar with your hard earned dollar. And, historically and statistically, they're right.

 

[Kholi]

Because name recognition is the most powerful of marketing tools. That's why the industry is currently crushed under the weight of so many needless prequels, sequels, remakes, and reboots. The studio marketing machine doesn't trust you, the viewer, to want to take a chance on anything new and unfamiliar with your hard earned dollar. And, historically and statistically, they're right.

Sadly, I agree. The risk is too expensive to go on without some sort of brand recognition. The only other way to do it is to do it cheap and take a risk that way... but that's almost impossible for a Studio system to do.

In steps the no budget/independent filmmaker who completes for 100K or so and sales for 1M+. AT that point, with foreign distribution etc, it's almost a no brainer to acquire content for 1M (instead of spending 20M), market it for another 500~1M and make 2 or 3M domestic and foreign.

Really good example (I cite it too much) is MONSTERS. Domestic it's got about 500K under its belt but foreign has hit about 3M so far. That's a good deal, I'd say.

 

[David Jimerson]

I understand why a studio would want to tap into an existing fan base. That's not the question.

 

[Erik Olson]

Well, yeah. That's usually the main goal for a movie like this that needs a bunch of money thrown at it. You kinda want to make back investor monies and turn a profit so you can hopefully do it all over again. Otherwise, why should a studio bother with this? Because Voltron really needs to be done some sort of artistic justice? It's a kid cartoon used to sell toys! That's exactly the point of wanting to make this into a film now--it's multi-profitable. It's not like they're going to stick to Voltron's roots (however ridiculous they may be), slap a hard R rating on it, and survive on integrity alone.

As was said before - don't take the essence of what made it... "it" out to reboot it. Star Trek worked because it was well-written, directed and acted. The backstory, which we've never been given in its entirety was paid in this first new outing. Abrams' universe did keep to the original universe and filled-in some story issues that crept into the franchise over the years of previous features.

The Arus GoLion backstory is strong enough that it doesn't need to be rebooted - it only existed once and it worked. Where it matters is with fathers age 35 - 45, who grew up on the 80s cartoon and who will take their entire family to see the feature based solely on a fifteen-second tease this Christmas season.

Cast?

Keith -
Lance -
Pidge -
Hunk -
Sven -
Allura -
Coran -
King Alfor -
Zarcon -
Lotor -
Witch Haggar -

 

[vcassel]

As was said before - don't take the essence of what made it... "it" out to reboot it.

I know you're not making a direct imperative to me, but to make a point, I'm not. But then I'm not a committee sweating its company's future on sinking millions of dollars in a movie about robot lions that defend the universe or whatever. This doesn't appear to be anyone's passion project.

The Arus GoLion backstory is strong enough that it doesn't need to be rebooted - it only existed once and it worked.

C'mon, you really think the suits would have any idea what you're talking about? "Arus GoLion backstory? Just tell me how these robot things relate to today's audience!"

Pidge - Jay Baruchel or Christopher Mintz-Plasse
Hunk - Seth Rogen (I'm on an Undeclared kick)

That's all I have. It'll be hard to get good, established actors together on an ensemble action flick like this. It's been done before with X-men, but I have a feeling this will end up being closer to G.I. Joe.

 

[jkc123]

Because name recognition is the most powerful of marketing tools. That's why the industry is currently crushed under the weight of so many needless prequels, sequels, remakes, and reboots. The studio marketing machine doesn't trust you, the viewer, to want to take a chance on anything new and unfamiliar with your hard earned dollar. And, historically and statistically, they're right.

I agree that name recognition matters but IMHO, if you stray from the original essence of the material then it the property becomes something else entirely. For example, change the names of the robots in Transformers and you can title the film "Giant Robots Fighting" or something.

 

[Erik Olson]

The minds behind these [mis]adventures know the world would end if Peter Cullen didn't play Optimus, but they discard every other element of the original series.