When someone says "Magnificent Seven the new movie is a reboot" and one says "it's a remake" and the other guy says "same thing", well let me tell you something, they are not the same thing but 2 separate things and time for some education from a highly smart film person like myself.
Sometimes the word "reboot" needs to be retired on film and a few other terms.
DEFINITION*: verb – to restart (a computer) by loading the operating system; boot again. noun – an act or instance of restarting a computer.
This word, as the definition indicates, is a computer term and had no meaning prior to the advent of PCs in the home and at work. The term was hijacked by the motion picture industry in 2005 with Batman Begins. With four prior movies produced by Warner Bros., the last of which was an unmitigated disaster, the studio wanted everyone to know that this film was something new and unrelated to the previous series. It’s no secret that a movie series will sometimes ignore a movie that bombed and just move on with the series as if that embarrassing entry never happened, so WB could have done that with Christopher Nolan’s film. That wouldn’t exactly work, though, because Nolan wanted to tell the origins of Batman, something that had not been done successfully with any of the previous movies; his take would then be a prequel except for the fact that he wanted to include the Joker in his own sequel, thereby nullifying Tim Burton’s Batman. This discontinuity would confuse the audience–how could there be two Jokers, especially with completely different origins and behaviors? Simple, this was a new series that had nothing to do with the previous films. But it wasn’t a remake of the 1989 movie because, while based on the same source material, it told a completely different story. They needed a new way of explaining what they were doing–hence the cribbing from the computer world.
Audiences bought it. They understood that the series was being “rebooted,” meaning that the old was being erased and a new “operating system” was being written in its place. The old series still existed, but this was a different take on the Batman mythology. The problem was that since the word “reboot” worked in this case, people began adopting it to refer to every instance of a new version of a known product.
Superman Returns has been dubbed a "reboot", it's not! it's part of the same franchise and ignores 3 and 4, it's a retcon sequel as it's in the same franchise.
Now, every remake and sequel is called a reboot. Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is made by other people because the first one was deemed a bad movie, let’s call it a reboot to distance itself from the original! New versions of old horror movies are made and are dubbed “reboots,” even though they tell the same story as the original movies, though perhaps elaborating the story. Even though Halloween, Friday the 13th, and Nightmare on Elm Street all spawned multiple sequels, their “reboots” retold their origins. Guess what? Those are remakes, plain and simple. You can argue that the recent versions started the series over again, but unlike Batman Begins, they don’t do a completely different take on the material.
Even films like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I Spit on Your Grave, The Hills Have Eyes, Last House on the Left, The Crazies, Poltergeist, Maniac, Robocop, Fright Night, Let Me In, the upcoming Overboard, the upcoming Big Trouble in Little China, Lady and the Tramp (the upcoming movie), the upcoming Lion King etc. are remakes, plain and simple.
A not so recent phenomenon is the act of rebooting a franchise. Ever since “Batman Begins” was a success, studios have increasingly been rebooting film franchises to introduce to new audiences. The way we defined a reboot and how often we used the word has also changed. At first it seem to make sense, “Batman Begins” and “The Amazing Spider-Man” all being labeled with the term, reboot. Why does that make sense? Well, because those movies are the restart of a preexisting franchise but also is not classified as a remake (which is a whole different thing entirely). “Batman Begins” is just starting a new franchise with the Batman character (it’s not a remake of the 1989 Tim Burton “Batman” film) which is a completely different story than 1989's movie. Somewhere though we seem to lose our basic understanding of what this word actually means. Soon movies like “Robocop”, “A Nightmare on Elm Street” Started being labeled a reboot by countless film journalists and critics.
Recently I’ve noticed people labeling certain movies that are not reboots with the term, reboot. The latest “Nightmare on Elm Street” for example is simply a remake of the original 1984 Wes Craven film (not a reboot). The new version takes the original film and redoes it. Sure, they may be trying to start another franchise, but it is a remake first and foremost. I would make the same argument with the 2014 “Robocop”. It may have some changes to the story, but it’s the filmmakers are redoing the original 1987 story. The remake is not just taking the character and doing something completely different, it’s the same general story. It seems now the two words are used interchangeably when there is a distinction to be had.
True reboots are:
Casino Royale since it truly started the series from scratch, adapting the first James Bond book Ian Flemming wrote (the only time the book was accurately adapted for the big screen), and ignored everything that came before (though Judi Dench reprising her role as M was confusing in this context).
Spider-Man Homecoming did the Batman Begins route and ignoring 2 established series and being part of the MCU.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes due to the fact that it tells the origins of how the apes took over out world but in a completely different manner than the movie it closely emulates, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.
Star Trek is another example as it reboots the series back to basics in an alternate universe.
Man of Steel is another example that ignores the previous Superman movies even the retcon sequel Superman Returns. It is a new take on the Superman legend.
“Reboot” is a term that is not only incorrectly attributed to the wrong type of movies, but it is overused. It’s now jumped ship to other types of entertainment. Rather than use it as a catch-all for any adaptation, we need to return to using the correct terminologies
Last edited by DenOfEarth; 10-27-2018 at 06:42 PM.
[Show spoiler]When someone says "Magnificent Seven the new movie is a reboot" and one says "it's a remake" and the other guy says "same thing", well let me tell you something, they are not the same thing but 2 separate things and
time for some education from a highly smart film person like myself.
[Show spoiler]Sometimes the word "reboot" needs to be retired on film and a few other terms.
DEFINITION*: verb – to restart (a computer) by loading the operating system; boot again. noun – an act or instance of restarting a computer.
This word, as the definition indicates, is a computer term and had no meaning prior to the advent of PCs in the home and at work. The term was hijacked by the motion picture industry in 2005 with Batman Begins. With four prior movies produced by Warner Bros., the last of which was an unmitigated disaster, the studio wanted everyone to know that this film was something new and unrelated to the previous series. It’s no secret that a movie series will sometimes ignore a movie that bombed and just move on with the series as if that embarrassing entry never happened, so WB could have done that with Christopher Nolan’s film. That wouldn’t exactly work, though, because Nolan wanted to tell the origins of Batman, something that had not been done successfully with any of the previous movies; his take would then be a prequel except for the fact that he wanted to include the Joker in his own sequel, thereby nullifying Tim Burton’s Batman. This discontinuity would confuse the audience–how could there be two Jokers, especially with completely different origins and behaviors? Simple, this was a new series that had nothing to do with the previous films. But it wasn’t a remake of the 1989 movie because, while based on the same source material, it told a completely different story. They needed a new way of explaining what they were doing–hence the cribbing from the computer world.
Audiences bought it. They understood that the series was being “rebooted,” meaning that the old was being erased and a new “operating system” was being written in its place. The old series still existed, but this was a different take on the Batman mythology. The problem was that since the word “reboot” worked in this case, people began adopting it to refer to every instance of a new version of a known product.
Superman Returns has been dubbed a "reboot", it's not! it's part of the same franchise and ignores 3 and 4, it's a retcon sequel as it's in the same franchise.
Now, every remake and sequel is called a reboot. Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is made by other people because the first one was deemed a bad movie, let’s call it a reboot to distance itself from the original! New versions of old horror movies are made and are dubbed “reboots,” even though they tell the same story as the original movies, though perhaps elaborating the story. Even though Halloween, Friday the 13th, and Nightmare on Elm Street all spawned multiple sequels, their “reboots” retold their origins. Guess what? Those are remakes, plain and simple. You can argue that the recent versions started the series over again, but unlike Batman Begins, they don’t do a completely different take on the material.
Even films like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I Spit on Your Grave, The Hills Have Eyes, Last House on the Left, The Crazies, Maniac, Robocop, Fright Night, Let Me In, the upcoming Overboard, the upcoming Big Trouble in Little China, Lady and the Tramp (the upcoming movie), the upcoming Lion King etc. are remakes, plain and simple.
A not so recent phenomenon is the act of rebooting a franchise. Ever since “Batman Begins” was a success, studios have increasingly been rebooting film franchises to introduce to new audiences. The way we defined a reboot and how often we used the word has also changed. At first it seem to make sense, “Batman Begins” and “The Amazing Spider-Man” all being labeled with the term, reboot. Why does that make sense? Well, because those movies are the restart of a preexisting franchise but also is not classified as a remake (which is a whole different thing entirely). “Batman Begins” is just starting a new franchise with the Batman character (it’s not a remake of the 1989 Tim Burton “Batman” film) which is a completely different story than 1989's movie. Somewhere though we seem to lose our basic understanding of what this word actually means. Soon movies like “Robocop”, “A Nightmare on Elm Street” Started being labeled a reboot by countless film journalists and critics.
Recently I’ve noticed people labeling certain movies that are not reboots with the term, reboot. The latest “Nightmare on Elm Street” for example is simply a remake of the original 1984 Wes Craven film (not a reboot). The new version takes the original film and redoes it. Sure, they may be trying to start another franchise, but it is a remake first and foremost. I would make the same argument with the 2014 “Robocop”. It may have some changes to the story, but it’s the filmmakers are redoing the original 1987 story. The remake is not just taking the character and doing something completely different, it’s the same general story. It seems now the two words are used interchangeably when there is a distinction to be had.
True reboots are:
Casino Royale since it truly started the series from scratch, adapting the first James Bond book Ian Flemming wrote (the only time the book was accurately adapted for the big screen), and ignored everything that came before (though Judi Dench reprising her role as M was confusing in this context).
Spider-Man Homecoming did the Batman Begins route and ignoring 2 established series and being part of the MCU.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes due to the fact that it tells the origins of how the apes took over out world but in a completely different manner than the movie it closely emulates, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.
Star Trek is another example as it reboots the series back to basics in an alternate universe.
Man of Steel is another example that ignores the previous Superman movies even the retcon sequel Superman Returns. It is a new take on the Superman legend.
“Reboot” is a term that is not only incorrectly attributed to the wrong type of movies, but it is overused. It’s now jumped ship to other types of entertainment. Rather than use it as a catch-all for any adaptation, we need to return to using the correct terminologies
I ed at that part and couldn’t take the rest of your seriously as a result. Besides, that’s a lot of typing for a concept that could probably be summarized efficiently in less than 50 words.
Friday the 13th 2009 definitely is a reboot rather than a remake. Since the storyline and characters outside of Jason are all new, plus Jason and not Pamela is the killer.
I always viewed Star Trek as a loose sequel. Since it has continuity with the other films, and uses time travel as a device to start its own timeline rather than acted as if the other films never existed
Friday the 13th 2009 definitely is a reboot rather than a remake. Since the storyline and characters outside of Jason are all new, plus Jason and not Pamela is the killer.
I always viewed Star Trek as a loose sequel. Since it has continuity with the other films, and uses time travel as a device to start its own timeline rather than acted as if the other films never existed
But do you agree Rob Zombie's Halloween and Elm Street are remakes?
Maybe reboot is a key word that gets more hits than remake, or maybe internet journalists/bloggers are all idiots (they certainly don't care about getting anything wrong, they just want to be first to get the most clicks). Numerous articles called the Twin Peaks continuation a reboot. That was a new IQ low. Along with everyone who calls the American Idol revival a reboot. New network, exact same damn thing.
Star Trek is another example as it reboots the series back to basics in an alternate universe.
Not really. Different timeline, yes, but still the same universe. This is prequel and sequel at the same time, not a reboot. It is still connected to previous movies.
Callinge remake a "reboot" isnt that big concern for me, the bigger problem is, people tend to call sequels "reboots" For example some sequels made many years after original are called reboots : Mad max Fury Road is a sequel but I've read here and there that this is a reboot (it's not). Blade Runner 2049 - same situation. "Series has been rebooted" Nope. It hasn't. There are also so called "soft-reboots" (more like semi-retcon-sequels) like G.I.Joe Retaliation. Fourth Transformers was called a reboot just because it changed some things and concentrate on other characters. But it's still sequel, nothing else.
Now, if Pirates of Caribbenas series will really drop Johnny Depp/Jack Sparrow there may be a reboot (if they start from scratch and recast Jack) but it may also be sequel, just without Jack, or it may be a prequel with recasted Jack. I really doubt it will be a true reboot.
And another thing - people tend to say that the movies is a "remake" when in reality it's just another adaptation of the same book (not a remake) or depiction of the same historical events (hence, "Cameron's "titanic" is not a remake of any previous Titanics). But there are some cases when the movie is closer to previous adaptation than to the source material, then, it IS remake - like Total Recall'2012.
I had no idea people called Blade Runner 2049 a reboot. So I did a search, and yup, Vanity Fair calls it a reboot, among many others.
It was a reboot in the sense that it was meant to revive a franchise that never existed. So it was a soft-reboot in the sense The Force Awakens and Jurassic World were. Hollywood probably doesn't want to call things rivals, as it evokes dead things from the paste!
But 2049 is probably a reboot as much as a Color of Money is to The Hustler ...
Sequel after some years - reboot.
Restart of the franchise from scratch - reboot.
Sequel that reshapes franchise - reboot.
Remake - reboot.
For me, that term has one proper meaning - start from scratch with no real connection to previous movies, but NOT making the same movie again (like Magnificent Seven which is basically remake of a remake).
So...
Batman Begins - Reboot
Casino Royale - reboot (even if it has Judi Dench)
The Amazing Spider-Man - reboot
Dredd (2012) - reboot
Man of Steel - reboot
Kong: Skull Island - reboot
but...
King Kong (2005) - remake
Total Recall (2012) - remake of Verhoeven's movie (closer to it than to source material)
Mad Max Fury Road - sequel
Transformers AoE - sequel
PoTC: On Stranger Tides- refocused sequel
G.I.Joe Retaliation - sequel (although reshaped a bit)
Blade Runner 2049 - sequel
Superman Returns - sequel (retconning two last sequels)
Highlander III - sequel to original Highlander which looks a little too much like a remake
Conan The Barbarian (2011), Robocop (2013) - well, something between remake and reboot I suppose
Star Trek (2009) - that's a tough one, probably prequel/sequel with some elements of reboot.
Prometheus - prequel
Alien Vs Predator - It was meant to be prequel, but now it seems like it's out of canon "elseworld story".
Jackson's Lord of the Rings - not a remake of Bakshi's version, but another adaptation of the same source material
When someone says it's a reboot it's simply shorthand for the narrative that comes out FROM hollywood itself. It's not a technical term we need to care about clearly defining? Hollywood likes to call it "rebooting" to seem more creative and/or trendy in nature, and when they're bad, that language can become a pejorative by viewers hating them.
For someone so knowledgeable you seem to be clueless as to the phenomenon of colloquialism and the use of a shorthand in wider society. In general no one cares for express accuracy when discussing something they want everyone to understand.
Last edited by nick4Knight; 10-28-2018 at 11:45 AM.
The problem is, using the same term for completely different things creates confusion. For example - if there is a news about some film series to be rebooted, and everyone is using the term with different meaning, we never know what the hell is going on, and what that particular news is really about.
Of course, in many cases that may be intentional, creating confusion leads to discussions, and growing interest in the "rebooted" subject, which, in turn, enables better analysis of opinions about it, and determine course of further actions.
Superman Returns has been dubbed a "reboot", it's not! it's part of the same franchise and ignores 3 and 4, it's a retcon sequel as it's in the same franchise.
In addition to ignoring 3 and 4, it also isn't consistent with either version of 2. Something very much like 2 seems to have happened in its universe, but without the specifics matching up. It doesn't seem to have any issues matching up with the first film... unless you count that the 70s/80s have become the 2000s after only a five year gap in the storyline. So, overall it's arguably rebootish in nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenOfEarth
Star Trek is another example as it reboots the series back to basics in an alternate universe.
Star Trek should never be included in a list of "true reboots".
In addition to ignoring 3 and 4, it also isn't consistent with either version of 2. Something very much like 2 seems to have happened in its universe, but without the specifics matching up. It doesn't seem to have any issues matching up with the first film... unless you count that the 70s/80s have become the 2000s after only a five year gap in the storyline. So, overall it's arguably rebootish in nature.
Star Trek should never be included in a list of "true reboots".
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Not everything is a "reboot".
ed at that part and couldn’t take the rest of your 
seriously as a result. Besides, that’s a lot of typing for a concept that could probably be summarized efficiently in less than 50 words. 
Linear Mode
