Not everything is a "reboot"

[TomServofan]

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, Maniac, Robocop, Fright Night, Let Me In, the upcoming Overboard, the upcoming Big Trouble in Little China, Dumbo, 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). 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

[AndrewCrossett]

I'm not sure I would even consider the Abramsverse Star Trek a true "reboot" since it acknowledges the existence of the previous Trek, albeit in a different timeline.

"Reboot" has become one of my least favorite buzzwords. If it must be used it should apply only to occasions when a series or franchise is re-started in a way that erases everything previous from continuity. In the case of a movie the correct term is "remake," and I tend to use that term only if the movies were original and not adaptations of a pre-existing work. (Not every version of Alice in Wonderland is a "remake" of the 1903 silent version.)

[Cyke]

I've found this mostly from vapid entertainment "news" sites and shows like Entertainment Tonight, Extra, E!, and such, but it really, incredibly irks me whenever they call a sequel a reboot. Even if much of the cast is returning.

And then there are spin-offs. The upcoming Ocean's 8 is about Danny Ocean's sister. Some of the cast from the Clooney films will return as cameos to help solidify that connection. This movie is set well after the trilogy, though it's not a true sequel because it's not a follow-up. And yet it keeps getting called a reboot. (for that matter, Clooney's Ocean's 11 was a remake, not a reboot. Stop it, E!.).

[ChrisIII]

Yeah, Judi was asked to stick around for the first three Craigs I think in part because Martin Campbell didn't want to lose her as M (He was the guy who cast her in the first place anyway).

Some of the video games such as the Goldeneye remake and the 007 Legends game imply that Bond did some similar missions (although obviously not the ones involving SPECTRE, Moneypenny etc) to his earlier movies between Quantum and Skyfall -Bond does seem to be treated as a sort of aging, experienced agent in at least part of the film. Although the games probably aren't canon as Legends featured Blofeld and SPECTRE, with him based on the 1964-1971 version and not Bond's stepbrother from the last film.

[AdamFTF]

No, they're not all reboots. And not all the Disney live action films coming out are "remakes", but people are going to probably keep calling them that anyway.

[Powerboy]

Reboot is a wrongfully used word. So is remake. As the OP said, "Batman Begins" was not a remake of "Batman" (1989) but a new take on a character, both movies coming from the same source material. I might argue that "Man of Steel" is a remake of "Superman" (1978) because it uses ideas that originated in "Superman" such as artificial intelligence Jor-El, the S as a symbol of the House of El (in MoS chosen by the House of El because it was the symbol of hope) and a number of other specific things that originated in "Superman" and were previously not part of the Superman mythology.

But I would generally say that a new version of a movie is only a remake if the original movie was the first appearance of the character or story.

My personal peeve is the overuse of "trope" to the point I usually stop reading as soon as I see it. Every plot, idea, story and thought seems to be a "trope" in some people's minds. Technically, everything in a story is a trope but to hear some people tell it, all plots and stories are bad because, hey, they have "tropes".

Sorry for the momentary sidetrack.

[Cyke]

My personal peeve is the overuse of "trope" to the point I usually stop reading as soon as I see it. Every plot, idea, story and thought seems to be a "trope" in some people's minds. Technically, everything in a story is a trope but to hear some people tell it, all plots and stories are bad because, hey, they have "tropes".

Maybe not so much an overuse as it is those complainers misunderstanding of the word "trope." Those who see the word "trope" as a negative the way some people tell it (like you said) is akin to complaining about chemicals because they think that chemicals are inherently toxic when, in reality, almost everything around us and about us aside from light, heat, and energy are made of chemical compositions.

Tropes aren't inherently good or bad, but they're the chemical compositions of any story because they come from shared experiences and shared knowledge. Even neanderthals with cave paintings had references that their fellow cavemen could understand in order to express themselves -- just a way to convey a concept without having to go into all the details.

[Sighphi]

Remake, reboot, remaining are all the same. for some reason remake fell out of style so a new word came into use.

[AJBopp]

My personal peeve is the overuse of "trope" to the point I usually stop reading as soon as I see it. Every plot, idea, story and thought seems to be a "trope" in some people's minds. Technically, everything in a story is a trope but to hear some people tell it, all plots and stories are bad because, hey, they have "tropes".

Sorry for the momentary sidetrack.

Same. The minute I see the word I know the author doesn't really have an argument, and doesn't particularly know or care what they are saying. They are just writing to vent negative emotion. Which isn't necessarily bad, but doesn't interest me.

[SpiderClops]

Reboot is a wrongfully used word. So is remake. As the OP said, "Batman Begins" was not a remake of "Batman" (1989) but a new take on a character, both movies coming from the same source material. I might argue that "Man of Steel" is a remake of "Superman" (1978) because it uses ideas that originated in "Superman" such as artificial intelligence Jor-El, the S as a symbol of the House of El (in MoS chosen by the House of El because it was the symbol of hope) and a number of other specific things that originated in "Superman" and were previously not part of the Superman mythology.

But I would generally say that a new version of a movie is only a remake if the original movie was the first appearance of the character or story.

My personal peeve is the overuse of "trope" to the point I usually stop reading as soon as I see it. Every plot, idea, story and thought seems to be a "trope" in some people's minds. Technically, everything in a story is a trope but to hear some people tell it, all plots and stories are bad because, hey, they have "tropes".

Sorry for the momentary sidetrack.

*gives thumbs up* Same goes for 'formulaic storytelling'.

[AJBopp]

A term that's not used often enough is "re-imagining." Seven Samurai to The Magnificent Seven, for example. I would also use this term to apply to Star Trek 2009. Even though that movie claims to exist in the original continuity, the tech and design tell a distinctly different story.

[ChrisIII]

It's kind of it does and doesn't-while Nimoy's spock and Nero are from the original continuity at some point past TNG/DS9/VOY (During a time when they've developed a new form of 'beaming' and the red matter thing, but still feasible since we don't really know much about what happened after "Nemesis" tech-wise), the Narada/Kelvin battle seemingly changed events/created a 'branching' timeline (The Kelvin timeline), where it's possible some of the tech evolved differently due to Starfleet studying the data from the Narada or something like that (Although it's sort of dropped from the film itself, there are deleted scenes that imply the Narada was also in Klingon custody, with a similar outcome, possibly also explaining why the Klingon's moon is already screwed up in "Into Darkness" as well).


The IDW comics did sort of do something similar to the Bond video games though, at least at first, by retelling TOS stories but with the '09 'look'.

[AJBopp]

It's kind of it does and doesn't-while Nimoy's spock and Nero are from the original continuity at some point past TNG/DS9/VOY (During a time when they've developed a new form of 'beaming' and the red matter thing, but still feasible since we don't really know much about what happened after "Nemesis" tech-wise), the Narada/Kelvin battle seemingly changed events/created a 'branching' timeline (The Kelvin timeline), where it's possible some of the tech evolved differently due to Starfleet studying the data from the Narada or something like that (Although it's sort of dropped from the film itself, there are deleted scenes that imply the Narada was also in Klingon custody, with a similar outcome, possibly also explaining why the Klingon's moon is already screwed up in "Into Darkness" as well).


The IDW comics did sort of do something similar to the Bond video games though, at least at first, by retelling TOS stories but with the '09 'look'.

The Kelvin tech and design was distinctly different from anything in TOS and earlier. That ship completely (and, tbh, necessarily) completely re-imagined the pre-divergence era.

[Da Boat]

Remake is something that is directly linked to one particular movie. Like Magnificent 7, they remade it based on one movie. Same thing for the Fly. Or House of Wax. Reboots are not based on one movie but on a particular character or franchise.

There are two sorts of reboots like Batman Begins was to Batman & Robin, it was a true reboot cause it started from scratch. X-Men: First Class after X-Men: The Last Stand was a soft reboot cause it stayed in the same Universe.

[Soubhagya]

Reboot is a wrongfully used word. So is remake. As the OP said, "Batman Begins" was not a remake of "Batman" (1989) but a new take on a character, both movies coming from the same source material. I might argue that "Man of Steel" is a remake of "Superman" (1978) because it uses ideas that originated in "Superman" such as artificial intelligence Jor-El, the S as a symbol of the House of El (in MoS chosen by the House of El because it was the symbol of hope) and a number of other specific things that originated in "Superman" and were previously not part of the Superman mythology.

But I would generally say that a new version of a movie is only a remake if the original movie was the first appearance of the character or story.

My personal peeve is the overuse of "trope" to the point I usually stop reading as soon as I see it. Every plot, idea, story and thought seems to be a "trope" in some people's minds. Technically, everything in a story is a trope but to hear some people tell it, all plots and stories are bad because, hey, they have "tropes".

Sorry for the momentary sidetrack.

Hmmm. I did not consider Man of Steel that way. But i think there is a point. Batman(1989) did not dwell in the origin of Batman. But both Superman and Man of Steel did. You have a point.

But i thought remakes try to be similar to older films. You make the same thing all over again with some changes. In that respect MoS changed a lot. Symbol being of the house of El is now part of Superman's canon in comics. I think at least since Birthright. And the main story was very different. So, i don't think i can agree with calling it a remake.


However, i do agree about this thing called 'tropes'. I just don't get it. Its overused. And it does not mean anything negative. Cyke put it really well.

I feel that its mostly used to find problems when the person is trying hard to find something negative.