You should look up the Jekyll and Hyde show she was in around the same time.
What properties or shows are you surprised nobody has rebooted?
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
You should look up the Jekyll and Hyde show she was in around the same time.
I remember at the time people saying the later seasons were a dip in quality and then the last season was a return to form, and ended strong.
If I recall the guy in the new Michael Knight role came off as bland. Yeah, I wasn't fond of the choice of car for KITT and I don't recall being impressed with KITT's voice either. I guess they couldn't use a Viper to stay away from comparisons with the series Viper, which was a rip off IMO of the original Knight Rider anyway.
Wait, the Ford Knight Rider is in the same continuity as Team Knight Rider?
All in continuity with the original. Each revival attempt ignores the other revivals but acts as a sequel to the original.
Voiced by Val Kilmer. He did come off as the wrong type of voice for it. I did a joke avatar for one of the avatar contests back in the day, with KITT voicing his preference to playing Batman as he had played Batman before voicing the car. " I'm Batman, not this lame-ass Car, Micheal." The new lead was definitely bland.
I'd forgotten about Viper, but it is odd given that Viper had long been off the air, but I don't think it'd be a problem in a future reboot to use the newer redesigned model. Strangely enough, the movie-car version of KITT used in Knight Rider 2000 was much like a Viper, and in red even.
They could go for a female lead and cast Karen Gillen.
This was going to be a continuation, not a full from scratch reboot.
Crap, I thought the Gillan suggestion was for Knight Rider and ignored it, because I don't care about Knight Rider
Now I realize it was Highlander and YES FUCKING PLEASE. That's inspired.
Kristofer Hivju for the villian. Not The Kurgan. Someone new & smarter. More like Kalas, which was already a smarter Kurgan, but with Kristofer's charm and physical presence.
Last edited:
I watched the show until the car became a Transformer.
A lot of people hear reboot and they assume it's going to start over from scratch, so I like to specify if it's a continuation or from scratch reboot when talking about this kind of stuff.
If a new iteration of a property is picking up from where a previous version let off, it isn't a reboot. Period.
It will forever grind my gears that the term's meaning has been so twisted and diluted that it's become an oxymoron.
As far as the question goes, my answers are Birds of Prey and Wonder Woman. Given the proven track record for DC Comics properties on TV, I think both series could be massive successes if redone with the exact same premises as in 2002 and 1975 but relying on modern storytelling techniques.
It will forever grind my gears that the term's meaning has been so twisted and diluted that it's become an oxymoron.
As far as the question goes, my answers are Birds of Prey and Wonder Woman. Given the proven track record for DC Comics properties on TV, I think both series could be massive successes if redone with the exact same premises as in 2002 and 1975 but relying on modern storytelling techniques.
I would love to see a Primeval reboot, continuation, or anything. I think there is still a lot to be mined from anomalies from the past and/or future breaking into our world. They did a Canadian version and you could set it in any country (Australia or New Zealand, please) as long as there were dinosaurs or prehistoric beasts and Andrew Lee Potts making an appearance please. 
Are we really gatekeeping what a reboot is and isn't now?
It's a made up marketing term from 20 years ago when they discovered "remake" wasn't focus testing well anymore.
Now, these continuations, usually with old cast doing cameos/guest spots doing pass the torch to new cast in similar scenarios, or continuations with an old cast member starring while in a new situation and surrounded by a new cast, are called "reboots" as well as they're taking an old concept and "rebooting" it into a fresh show/movie.
It's a made up marketing term from 20 years ago when they discovered "remake" wasn't focus testing well anymore.
Now, these continuations, usually with old cast doing cameos/guest spots doing pass the torch to new cast in similar scenarios, or continuations with an old cast member starring while in a new situation and surrounded by a new cast, are called "reboots" as well as they're taking an old concept and "rebooting" it into a fresh show/movie.
Exactly. I first remember it being used in relation to Batman Begins (after the press wrongly initially described it as a prequel to the Burton/Schumacher films), then in relation to Casino Royale, the first 007 film since Dr No to explicitly not be connected to any other films. So it initially seemed to mean a brand new start, with new continuity. But language evolves and now, rightly or wrongly, it generally is often used to just mean a revival, be that a direct sequel/continuation or a new beginning. As you rightly say, it’s a made-up marketing term.
I don't remember the first film I heard it used about, but it was around the same period you are talking about, maybe a little earlier, when remakes were really hot, although the Psycho one had left a bad taste in people's mouths. It was a director being interviewed about a remake he was doing, and he said something like, it's not really a remake. It's using the same characters and basic plot, but we're changing a lot. It's more like rebooting the entire idea to a fresh situation, instead of just remaking the existing film.
I honestly remember a lot of people making fun of him for using the term, as it was so obviously studio marketing speak.
Then when audiences started rejecting new continuities they started saying it's a reboot, but in the same continuity 20/30 years later, and we have John Doe from the original reprising his role to pass the torch to the new cast. And now we've been flooded with them for the last 5 or so years. Although of the two formats I do prefer the ones that retain continuity. To me it usually makes the creators be a little more... creative instead of just recycling the old plot and characters.
The term "reboot", when applied to a fictional property, has existed since at least the mid-80s when DC Comics did Crisis on Infinite Earths, and it has always meant 'to restart' (and no, you're not 'restarting' something that already existed but that had ended if you bring said thing back at a later date).
There's absolutely no legitimate reason to bastardize the term "reboot" and its meaning when there's another term out there that already accurately describes continuations of existing properties: revival.
There's absolutely no legitimate reason to bastardize the term "reboot" and its meaning when there's another term out there that already accurately describes continuations of existing properties: revival.
Last edited:
People aren't going to stop discussing them in the reboot thread because you don't like it.Similar threads
