I think you are somehow right while otherwise not. It is true that in the first two Craig-movies we see a fresh and new Bond, who is eager to get into the action and is maybe also driven by a bit of a juvenile arrogance (and passionate vengeance in Quantum of Solace). And yet in Skyfall we see a mature Bond who might still not be really grown up emotionally ...
There's an answer in the article:
While some at Warners consider the title among the studio's sacrosanct
properties, like Casablanca, others see a need to redevelop it in an
environment where studios are desperately looking for ways to monetize
their libraries and branded IP is hard to come by.
Basically, they are looking to make more money of an ...
To try to capitalise on the Spiderman name and make money.
To quote from The Huffington Post who covered this:
A fourth installment of the hugely popular [original] Spider-man franchise was
planned, with director Sam Raimi and star Tobey Maguire returning to
their trilogy of films that had earned more than $2.5 billion at the
Remake: Re-making the original film, with minimal or no changes.
I'd say this is wrong. A remake carries the same general plot line, but is often very different from the original. Just thinking of movies like Total Recall (2012) or The Magnificent Seven (2016) (which is, in fact, a "re-imagining" of Seven Samurai (1954)) and they're very different from ...
I actually found this article showing the Hollywood's fastest reboots, some of them below:
Name - Original Film Year release - Reboot Year Release
The Amazing Spider-Man - 2002 - 2012
Rise of the Planet of the Apes - 1968 - 2001
Left Behind - 2005 - 2014
The Incredible Hulk - 2003 - 2008
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - 2007 - 2014
While re-imaginings of stories have been told over and over in film and other media since long before film began, the first instance of the use of the term "reboot" was 'The Incredible Hulk' in 2008, which came out only five years after the previous movie 'Hulk'.
The studio felt that they needed a word to help describe what they were doing with the movie ...
No, actors do not get royalties from reboots. The characters are the property of the writer(s), and only they are capable of getting royalties from reboots.
Not sure who flagged this, but they're more than welcome to read this overly complex legalese on the subject.
How about the Punisher movies? 2004 and 2008. The second one was intended as a sequel but ended up being a reboot. Also, there was a 1989 Punisher movie, but I'm
not sure it counts. If it does, there are 2 reboots in 19 years.
Both contain references to the modern world, the original series being set after the lunar landings, and the re-imaged series being set 150,000 years before today.
The implication of the final aired episode, "The Hand of God", was that the original series took place after the Apollo 11 moon landing in July 1969 (as the Galactica receives a television ...
I don't think it can be a sequel as both series show the destruction of, and evacuation from, Caprica and its colonies. The final episodes of the new series show that the phrase "all this has happened before..." refers to the fact