Why reboot Jamanji


I understand wanting to reboot big franchise like Spider-Man and Batman but to do a reboot just for the sake of one movie just seems pointless the makers of this movie should be ashamed!

reply

Although I'm actually a huge fan of Jumanji and don't want to see a "re-imagining", I'll play Devil's advocate here and list the reasons why Hollywood might want to remake the film.

1. Obviously, a big draw would be to cash in on Robin Williams' name. I don't think they expected the backlash, but to redo a Robin Williams film has probably been on some peoples' minds for a while.

2. The movie hasn't aged well. It takes place in 1995, that mystical time that I remember so well but most modern kids don't, and therefore has no cell-phones, not enough fart and poop jokes, and doesn't look like a Michael Bay special effects extravaganza. I don't intend to sound like an annoying '90s kid, but back when I was a kid, a good bulk of the movies I watched were very outdated films from the 50s and 60s, and I didn't mind one bit that they didn't all look like Jurassic Park.

3. Speaking of special effects, they really weren't that great to begin with in this film. Even when it first came out I remember thinking the monkeys looked like bad CG, and while a few other effects still hold up, a lot of them just look plain bad. Not to mention, there was one that wasn't even finished: Peter's monkey transformation.

As a practical effects junkie who spends my time playing with latex and silicone, recreating as many effects as I can, I was particularly interested in this one. Turns out, the end result was supposed to be something more akin to Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes costumes, at least in appearance; the function of these prosthetics was totally different. A fully animatronic mask was designed, lengthier arms, etc., but it was just too impractical. Fake hands and arms was especially ill-suited to a film where rolling dice and swinging axes is necessary.

4. Zathura sucked compared to Jumanji. Just my personal opinion there, though.

reply