Plus there's the issue with Dame Judi Dench's "M," who becomes the new "M" in Goldeneye, making comments about what an old-fashioned warhorse Bond is, and then in Casino Royale, she's the "M" who recruits Bond. Makes one dizzy, it do...
Why no reboots until now?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
How about TFB, for The Future Begins? It may not be the film's actual title, but...
To my mind canon is the wrong mindset to approach Bond with, normal people are interested in consistency.
Does Bond shag birds, drive fast cars and kill Johnny Foreigner?
If the answer is yes most people are happy...
As for M, it's an entirely new M according to the writers and directors, but they like Dame Judie such much they decided to keep her around...
Does Bond shag birds, drive fast cars and kill Johnny Foreigner?
If the answer is yes most people are happy...
As for M, it's an entirely new M according to the writers and directors, but they like Dame Judie such much they decided to keep her around...
You're fired.
ltcmmanderdata
Lieutenant Commander
star trek;the motion picture was a reboot in some ways. good question.
I call it Star Trek: James Dean.
Ficititiously yours, Trent Roman
Ficititiously yours, Trent Roman
Star Trek: Harold?
In my opinion, a reboot is when an ongoing story goes back to the beginning and has a lot of stylistic and continuity changes that contradict the original beginning. Fans often fear reboots because they think a reboot will replace the original continuity they've come to love.
Some reboots immediately replace the original continuity, like the various DC Comics Crises or the Alien Nation TV series.
Some reboots gradually replace the original continuity, like Stargate SG-1 and new Battlestar Galactica. Novels that were direct sequels to the Stargate movie continued to be released for a few years after SG-1 premiered. Richard Hatch published two of his original BSG novels after the Miniseries premiered and Dynamite Comics published old BSG and new BSG comics together for a while before the old line was discontinued.
Some reboots are able to permanently co-exist with the original continuity, like the Ultimate Marvel universe. The original Marvel universe still holds the spotlight because of its constant major events.
Other reboots never expand beyond a movie or series of movies, like the various Marvel movies, which have novelizations and comic adaptations but no other tie-ins.
It remains to be seen what kind of reboot Star Trek will be.
Some reboots immediately replace the original continuity, like the various DC Comics Crises or the Alien Nation TV series.
Some reboots gradually replace the original continuity, like Stargate SG-1 and new Battlestar Galactica. Novels that were direct sequels to the Stargate movie continued to be released for a few years after SG-1 premiered. Richard Hatch published two of his original BSG novels after the Miniseries premiered and Dynamite Comics published old BSG and new BSG comics together for a while before the old line was discontinued.
Some reboots are able to permanently co-exist with the original continuity, like the Ultimate Marvel universe. The original Marvel universe still holds the spotlight because of its constant major events.
Other reboots never expand beyond a movie or series of movies, like the various Marvel movies, which have novelizations and comic adaptations but no other tie-ins.
It remains to be seen what kind of reboot Star Trek will be.
Yeah, but as far as I know, the only series of that sort that has actually been called a "reboot," because that usage is so new, is Battlestar Galactica. One example is not a universal rule. BSG has just loomed so large in the consciousness of SF fandom in recent years that it's sort of led people to divide the world into pre-BSG and post-BSG, so even though it's the only show that's been called that, people perceive that as some kind of universal, solidly established usage. If you have other examples of "back to the beginning," contradictory restarts that have been called reboots at the time they were made, rather than described that way retroactively in the post-BSG online world, I'd like to hear them.
What? Alien Nation? Now, I know I'm arguing that the label does not have a single narrow use, but I find it odd that you'd apply it to something like that. Yes, the TV series tweaked some continuity details from the movie it was based on, but every TV series based on a movie does the same. Starman retconned the events of the movie back a decade so the alien lead could have a teenage son. Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles retconned the date of T2 forward several years. Men in Black: The Series ignored K's retirement and made L (Linda Fiorentino's character) a more veteran agent than J. Stargate SG-1 reinterpreted the Egyptian god-aliens as snakelike parasites, changed O'Neil to O'Neill, changed Sha'uri to Sha're, replaced Creek Mountain with Cheyenne Mountain, etc. But all of those, and Alien Nation, went with the conceit that they were continuations of the films they derived from. Alien Nation's revisionism was subtler than in many of those other cases. It tweaked the aliens' anatomy so the makeup would be easier on a weekly-series budget and schedule, it disregarded (but did not explicitly contradict) the movie's plot points about the worker drug and the transformation it induced, it changed the spelling of Matt Sikes's name, minor things like that. Otherwise, it was overtly intended to be a direct continuation from the events of the movie, even to the point of incorporating actual footage from the movie as flashback scenes in a pilot episode in which the main characters were still dealing with the events of the movie as a recent occurrence. I don't see any way to justify calling that a reboot, certainly not in the continuity-restart sense you're using. It's a continuation with minor revisionism to adapt it to a new medium and format.
See, this is the problem with labels. Try to apply a simplistic label to too many things, and you end up obscuring the details and differences that are actually important. Labels do more to obscure what things are than to define what they are.
^Except not only is The Future Begins the title of an SCE installment, it was also an abandoned subtitle for Terminator Salvation. I'm surprised how common the phrase seems to be lately.
I wouldn't mind something made up entirely (much like the 1990's Doctor Who tv movie is popularly known as "The Enemy Within" when the name appears nowhere on screen). "The Path of Nero" seems kind of catchy to me right now, but I'm also overly tired and avoiding engineering homework, so I may not be in the best mental state to judge...
Why not just call it Bob?
No not literally, but in this context, talking about Trek, we all understand that's what it means so can't we proceed with the discussion with the word 'reboot' meaning that and then go forward from there rather than debate semantics? I appreciate the shades of grey you are trying to bring to the conversation but we seem to have settled on a pretty solid definition for the conversation at hand.
Under this defintion, BSG and Bond were reboots- they restarted the continuity. TNG was not a reboot- it didn't restart the continuity. The new Star Trek movie seems to be a bit of both.
Having seen it, I'd just say this - for normal people, it *is* Star Trek, for people like us, the debates are going to go on for years...
The Alien Nation TV series changed a lot more than that. In the movie, George had a 4-year-old son named Richard but in the series he has a teenage son named Buck and a daughter named Emily. Sykes' daughter got married in the movie, but in the series she is still a teenager and definitely unmarried. Still, I suppose the series is not really a crossover, since it doesn't go back to the beginning but tries to claim that it picks up the story several months after the movie.
Only for very small definitions of "popularly." There's really no consensus on what to call the McGann movie (my preferred appellation).
For one TV appearance, Eight sure is in a lot of spin-off material (and indeed still is the star of the audio series as far as I am aware), shame most of the books of that period are (from my perceptive) masturbatory in nature and largely unreadable.
Similar threads
- Poll
