www.allouttabubblegum.com

Fundamental problems with remakes/reboots/reimaginings/excessive sequels/prequels:

1. People may not have heard of the original, eliminating name brand value (Scarface)
2. Even if it's better, people may not have liked the original (Friday the 13th)
3. It may have been done so much already that it would stir no interest (the newest Rambo flopped, for instance)
4. It could end up devaluing the original (Highlander 2, Star Wars prequels)
5. It could take away from the main character's personality (every horror remake and prequel)
6. It will never live up to it's hype
7. The more excitement it creates, the more hatred it will recieve if it turns out bad, as it often does (Superman Returns)
8. The series may have gone on so long the current generation of the demographic may never have heard of the original (Live Free or Die Hard)
9. There could be so many entries into the franchise it becomes diluted (people lose the Batmans and the Dark Knights amongst the Batman & Robins and Batman Forevers)
10. It could be in-name-only and anger the fans of the original (Troll sequels)
11. The desire to shove in more plot points and exciting moments to keep it interesting drown the movie in pointless crap (Spiderman 3, Get Carter remake)
12. The original may have an actor who was well liked, but didn't return, making the movie that much worse (The Crow sequels)
13. THE INDUSTRY IS OUT OF IDEAS. THEY REMADE LET THE RIGHT ONE IN AFTER 2 YEARS AND ARE ALREADY REMAKING MR. & MRS. SMITH WITH ACTORS MORE 'HIP' TO KIDS THAN JOLIE AND PITT.

So many well made points. This madness has to stop before it multiplies!

Another point, why does everything have ot be PG-13, CGI heavy, and kid friendly? The original people who watched were late teens and adults. And it's not like the kids want to see these movies anyway. Thery're more into Twilight and Transformers and those kind of movies, so what's the point of making it PG-13?

Not everything is violent enough to be R and not all PG13 films suck and feature amateur teen vamps or ugly cousins of the Terminator.

There are plenty of good PG-13 rated movies, but it's when they don't follow the source material and make it kid friendly.

I'm pretty sure that films like Behind Enemy Lines could've gone either way and it was just as entertaining as Windtalkers and Black Hawk Down.

SWAT and Bourne Identity movies could've been R though. However, films like Shooter, First Blood and The Matrix really weren't too violent for today's standards and could easily be PG13 today.

There's no way Shooter could be rated PG-13 with all of that blood and brain matter that got splattered everywhere. First Blood didn't have a whole lot of gore, but Galt's face when he hit the ground was pretty brutal.

Shooter was pretty damn bloody. I was impressed by that. Bourne Identity should have kept to the book, which would have gotten it a solid R rating, but it didn't, it butchered the book and got a solid PG-13. There's no way that movie in it's current state or either of it's sequels were anything close to an R.

Save for those four brief gory headshots and removal of the seven F-bombs, it could be PG-13.

First Blood is basically rated R for that brutality and viscerality but it could work today.

The first one was actually pretty close to the book. It's near the end that it goes it's own way.

People getting shot in the head qualifies as R (something seen in all three movies that most R rated movies earn based on that but since they looked away and didn't focus on it for too long, it didn't get an R rating.

Plus, the deleted scenes have more than 1 F-word and since every one of those movies uses that word once, hmmmm . . .

It's not actually anywhere close to the book. The book is dependent on a cold war setting, with the events spiraling out of Vietnam and conflict with Russia. In the book, Bourne was not actually an assassin, but was a fake assassin, created to root out the infamous (And actually real) assassin Carlos the Jackal by creating a rival. Or something like that. Plus the books were really violent, Conklin played a much bigger role, Marie was Canadian, Bourne was in his 50s and already had a wife and kids who were killed during the Vietnam war...

All sorts of things were cut out of an excellent and original book to create a decent, if not standard spy thriller. And then there are the sequels...

But yeah, from what I remember, First Blood could easily be a PG-13 movie. It wasn't all that violent.