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

[Doctorwhovian]

Regarding Casino Royale, Bond's sort of had an extremely fluid continuity anyway, with the role being re-cast several times, the Bonds sort of varying in personality (as well as the tone of the movies, which went from camp, to Fleming-esque thrillers, to back to camp again), and the supporting cast often changing actors (With the exception of Q until Die Another Day and Skyfall). The biggest one being Felix Leiter, who changed so often with the exception of David Hedison (and later Jeffrey Wright).

Granted, there's some continuity hiccups with Judi Dench still being M (although she's somewhat different than the Brosnan version of her character).

 

[mos6507]

I think the reason the term reboot resonates is that it is typically applied to franchises that crash and burn, hence precipitating a reboot. But the idea is to keep a franchise going for as long as possible without any gaps inbetween. And what we've seen lately are franchises that seem to have very little time to "rest" inbetween reboots, just as a lot of people keep their PCs powered on 24/7. Good example of this was the Hulk reboot, and now going straight from the Nolanverse Batman to Affleck Batman. People are becoming more and more comfortable with the idea of the "neverending" franchise that simply reboots every time it loses favor with its audience rather than being permanently killed off.

 

[JWPlatt]

Licensing plays into this when a rights holder must remain active in the franchise or lose the rights when they revert to the property owner.

 

[suarezguy]

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

The similarities are only partial/slight but still present, they both deal with Batman's early career, him feeling some need to admit his secret identity to an ally, him trying to prevent a villain from gassing the city. Definitely a different story mostly drawing on different elements from the source but, as Greg noted, most remakes have been more like further adaptations or even had pretty different stories rather than scene-for-scene redoings.
The Amazing Spider-Man has more in common with the 2002 Spider-Man, to some extent the same story albeit also a different villain and love interest, and thus more remake elements.

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.

No but I would say there are common elements with the Connery/Fisher James Bond films and GoldenEye. If you feel the key to remake vs. reboot is whether or not it has the same story or a similar-enough story then again there probably would be few remakes.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Regarding Casino Royale, Bond's sort of had an extremely fluid continuity anyway, with the role being re-cast several times, the Bonds sort of varying in personality (as well as the tone of the movies, which went from camp, to Fleming-esque thrillers, to back to camp again), and the supporting cast often changing actors (With the exception of Q until Die Another Day and Skyfall). The biggest one being Felix Leiter, who changed so often with the exception of David Hedison (and later Jeffrey Wright).

Granted, there's some continuity hiccups with Judi Dench still being M (although she's somewhat different than the Brosnan version of her character).

All the Bond movies from Connery to Brosnan are supposed to be in the same continuity. The recasting is just something we're supposed to ignore and will sometimes be used as a joke. The films make small references every now and then to the earlier films, like Bond having a wife and old gadgets in the background (especially in Die Another Day). Dench's M in the Brosnan films made reference to her predecessors implying that M was really a job title that got passed on to the next person.

 

[HarryCanyon1982]

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.

I dunno why The Thing is called a friggin "remake" of the earlier film The Thing from Another World. There's no such film in 1951 called The Thing! it's called The Thing from Another World.

The Thing from Another World, it's a damned good movie but a very loose adaptation adaptation of the book. Carpenter's film is not a remake of the earlier film as they got little in common other than snowy place and alien from space. Yet the location (one in the north pole and the other south pole), the monster (In the book the creature is a shapeshifting being that can imitate any living person or animal where in TTFAW the creature has only one form a living vegetable humanoid Frankenstein vampire creature that can reproduce itself but didn't imitate into anyone where in Carpenter's film the creature can imitate into anyone and any living creature just like the creature in the book), characters and all are very different from each other. The creature's name The Thing is the villain in the book in which both TTFA and The Thing are from. The 2 films aren't anything alike and The Thing isnt based on the screenplay of the earlier film.

I consider them 2 very different films and 2 separate adaptation films, Carpenter's film is actually a new adaptation of the 1938 book Who Goes There by John W Campbell as it's a good adaptation, Hawk's film The Thing from Another World is a very loose adaptation and a separate adaptation as well.

Whenever someone makes a movie based on the book Hamlet, They're making a new film based on the same literary source material. That's what The Thing is, not a remake of the 1951 movie TTFAW but rather a new separate adaptation of the original source material.

To me, the definition of a remake is when it's based on a motion picture produced earlier and it's original screenplay (one that is not based on any existing sourcer material like comics, novellas and books) like say The Blob, The Nutty Professor, A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Hills Have Eyes etc. TRUE remakes in every sense.

Even Carpenter doesn't think of his movie as a "remake" according to new interviews, he considers his movie to be it's own film and it's own independent adaptation of Who Goes There.

 

[eyeresist]

I don't understand how anyone could care about this "issue".