Sometimes the word "reboot" needs to be retired on film and a few other terms.
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. Its 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 Nolans film. That wouldnt 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 Burtons Batman. This discontinuity would confuse the audiencehow 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 wasnt a remake of the 1989 movie because, while based on the same source material, it told a completely different story. They needed a new way of explaining what they were doinghence the cribbing from the computer world.
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.
Superman Returns has been dubbed a "reboot", it's not! it's part of the same franchise and ignores 3 and 4, it's a retcon sequel as it's in the same franchise.
Now, every remake 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, lets 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, plain and simple. You can argue that the recent versions started the series over again, but unlike Batman Begins, they dont do a completely different take on the material.
Even films like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I Spit on Your Grave, The Hills Have Eyes, Last House on the Left, The Crazies, Maniac, Robocop, Fright Night, Let Me In, the upcoming Overboard, the upcoming Big Trouble in Little China, the upcoming Pet Sematary, the upcoming Lion King etc. are remakes, plain and simple.
A not so recent phenomenon is the act of rebooting a franchise. Ever since Batman Begins was a success, studios have increasingly been rebooting film franchises to introduce to new audiences. The way we defined a reboot and how often we used the word has also changed. At first it seem to make sense, Batman Begins and The Amazing Spider-Man all being labeled with the term, reboot. Why does that make sense? Well, because those movies are the restart of a preexisting franchise but also is not classified as a remake (which is a whole different thing entirely). Batman Begins is just starting a new franchise with the Batman character (its not a remake of the 1989 Tim Burton Batman film). Somewhere though we seem to lose our basic understanding of what this word actually means. Soon movies like Robocop, A Nightmare on Elm Street Started being labeled a reboot by countless film journalists and critics.
Recently Ive noticed people labeling certain movies that are not reboots with the term, reboot. The latest Nightmare on Elm Street for example is simply a remake of the original 1984 Wes Craven film (not a reboot). The new version takes the original film and redoes it. Sure, they may be trying to start another franchise, but it is a remake first and foremost. I would make the same argument with the 2014 Robocop. It may have some changes to the story, but its the filmmakers are redoing the original 1987 story. The remake is not just taking the character and doing something completely different, its the same general story. It seems now the two words are used interchangeably when there is a distinction to be had.
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).
Spider-Man Homecoming did the Batman Begins route and ignoring 2 established series and being part of the MCU.
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.
Man of Steel is another example that ignores the previous Superman movies even the retcon sequel Superman Returns. It is a new take on the Superman legend.
Reboot is a term that is not only incorrectly attributed to the wrong type of movies, but it is overused. Its 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.
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. Its 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 Nolans film. That wouldnt 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 Burtons Batman. This discontinuity would confuse the audiencehow 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 wasnt a remake of the 1989 movie because, while based on the same source material, it told a completely different story. They needed a new way of explaining what they were doinghence the cribbing from the computer world.
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.
Superman Returns has been dubbed a "reboot", it's not! it's part of the same franchise and ignores 3 and 4, it's a retcon sequel as it's in the same franchise.
Now, every remake 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, lets 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, plain and simple. You can argue that the recent versions started the series over again, but unlike Batman Begins, they dont do a completely different take on the material.
Even films like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I Spit on Your Grave, The Hills Have Eyes, Last House on the Left, The Crazies, Maniac, Robocop, Fright Night, Let Me In, the upcoming Overboard, the upcoming Big Trouble in Little China, the upcoming Pet Sematary, the upcoming Lion King etc. are remakes, plain and simple.
A not so recent phenomenon is the act of rebooting a franchise. Ever since Batman Begins was a success, studios have increasingly been rebooting film franchises to introduce to new audiences. The way we defined a reboot and how often we used the word has also changed. At first it seem to make sense, Batman Begins and The Amazing Spider-Man all being labeled with the term, reboot. Why does that make sense? Well, because those movies are the restart of a preexisting franchise but also is not classified as a remake (which is a whole different thing entirely). Batman Begins is just starting a new franchise with the Batman character (its not a remake of the 1989 Tim Burton Batman film). Somewhere though we seem to lose our basic understanding of what this word actually means. Soon movies like Robocop, A Nightmare on Elm Street Started being labeled a reboot by countless film journalists and critics.
Recently Ive noticed people labeling certain movies that are not reboots with the term, reboot. The latest Nightmare on Elm Street for example is simply a remake of the original 1984 Wes Craven film (not a reboot). The new version takes the original film and redoes it. Sure, they may be trying to start another franchise, but it is a remake first and foremost. I would make the same argument with the 2014 Robocop. It may have some changes to the story, but its the filmmakers are redoing the original 1987 story. The remake is not just taking the character and doing something completely different, its the same general story. It seems now the two words are used interchangeably when there is a distinction to be had.
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).
Spider-Man Homecoming did the Batman Begins route and ignoring 2 established series and being part of the MCU.
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.
Man of Steel is another example that ignores the previous Superman movies even the retcon sequel Superman Returns. It is a new take on the Superman legend.
Reboot is a term that is not only incorrectly attributed to the wrong type of movies, but it is overused. Its 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.
