• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The term "reboot" needs to be retired for a while

HarryCanyon1982

Lieutenant Commander
Red Shirt
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 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. Nolan's films are a separate adaptation as well besides franchise reboot.
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.
Now, every remake , adaptation 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. 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. Hell even Escape from New York and Big Trouble in LIttle China and Poltergeist new movies are called "reboots" they are remakes and some call the upcoming 2 part IT a "reboot", nope it's another adaptation. Superman Returns and Halloween H2O are not reboots, they are retcons which mean they belong in the same series and ignore/discard some sequels, same for Jurassic World.


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). It's also a separate adaptation of the book and a direct one, not a remake of the 1967 film. The Amazing Spider-man did the Batman Begins route and ignoring an established series and telling another origin story as if it’s in an alternate universe.
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.

“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
 
You could argue a remake is where you take the existing script for a film from 1969 and remake it in 2016.

As for which is the correct term, the English language changes and evolves, and at the end of the day a word in the English language is whatever the majority determine it too mean
 
^Lack of talent, imagination and guts to try something different is apparently the problem. :eek:

I don't know? If I'm investing $200 million in something, I'm probably gonna invest it in something with built-in recognition.
 
The OP laments the lazy, inaccurate and overused nomenclature - not the actual practice of using a familiar story. There will be complaints about originality of the story told, but that's a different beast.
 
^Lack of talent, imagination and guts to try something different is apparently the problem. :eek:

I don't know? If I'm investing $200 million in something, I'm probably gonna invest it in something with built-in recognition.

^Lack of talent, imagination and guts to try something different is apparently the problem. :eek:


Studios tend to go with what they know works, and on the rare occasion they do try something different if it works everyone else jumps on the band wagon. If it fails it can be a while before we see any semi-original again.

If all these recent superhero/book adaptations weren't taking the money the studios would soon move onto something else.
 
If Hollywood retired reboots for a while they would go back to doing lame sequels.

You're overthinking this a bit. Any movie that is discontinuous with previous movies is a reboot. And if you're bringing back a movie with the same premise but a different creative team it's better for both sides if you make it in a different universe. The new writers don't want to be bound by things that happened in the franchise, and fans of the original don't want things happening that don't follow the same logic as the originals.

I don't mind reboots if the creative team has changed, but I'm getting a little sick of origin stories. The origin story takes up half the movie before they can focus on anything else and usually only contains information we already knew.

But if you want movies with original stories, you can get them. You can find them pretty much anywhere you look, except big movie theaters. Netflix, Hulu, art theaters if you have some around you. Who cares if Hollywood isn't original? They never will be, and small budget films always will be.
 
I don't mind reboots if...
You do realize, don't you, the irony of your post? It's missing the point. The OP objects to the overuse use of the term, such as in a post like yours - not the practice of retelling a story in a different way. And in pointing out how meaningless and confused the term has become, s/he is asking, "Who agrees there are differences in reboot, adaptation and remake like i mention?" Asking what name you put to something is much different than asking what you think of retelling a story.
 
Who agrees there are differences in reboot, adaptation and remake like i mention?

A reboot and adaptation are often equivalent, with reboot only being a better term when an old series has had several sequels so people assume, unless advertised as otherwise, that a next film will also be an at-least-loose sequel.
Reboot seems a reasonable although not preferable term for the A Nightmare on Elm Street remake, a lot was the same but some things including Freddy's characteristics were pretty different and it was definitely a restarting of the series and in modern times. Batman Begins and Casino Royale were new and different series but not really completely different from the old ones, they could be seen as partial remakes with similar stories to what came before.

Reboot seem most distinguishable from both adaptation and remake by whether or not it is connected to a series, if there had been or will be only one film people expect it to be a retelling and/or there's not much continuity to reboot from.
 
Yeah, I'd only apply the term reboot to something that already has a history to it, with at least more than one movie to it. A reboot is essentially detaching itself from its previous history with a big giant reset button (This is going to be brand spankin' "NEW", yo!). A remake is what I'd apply to a single movie. There was a remake of The Goodbye Girl with Jeff Daniels playing the Richard Dreyfuss role, and it was very much a shot-for-shot remake.
 
I don't see the problem.

In its strictest or purest sense, "bootstrapping" refers to a very specific set of processes that are independent of a device's current power-stage or operations state. It is, in fact, possible to bootstrap while a device and its OS are (and continue) running. It's called "warm booting."

However, in the common lexicon, "boot" (or reboot) is a pretty generalized term and is often used interchangeably with "rest, restart, power-on, etc." when this is technically inaccurate. Yet it's not a big deal to anyone.

So why is it a problem for film?
 
Who agrees there are differences in reboot, adaptation and remake like i mention?

A reboot and adaptation are often equivalent, with reboot only being a better term when an old series has had several sequels so people assume, unless advertised as otherwise, that a next film will also be an at-least-loose sequel.
Reboot seems a reasonable although not preferable term for the A Nightmare on Elm Street remake, a lot was the same but some things including Freddy's characteristics were pretty different and it was definitely a restarting of the series and in modern times. Batman Begins and Casino Royale were new and different series but not really completely different from the old ones, they could be seen as partial remakes with similar stories to what came before.

Reboot seem most distinguishable from both adaptation and remake by whether or not it is connected to a series, if there had been or will be only one film people expect it to be a retelling and/or there's not much continuity to reboot from.

A Nightmare on Elm Street is not that different than the original film as it's still a remake, it's not different like Batman Begin.

NO! Batman Begins is NOT a "remake" of Tim Burton's film, it has nothing in common with the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher movies as the universe/world is different as is The Joker who acts/behaves different than Jack or Caesar's Jokers, as Tim Burton/Joel Schmuacher 80s/90s series, 1966 movie and Dark Knight Trilogy are 3 separate live-action adaptations of the DC source material that have nothing to do with each other and are all completely different. Even Nolan said his new adaptation is a new adaptation and a reboot that has no ties to the past but rather a new fresh take for the 21st century without relying on the past. Nolan based his movies on Denny O'Neil/Neal Adams/Frank Miller/Joseph Leob/Alan Moore/Chuck Dixon's 70s/80s/90s take on the character as much as Burton based his on the 30s/40s.

Casino Royale is also not a remake of the 1967 film which was a terrible adaptation of the book and 2006's movie is an excellent modern adaptation of the book.
 
So why is it a problem for film?
Perhaps we're still sensitive from the media co-opting "hacker" from being a good thing among a creative and benevolent community into a pejorative for the criminal community, and the "common lexicon" of Hollywood Marketing ruining or corrupting yet another nuance of language.
 
You could argue a remake is where you take the existing script for a film from 1969 and remake it in 2016.

But, with the exception of that one PSYCHO remake, that's not not what "remake" meant throughout the entire history of movies. Traditionally, a remake was simply a new version of previous movie, or a new adaptation of some preexisting work, complete with a new script that might or might not bear some resemblance to the previous film. The studios never just recycled the old script; they hired somebody to rewrite it, update it, sometimes change it completely.

For example, compare the remakes of THE THING or THE FLY to the original 1950s versions. Or the Jerry Lewis version of THE NUTTY PROFESSOR to the Eddie Murphy version.

But the word "remake" fell out of favor, so Hollywood adopted the trendier term "reboot" (after briefly flirting with "reimagining). But, most of the time, they're the same thing.

You can make a case that you "remake" an individual movie, like BEN-HUR or REAR WINDOW, but you "reboot" a long-running series, like STAR TREK or BATMAN, when you want to start over from scratch.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top