Not everything is a "reboot"

Egon1982 · 07-11-2019, 08:31 AM

When someone says "The upcoming Look Who's Talking 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 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, Suspiria, Aladdin, 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.

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

*Andrew NDB* · 07-11-2019, 09:54 AM

I agree with you 100%. This is a personal pet peeve of mine, whenever "reboot" is thrown around inappropriately. I mean, we can get into things like, "soft reboot" or "requel," but when you're saying, "that's a reboot" straight up, then that is taking an incarnation of a thing, setting the clock back to 0, wiping out all history there and starting over from scratch. Nothing short of that is a "reboot."

*Andrew NDB* · 07-11-2019, 10:46 AM

The way I see it...

Reboot: Total reset back to 0 of a thing, starting fresh and wiping out all of the old. i.e., "Batman Begins," "Man of Steel," etc..

Soft-reboot: Rearranging or resetting some things of a thing, while leaving other, generally more prominent things alone. This generally comes up in the form of a sequel to something. i.e., "Halloween (2018 )," etc..

Hard reboot: See "reboot."

Requel: (Essentially) a remake of a thing that is a sequel to a preexisting series. i.e., "Escape from L.A.," "Highlander 3," etc..

Relaunch: A direct sequel or new series of a thing set in the same (preexisting) continuity that comes out a long time since it's been seen last. i.e., "Blade Runner 2049," "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle," etc..

Remake: Redoing an existing film en masse. Like from the ground up. Continuity is irrelevant in this case.

Reimagining: Basically a remake, but taking things a step further. Essentially a remake but going WILD with the premise. Anything goes.

Now, some of these aren't mutually exclusive. A relaunch can be a requel, for example, or a soft-reboot, or vice versa. A reimagining can certainly be a reboot. A remake can definitely be a reboot, especially if said remake gets sequels and so on. A "reboot" is pretty much just a reboot, though.

Egon1982 · 07-12-2019, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I agree with you 100%. This is a personal pet peeve of mine, whenever "reboot" is thrown around inappropriately. I mean, we can get into things like, "soft reboot" or "requel," but when you're saying, "that's a reboot" straight up, then that is taking an incarnation of a thing, setting the clock back to 0, wiping out all history there and starting over from scratch. Nothing short of that is a "reboot."

You agree that Elm Street, Suspiria, Halloween (Rob Zombie), Robocop etc. are remakes while Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Batman Begins, Man of Steel, Spider-Man Homecoming, Casino Royale are true reboots?

*Andrew NDB* · 07-12-2019, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Egon1982

You agree that Elm Street, Suspiria, Halloween (Rob Zombie), Robocop etc. are remakes while Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Batman Begins, Man of Steel, Spider-Man Homecoming, Casino Royale are true reboots?

In short... yes! I can't believe I didn't include "remake" in that list. I will edit.

Though about Casino Royale, while it absolutely was a true reboot... my suspicion is that as Craig does his last movie and time goes on, they will retroactively make it... not so. That they will make it more vague, and more like it is a passing of the baton and one continuity. Which is kind of how they should have always approached it.

Skinrash · 07-12-2019, 05:44 AM

I remember this frustrating me as well. My guess is that because the movie industry oversaturated the market with so many bad remakes, the word became associated with crap for a lot of viewers. So Hollywood began using other terms to make their film seem more original.

*neatoman* · 07-12-2019, 05:51 AM

Can we agree that a remake follows the plot of the original, while a reboot just uses the characters?

*Andrew NDB* · 07-12-2019, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neatoman

Can we agree that a remake follows the plot of the original, while a reboot just uses the characters?

It depends.

Mr Salk · 07-12-2019, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neatoman

Can we agree that a remake follows the plot of the original, while a reboot just uses the characters?

Those are reasonable definitions. Depending on the accuracy of the remake.

*Wesley* · 07-12-2019, 12:59 PM

I guess it’s easy to call something a reboot when there are different actors (eg. Superman Returns), but yes the word does get used too often for remakes or continuations.

*Andrew NDB* · 07-12-2019, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wesley

I guess it’s easy to call something a reboot when there are different actors (eg. Superman Returns)

It would be fair to call Superman Returns a "soft reboot." But not a reboot, proper.

*sdp* · 07-12-2019, 11:05 PM

I agree on most but not all of the things Egon1982 and Andrew mention, it's also a pet peeve of mine but the problem is words change and evolve. I actually wrote a big blog post on "educating" people between remake and reboot and got quite far in it when I started to realize that in some circumstances there's plenty of room to debate so I never finished it.

I think it's worth pointing out that in video games remake more or less meant an enhanced version of the same game like Super Mario All Stars 16 bit versions of the 8 bit NES games. The gaming press started using reboots to specify that something wasn't a remake because of it. I actually think this is where the term reboot began to be used.

I mean I remember very well how Planet of the Apes 2001 was called a remake but looking at it now I guess it's more of a reboot while the new films are more of a remake, hell counting time travel shenanigans it could be set in the original timeline.

The terms are used like synonyms so often that they're pretty much the same thing, in the end it doesn't mean much anymore and it's all marketing.

*DarkFell* · 07-13-2019, 12:51 AM

Hollywood needs to get off of it's habit of 're-telling an old story long told' and get back into telling new stories again.

That up there is why I'm tired of revised and redone movies. It's been filmed already; go do something else.

*TheBlueTurtle1* · 07-13-2019, 03:21 AM

The words "reboot" and "remake" shouldn't be a a thing with movies, they should be using new and original ideas, and encouraging creativity, so future generations can be inspired. Create new content and characters and stories

07-11-2019, 08:31 AM	#1
Egon1982 Hench Mutant Join Date: Jan 2019 Location: Planet Mars Posts: 367	Not everything is a "reboot" When someone says "The upcoming Look Who's Talking 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 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, Suspiria, Aladdin, 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. 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

07-11-2019, 09:54 AM	#2
Andrew NDB Weed Whacker Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Auburn, WA Posts: 29,236	I agree with you 100%. This is a personal pet peeve of mine, whenever "reboot" is thrown around inappropriately. I mean, we can get into things like, "soft reboot" or "requel," but when you're saying, "that's a reboot" straight up, then that is taking an incarnation of a thing, setting the clock back to 0, wiping out all history there and starting over from scratch. Nothing short of that is a "reboot." __________________ [ ODYSSEY \| ORIGIN \| THE IMAGE/VOL. 3 CONCLUSION \| THE SHELLSHOCKED PODCAST \| ON FACEBOOK ]

07-11-2019, 10:46 AM	#3
Andrew NDB Weed Whacker Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Auburn, WA Posts: 29,236	The way I see it... Reboot: Total reset back to 0 of a thing, starting fresh and wiping out all of the old. i.e., "Batman Begins," "Man of Steel," etc.. Soft-reboot: Rearranging or resetting some things of a thing, while leaving other, generally more prominent things alone. This generally comes up in the form of a sequel to something. i.e., "Halloween (2018 )," etc.. Hard reboot: See "reboot." Requel: (Essentially) a remake of a thing that is a sequel to a preexisting series. i.e., "Escape from L.A.," "Highlander 3," etc.. Relaunch: A direct sequel or new series of a thing set in the same (preexisting) continuity that comes out a long time since it's been seen last. i.e., "Blade Runner 2049," "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle," etc.. Remake: Redoing an existing film en masse. Like from the ground up. Continuity is irrelevant in this case. Reimagining: Basically a remake, but taking things a step further. Essentially a remake but going WILD with the premise. Anything goes. Now, some of these aren't mutually exclusive. A relaunch can be a requel, for example, or a soft-reboot, or vice versa. A reimagining can certainly be a reboot. A remake can definitely be a reboot, especially if said remake gets sequels and so on. A "reboot" is pretty much just a reboot, though. __________________ [ ODYSSEY \| ORIGIN \| THE IMAGE/VOL. 3 CONCLUSION \| THE SHELLSHOCKED PODCAST \| ON FACEBOOK ] Last edited by Andrew NDB; 07-12-2019 at 01:43 AM.

07-12-2019, 12:59 PM	#10
Wesley Mad Scientist Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Republic of Ireland Posts: 1,589	I guess it’s easy to call something a reboot when there are different actors (eg. Superman Returns), but yes the word does get used too often for remakes or continuations. __________________ Donatello: The tracker! It might work. Donatello goes to the back of the Turtle Van Raphael: Shrewd move, Donatello. If we ignore the problem, it might go away by itself. (from The Mean Machines)

07-12-2019, 11:05 PM	#12
sdp Megan Fox = April Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Tokio, Italy Posts: 9,999	I agree on most but not all of the things Egon1982 and Andrew mention, it's also a pet peeve of mine but the problem is words change and evolve. I actually wrote a big blog post on "educating" people between remake and reboot and got quite far in it when I started to realize that in some circumstances there's plenty of room to debate so I never finished it. I think it's worth pointing out that in video games remake more or less meant an enhanced version of the same game like Super Mario All Stars 16 bit versions of the 8 bit NES games. The gaming press started using reboots to specify that something wasn't a remake because of it. I actually think this is where the term reboot began to be used. I mean I remember very well how Planet of the Apes 2001 was called a remake but looking at it now I guess it's more of a reboot while the new films are more of a remake, hell counting time travel shenanigans it could be set in the original timeline. The terms are used like synonyms so often that they're pretty much the same thing, in the end it doesn't mean much anymore and it's all marketing. __________________ *Bye* *TMNT !!! I'm unaliving tonight* Click to join The Drome Discord server

07-12-2019, 05:44 AM	#6
Skinrash Thug Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 61	I remember this frustrating me as well. My guess is that because the movie industry oversaturated the market with so many bad remakes, the word became associated with crap for a lot of viewers. So Hollywood began using other terms to make their film seem more original.

07-13-2019, 12:51 AM	#13
DarkFell A Crusty Bob Fan Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: At the current moment, on your screen. Posts: 1,978	Hollywood needs to get off of it's habit of 're-telling an old story long told' and get back into telling new stories again. That up there is why I'm tired of revised and redone movies. It's been filmed already; go do something else.

07-13-2019, 03:21 AM	#14
TheBlueTurtle1 Foot Elite Join Date: May 2012 Location: UK Posts: 2,880	The words "reboot" and "remake" shouldn't be a a thing with movies, they should be using new and original ideas, and encouraging creativity, so future generations can be inspired. Create new content and characters and stories __________________ http://jandmdev.deviantart.com/ (My Brother and I have a dev page, I am J, brother is M)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode