The Indy Reboot is coming after 5

[The Lensman]

Yes. It's not a reboot, no matter how many times people claim that it is. From Spock's POV it's a sequel. Actual reboots don't feature characters who lived through the previous continuity.

It comes off more as a reboot disguised as a "sorta" sequel. Spock Prime was thrown in as a bone to the rabid elements of the fan base, but I don't think we're really supposed to pay that much attention to that, even though people do. I think it was a mistake, because when you're dealing with a fan base that looks for ways to explain, in-universe, why Kirk's tombstone in "WNMHGB" has an "R" on it instead of a "T", you're just asking for a never ending headache.

Should've been a true reboot. YMMV

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

This post is so full of nonsense that the only response I can muster is to quote Inigo Montoya directly:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Herein lies yet another irony (BTW, are you one of those people who would argue that this word still applies only to situations where someone says one thing while meaning the opposite?) because "that word" is used quite correctly by Vizzini, to describe things of which he cannot conceive. The humor there is not that his usage is inconsistent with the word's commonly understood meaning, but rather that his limited imagination in what is or isn't possible is inconsistent with his self-professed vastness of intellect.

 

[Set Harth]

Spock Prime was thrown in as a bone to the rabid elements of the fan base

How do you know? That's just what other "rabid" elements of the fan base always say on the internet. But does that make it a fact, or just assumption?

I don't think we're really supposed to pay that much attention to that, even though people do.

Star Trek fans aren't expected to pay attention to Leonard Nimoy?

The essential characteristic of a reboot is not the absolute severing of all ties of continuity

Actually, it is.

but rather it is the revival of something from an inactive state

And The Force Awakens is an especially bad example here, even according to this specious attempted redefinition of the term. The SW franchise was in no way in an "inactive state" prior to the release of TFA. Where Episode VII is concerned the word you're looking for is "sequel" ( the VII part is kind of a big clue ). You're trying to torture and twist the definition of "reboot" to the point where it includes things which are indisputably sequels. That isn't going to work.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

And The Force Awakens is an especially bad example here, even according to this specious attempted redefinition of the term. The SW franchise was in no way in an "inactive state" prior to the release of TFA. Where Episode VII is concerned the word you're looking for is "sequel" ( the VII part is kind of a big clue ). You're trying to torture and twist the definition of "reboot" to the point where it includes things which are indisputably sequels. That isn't going to work.

Why not? In a way, nearly every sequel could probably be seen as a reboot to some extent, particularly ones that are made decades after the films they are sequels to, and deliberately intended to provide a reintroduction and reinterpretation of their source material to reflect a new audience with new sensibilities. And I think you missed the part where it is not I (nor "me" as most would "speciously" say today) who am redefining anything here. This shift in definition—something which occurs in language not as an event, but a process—obviously precedes this conversation, or we wouldn't be talking about it! I am merely attempting to distill and describe it as best I can based on what I observe in contemporary usage. (Again, this is what lexicographers do when they write dictionaries. They aren't recording some fixed meaning intrinsic to a word. Any intrinsic meaning that the word "reboot" has, if any at all, has nothing whatsoever to do with movies of any sort.)

 

[Set Harth]

In a way, nearly every sequel could probably be seen as a reboot to some extent

At that point one has really neutered the intended meaning of the term.

Any intrinsic meaning that the word "reboot" has, if any at all, has nothing whatsoever to do with movies of any sort.)

I'm only concerned here with the word's meaning in the context of movies and such. That, in theory, should be fairly uncontroversial.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

At that point one has really neutered the intended meaning of the term.

Intended by whom, exactly? Some people discussing movies on the internet in the mid-2000s? As opposed to some people discussing movies on the internet in the mid-2010s?

I'm only concerned here with the word's meaning in the context of movies and such. That, in theory, should be fairly uncontroversial.

The meaning in that context depends on what aspect of a film someone using the term is comparing to which aspect of a computer being restarted. It's a figure of speech that can easily accommodate more than one such comparison, none of which need be seen as mutually exclusive of one another. You just have to look at context.

If someone describes TFA as a kind of reboot, and TFA does not wipe out the continuity of the preceding SW films, then it's plainly obvious that some aspect(s) other than continuity is (or are) being compared. There are many aspects to a film besides internal story continuity: casting, direction, production design, tone, pace, authorial voice, marketing strategy, representation of diversity, and the list goes on and on. Why should anyone feel they have to limit their comparison to only one specific aspect just because others may or may not have done so in the past have? That doesn't make any sense.

Are you afraid people will be confused? No more so than people to whom "gay" had only meant "merrily carefree" would have been initially confused by its taking on a decidedly new and different usage that is now far more prevalent and commonly understood than the former. These things sort themselves out readily enough in context, no need for hand-wringing.

Besides, that's the very point of the qualifiers "soft" and "hard" here. Again, these derive from different ways of rebooting a computer, where the power remains uninterrupted in the former and is interrupted in the latter. In this sense the continuity is more or less analogous to the power. A hard reboot is to some significant extent disconnected from the preceding continuity in the process of effecting its changes or updates, whereas a soft reboot remains to some significant extent connected to it. (IMO, it probably needn't be quite so black and white, and I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere down the line we have people talking about "firm" reboots and probably other varieties, but it's quite a workable model overall.)

I don't see what's so "controversial" about that in others' eyes. Seems perfectly sensible and understandable to me. I can't help but bemusedly wonder if some reacted to the advent of the term "prequel" to describe a specific kind of sequel, one chronologically set before the previous installment, with similar resistance.

"You can't just invent new words for things that we've been calling something else! You can't just repurpose an existing term to describe something other than what we've been using it to describe all this time!"

Nonsense. Of course you can. It happens constantly, often without people even trying!

 

[Morpheus 02]

Intended by whom, exactly? Some people discussing movies on the internet in the mid-2000s? As opposed to some people discussing movies on the internet in the mid-2010s?


The meaning in that context depends on what aspect of a film someone using the term is comparing to which aspect of a computer being restarted. It's a figure of speech that can easily accommodate more than one such comparison, none of which need be seen as mutually exclusive of one another. You just have to look at context.

If someone describes TFA as a kind of reboot, and TFA does not wipe out the continuity of the preceding SW films, then it's plainly obvious that some aspect(s) other than continuity is (or are) being compared. There are many aspects to a film besides internal story continuity: casting, direction, production design, tone, pace, authorial voice, marketing strategy, representation of diversity, and the list goes on and on. Why should anyone feel they have to limit their comparison to only one specific aspect just because others may or may not have done so in the past have? That doesn't make any sense.

Are you afraid people will be confused? No more so than people to whom "gay" had only meant "merrily carefree" would have been initially confused by its taking on a decidedly new and different usage that is now far more prevalent and commonly understood than the former. These things sort themselves out readily enough in context, no need for hand-wringing.

Besides, that's the very point of the qualifiers "soft" and "hard" here. Again, these derive from different ways of rebooting a computer, where the power remains uninterrupted in the former and is interrupted in the latter. In this sense the continuity is more or less analogous to the power. A hard reboot is to some significant extent disconnected from the preceding continuity in the process of effecting its changes or updates, whereas a soft reboot remains to some significant extent connected to it. (IMO, it probably needn't be quite so black and white, and I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere down the line we have people talking about "firm" reboots and probably other varieties, but it's quite a workable model overall.)

I don't see what's so "controversial" about that in others' eyes. Seems perfectly sensible and understandable to me. I can't help but bemusedly wonder if some reacted to the advent of the term "prequel" to describe a specific kind of sequel, one chronologically set before the previous installment, with similar resistance.

"You can't just invent new words for things that we've been calling something else! You can't just repurpose an existing term to describe something other than what we've been using it to describe all this time!"

Nonsense. Of course you can. It happens constantly, often without people even trying!

I am not in position right now to elaborate, but I am with Mighty Monkey - reboot can mean a spectrum of things.

If you guys are so anal about it, call it property renewal, so it covers all of it.

This seems like how groups of people adamantly cling to one definition of racism, and discount or at least seriously downplay the other definition as significant.

I think the main thing that makes a property renewal successful is being able to honor the best of the past in some way, getting the "essence" of it, while bringing something fresh.

What works best depends on the property. I think Star Wars, Star Trek and the Flash, in different ways, excited old fans but brought on many new ones

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Should've been a true reboot. YMMV

That was always unlikely. Ever since TNG, every new show has had a previous character who was a link to previous Trek:

- McCoy appeared in TNG's pilot
- Picard on DS9's
- Quark on Voyager's
- Zefram Cochrane on Enterprise's

So given this, you know some previous Trek character was going to appear in ST09, thus making a total/hard reboot impossible. Can you think of any reason why it should NOT have been Spock?

 

[Set Harth]

There are many aspects to a film besides internal story continuity: casting, direction, production design, tone, pace, authorial voice, marketing strategy, representation of diversity, and the list goes on and on.

"Representation of diversity"? "Pace"? Ridiculous. Absolutely nothing in the above qualifies as the basis for the reboot label. You know how people always say the Star Wars movies rebooted every time they changed directors?

Oh, they don't?

Why should anyone feel they have to limit their comparison to only one specific aspect just because others may or may not have done so in the past have? That doesn't make any sense.

Why even have a language at all? We should just let everyone use words to mean whatever they want them to mean, according to their feelings at any particular moment. Why not? Why ask anything more of them?

I can't help but bemusedly wonder if some reacted to the advent of the term "prequel" to describe a specific kind of sequel, one chronologically set before the previous installment, with similar resistance.

I can't help but wonder how anyone would consider that a comparable situation. What was the original meaning of "prequel" - a small, spiky mammal, perhaps?

Or is it that "prequel" has a similar destiny charted out for it - that it's the next victim in line for the chopping block? Because you want it to mean something different? Is that what you're trying to say?

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

"Representation of diversity"? "Pace"? Ridiculous. Absolutely nothing in the above qualifies as the basis for the reboot label.

You seem to mistake my listing of just a few aspects that combine organically with one another to form and shape a film and the audience's experience of it for an assessment of what the individual authors who wrote the articles to which I linked—of which I did not write a single one—were using as their specific points of comparison. That's not the case. If you want to know specifically which aspects led each of them to describe the film as they did, go ask them. I'm just saying that there's a lot that contributes to the impression of whether a film is a continuation of a prior story, or the fresh beginning of a new one, or both, that goes beyond how little or much reference it makes to the events of previous installments in its franchise.

You know how people always say the Star Wars movies rebooted every time they changed directors?

Oh, they don't?

Why do you keep appealing to what people have or haven't said in the past, here? Sorry, but the terms in which people were describing things circa 2005 when the last SW episode came out are not fixed for all time as the descriptions that must be consistently applied forevermore. Language doesn't work like that.

Why even have a language at all?

To enable people to express ideas more freely to one another, not to place artificial limits on this expression.

We should just let everyone use words to mean whatever they want them to mean, according to their feelings at any particular moment. Why not? Why ask anything more of them?

Since people differ in their ideas, it is only natural they will differ in the terms they use to express them as well. Pretty much the only time it becomes desirable to "enforce" a particular definition of a term between one speaker and another is when objective precision is of practical necessity, such as when it comes to weights and measures and so forth as defined by law or the scientific community. Art criticism is not such a field. There is generally nothing wrong with using your own definitions for terms in this arena, so long as you make it reasonably clear what your definitions are. (This is why I've said @DigificWriter is free to define "reboot" as a term that only applies to concerns of in-universe continuity if he wishes, even if I have also pointed out that he's used it inconsistently with his own definition!)

Here for example are three authors who both specifically cite The Force Awakens as an example of a "soft reboot" and provide some cogent definition for what they mean by it in context:

Kayti Burt:
"The term 'reboot' is generally applied to the relaunch of a franchise, especially one that is being reset in some way. A good example is the recent Star Trek films, which includes many of our favorite characters from the original series, but with new actors in the role and a very literal reboot of the entire fictional universe with some alternate universe shenanigans. Most film franchise reboots don't go to such lengths to set their stories apart from their original context. And Star Wars is a somewhat unique case in that, in most ways, it is a continuation of the story undertaken in the original trilogy, complete with many of the same actors — i.e. a sequel. However, its ambitions to relaunch the franchise with new (often younger) actors at the forefront are more commonly attributed to a reboot — especially a 'soft reboot.'"

Chris Agar:
"It’s a stark contrast from the first part of the 21st century, where hard reboots like Batman Begins and Casino Royale wiped the slate clean and started from scratch. The thing that’s in now is the 'soft' reboot: a movie that introduces a particular brand to a new generation of moviegoers, while still keeping the canon of previous films intact."

Sean Hutchinson:
"A soft reboot is exactly what it sounds like. Not quite a sequel, not quite a reboot, it follows in a successful series and its plot hems dangerously closely to its famous original..."

As you can see, their subjective definitions don't entirely align, and yet they all agree that there is such a thing as a soft reboot (and that TFA is one). This reflects that none of them made this term up themselves; they heard it used previously by others and interpreted it as made sense to them in context of what they were writing about. This is what we all do with words as we learn them, and the aggregate accumulation of the results of us each doing it eventually results in a common understanding that becomes their definition(s) as recorded by lexicographers. As you will no doubt have noticed both by the apparent variation among the noted examples and by the fact that no dictionary (that I know of) has yet included any definition for this term in context of fiction, it is new enough that we aren't at that point in the process yet. But such a point will be reached, I assure you. Of course, you don't have to take my word for it. Just wait, and you'll see soon enough.

(Or alternatively, go around berating people for making up their own words and definitions as if you know better, and see where that gets you. Maybe you can effect some degree of change in the usage going forward from this point; anything's possible I guess. But in the long run, I rather doubt you'll make more headway than any number of fellow prescriptivists have in times past.)

I can't help but wonder how anyone would consider that a comparable situation. What was the original meaning of "prequel" - a small, spiky mammal, perhaps?

Actually my point was that before somebody thought up the term "prequel" and others repeated it until everybody had a common idea of what it meant and it became part of the popular lexicon, there may have been (an)other name(s) for a sequel that took place earlier than its predecesor, or there may have been no specific name at all. Did anyone ever describe Temple of Doom as a "prequel" at the time of its release? I don't know for certain, but I doubt it. Would you argue that because this term didn't exist at the time and most people probably just described it as a plain old "sequel" that we shouldn't call it today by the term we currently understand to refer to a film like it? If not, then why argue that we shouldn't call something a "soft reboot" that wouldn't have been referred to that way in the past because the term hadn't been coined (in this context, as opposed to that of computers)?

Because you want it to mean something different? Is that what you're trying to say?

Not at all. Almost nothing I have said is about what I personally and individually want, which is fairly irrelevant. And that's rather the whole crux of the matter. If you had asked me personally, I never would have wanted "literally" to come to mean "figuratively" in any context—and I still wouldn't choose to use it that way myself—but that's the way the proverbial cookie crumbles. The descriptivism vs. prescriptivism debate has been going on forever and will continue, with the prescriptivists ever frustrated by the plain and inescapable reality that by its very nature language organically changes over time and ultimately doesn't obey any "rules" externally imposed on it. I can't stop it, and neither can you.

 

[Marsden]

It would be neat to have Ford play Indy and towards the end of the movie he falls through a portal and come out Chris Pratt and then have the movies continue with him, but then that's not a reboot. Maybe somewhere in Florida on Ponce De Leon's trail.

 

[LJones41]

*Heavy sigh*

Well, I always felt that this was an inevitability. I always knew that Disney didn't buy the franchise with the intention of preserving it for posterity. But at least they are giving Harrison Ford a chance to go out on a high note.

Considering that Ford is now 74 years old, isn't that going to be a bit difficult? He will probably be 76 when he shoots the movie and nearly 77 when it comes out.

 

[Set Harth]

Why do you keep appealing to what people have or haven't said in the past, here? Sorry, but the terms in which people were describing things circa 2005 when the last SW episode came out are not fixed for all time as the descriptions that must be consistently applied forevermore.

When did I ever say anything about 2005? I referred to the Star Wars series changing directors. How many times did the job of director change hands during the prequel trilogy? And the point wasn't actually specifically about what people said "in the past". You can include the present as well, that's included in my use of the term "always". The point was that I've never heard it suggested that the series must necessarily have rebooted when it changed directors, either in recent times or earlier. ( And the last SW film was in 2008. )

Actually my point was that before somebody thought up the term "prequel" and others repeated it until everybody had a common idea of what it meant and it became part of the popular lexicon, there may have been (an)other name(s) for a sequel that took place earlier than its predecesor, or there may have been no specific name at all.

There wasn't, that's what makes it an invalid comparison. And the point then reduces to "before somebody thought up the term 'prequel' there was no name for it". Which fails to be a meaningful point or useful at all in this context. As I hinted, the real parallel between "reboot" and "prequel" in this context is that some people now want the term "prequel" to include films like Days of Future Past and Star Trek Into Darkness.

If you had asked me personally, I never would have wanted "literally" to come to mean "figuratively" in any context—and I still wouldn't choose to use it that way myself—but that's the way the proverbial cookie crumbles.

You don't say:

a very literal reboot of the entire fictional universe

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

When did I ever say anything about 2005?

I suppose I did misread that particular bit of that particular post of yours. But tell me, have you not generally been contending that the word "reboot" can and/or should not be "redefined" from its "intended meaning" as of the time it first came into popular usage in the context of films? And was this not, as has been cited, with the releases of Batman Begins and Casino Royale in 2005-06? If I misinterpreted one small element of what you've written, I nevertheless doubt I've misinterpreted the overall gist of it. Whereas you certainly had misinterpreted mine in suggesting that I have some personal agenda of trying to "torture and twist" the word's meaning rather than simply acknowledging that its meaning has expanded and that this is not a remotely unusual occurrence in language, nor even for this particular term!

The point was that I've never heard it suggested that the series must necessarily have rebooted when it changed directors.

Well, that's a silly point, because I never made such a ridiculous claim either. I made the point that a strong change of directorial style or "voice" might be one of many contributing factors in whether a movie feels to a viewer like it's primarily the continuation of an ongoing story, the beginning of a new one, the retelling of an old one, or all of the above. If you want my personal opinion, The Force Awakens is quite deliberately designed to feel like all three. It doesn't puzzle me in the slightest that someone might describe it as part sequel, part reboot, and part remake. (And much the same could be said of Abrams' Star Trek films.)

( And the last SW film was in 2008. )

I said "episode." But whatever. 2008 is still reasonably "circa 2005." And evidently I'm still missing what you were actually trying to get at in that post.

There wasn't, that's what makes it an invalid comparison. And the point then reduces to "before somebody thought up the term 'prequel' there was no name for it". Which fails to be a meaningful point or useful at all in this context.

It does? There were prequels before they were called that, just as there were soft reboots before they were called that. Objecting to the use of the term "soft reboot" because it's new and different to what you'd have chosen to call these films is much the same as would have been objecting to the use of the term "prequel" (or "requel" for that matter) when it first cropped up.

As I hinted, the real parallel between "reboot" and "prequel" in this context is that some people now want the term "prequel" to include films like Days of Future Past and Star Trek Into Darkness.

Personally, I wouldn't really see a problem with that usage either, to be honest. Is Days Of Future Past a sequel to the other X-Men films? Is the bulk of it set chronologically earlier than most of them? If so, then I don't see why it can't or shouldn't be referred to as a prequel of a kind, if an unusual one. (It's also clearly a kind of reboot. Again, no reason these need be seen as mutually exclusive terms.) And earlier you yourself set up an argument that Into Darkness can be seen as a sequel to the preceding ST films, and it's certainly set earlier than most of them. So yes, in that respect it could be described as a sort of prequel too.

It seems you're still hung up on some notion that these terms and concepts can or must be defined and applied only from an in-universe perspective rather than a real-world one, and on what basis you feel you have any authority to decide this for or enforce it upon others, I surely don't know. As I see it, the only one holding you to that standard is you. This is all a great lot of fuss to make over something ultimately very trivial. (Not that I haven't played my part in it, obviously. I'm beginning to feel suspiciously like I'm lecturing others here about their language use, and that's precisely what I found objectionable in the first place. Call them what you bloody well like, mate—what exactly is that, anyway?—just don't tell me what to call them! )

 

[DigificWriter]

I suppose I did misread that particular bit of that particular post of yours. But tell me, have you not generally been contending that the word "reboot" can and/or should not be "redefined" from its "intended meaning" as of the time it first came into popular usage in the context of films? And was this not, as has been cited, with the releases of Batman Begins and Casino Royale in 2005-06? If I misinterpreted one small element of what you've written, I nevertheless doubt I've misinterpreted the overall gist of it. Whereas you certainly had misinterpreted mine in suggesting that I have some personal agenda of trying to "torture and twist" the word's meaning rather than simply acknowledging that its meaning has expanded and that this is not a remotely unusual occurrence in language, nor even for this particular term!

The definition of the term "reboot" in the context of a fictional narrative HASN'T changed over time, though, which is the entire point of my argument (and, I believe, Set Harth's).

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

The definition of the term "reboot" in the context of a fictional narrative HASN'T changed over time, though, which is the entire point of my argument

You haven't actually offered anything to support that "argument" though. You're simply choosing to disregard the evidence to the contrary, and begging the question. (In the traditional sense of the phrase, rather than the more recent usage it has acquired. Note that the advent of the latter does not prevent or preclude the continued use of the former in parallel. )

 

[Set Harth]

Well, that's a silly point, because I never made such a ridiculous claim either.

Of course not. But then why was it even mentioned, in a discussion of what it means to be a reboot?

Objecting to the use of the term "soft reboot" because it's new and different to what you'd have chosen to call these films is much the same as would have been objecting to the use of the term "prequel" (or "requel" for that matter) when it first cropped up.

Not the same thing at all. No one, to my knowledge, objected to the use of the term "prequel" as it described something which did not previously have a name, while the objection to repurposing the term "reboot" is that it originally meant "new continuity".

Personally, I wouldn't really see a problem with that usage either, to be honest. Is Days Of Future Past a sequel to the other X-Men films? Is the bulk of it set chronologically earlier than most of them?

But in an altered timeline, such that the original movies do not follow in chronological sequence. Thus it does not fit the previously understood definition of the term.

Into Darkness can be seen as a sequel to the preceding ST films, and it's certainly set earlier than most of them.

Same problem. It's "set earlier" in a different timeline, and the earlier movies do not occur after it in that timeline.

 

[DigificWriter]

You haven't actually offered anything to support that "argument" though.

In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard allcontinuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning.The term is used with respect to various different forms of fictional media such as comic books, television series,video games, and films among others.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboot_(fiction)

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

"In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning.The term is used with respect to various different forms of fictional media such as comic books, television series,video games, and films among others."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboot_(fiction)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboot_(fiction)

If you take the time to examine them, you will note that the two sources cited there for that definition (1) both date to 2009, (2) are no more "authoritative" or "reliable" than the ones I have cited here, and (3) both include under their definitions examples of films that do acknowledge the continuity of their predecessors—including Star Trek and Predators—so the definition as stated is inaccurate even just to those sources. Note also that there is some evidence of edit warring at work between contributors of your point of view and mine on the subject.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Of course not. But then why was it even mentioned, in a discussion of what it means to be a reboot?

I can only think you are being deliberately obtuse if you don't understand after my clarifying multiple times, but once more: the audience's perception of a film as a continuation of an ongoing story, the beginning of a new one, the retelling of an old one, or more than one of these, is affected and influenced by more than in-universe continuity, potentially including but not limited to directorial style.

"What it means to be a reboot" is ultimately defined by what people perceive and describe as being a reboot, just like the meaning of every word is. How many times do you want to go around in this circle? I'd be happy to make this the last time, but I can go another ten rounds if you really want to. I believe I have offered plenty of examples to support this already, but there are countless more available.

No one, to my knowledge, objected to the use of the term "prequel"

Irrelevant, as it was a hypothetical example.

the objection to repurposing the term "reboot" is that it originally meant "new continuity".

It did not originally mean that at all. It originally meant restart. It was repurposed to mean that in the first place, and there is no limit to how many times such a repurposing can occur. Moreover, the use of it by someone else to mean something more or different than that doesn't mean you can't still use it to mean only that, if you like. That definition has not been eliminated merely because others have been added, anymore than the original definition has been eliminated by the addition of the one you cite. So on what grounds do you object? What do you feel you stand to lose here, exactly?

But in an altered timeline, such that the original movies do not follow in chronological sequence.

They still follow in chronological sequence, just in different parallel timelines, which are still interrelated both from an in- and out-of-universe standpoint.

Thus it does not fit the previously understood definition of the term.

The definition as previously understood by you. Others undoubtedly have a different understanding.