This article was nominated for deletion on 6 December 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
I'd like to contest the example of The Force Awakens as a soft reboot as, while the films are left in the continuity, everything else that previously was in continuity was ignored and removed and yes the other materiel was in fact in continuity contrary to what some may say Tnu1138 ( talk) 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I have removed most of the lists of reboots in various media. At first I wanted to remove some obvious nonsense, for instance the Need for Speed franchise which never had any continuity to discard, and the various series of remakes (Aren't a remake and a reboot supposed to be different? Even if so, I think we should limit the examples to things which are reboots and only reboots to decrease the vagueness that pervades the article). Then I realized that nearly all of this was guaranteed to be either wholly WP:OR, or sourcable at best to an industry tidbit issued decades post festum. The one and only reference in the whole section was James Bond's Casino Royale, which begs the question of what makes it a reboot, and not On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Live and Let Die, etc. I'm sure there is a case here for both sides of the argument, and that just proves that without sources any list such as this is arbitrary, and therefore I have removed it. I have left in comic books as that's where the term "reboot" came from, and thus instances of comic book reboots are more likely to have concrete sources. Daß Wölf 16:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@
Jamster93: I'm aware this was a really major change, so I understand if you disagree with me, but I'd like to know for what reason.
Daß
Wölf 00:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Please don't delete lists of reboot films, television series and video games. It's better to put all of the known reboots back in the page, not removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Antony ( talk • contribs) 00:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Please put all of the known reboots back in the page, STOP REMOVING!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Antony ( talk • contribs) 03:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Stop removing stuff from the list! Jamster93 ( talk) 21:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I've fully protected the page for a week, (requiring admin access to edit the article) since both IPs and established editors were edit warring on this. Contact me if a resolution on this comes sooner, and I can unprotect before then. Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Added the list back, as I may have come up with a solution. I'll need to check on a few things before I finish things up. Also, would the Sonic Comics really count for a reboot? Because it feels more like a soft reboot rather than a full one. Gameman18 ( talk) 19:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Basically, in the case of films, any remakes of single films are out, but if said film started a franchise and a new film is made that starts it over (like the Ghostbusters, Smurfs and the upcoming Tomb Raider reboot), then it can be added to the list. In the case of video games, that's usually obvious via change in artsyle/setting, lack of connection to the previous games, the publishers/developers saying so themselves (kinda like in this Need for Speed article: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/need-for-speed-open-world-full-reboot-hitting-ps4-/1100-6427492/), etc. Comics usually start over at Issue 1 (which is why I'm debating on if I should remove Sonic from the list because it was more of a soft reboot that started on issue 252). Gameman18 ( talk) 23:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the "Soft reboot" section, change the nonsensical, poorly worded, and unsourced description to:
Unlike a reboot, which discards all continuity in a franchise, a "soft reboot" relaunches and introduces a film, television, or video game series to a new generation of consumers while still maintaining continuity with previous installments in a franchise. [1] Examples of soft reboots include the 2015 films Jurassic World, with the Jurassic Park franchise; Mad Max: Fury Road with the Mad Max franchise; and Star Wars: The Force Awakens, with the Star Wars franchise. [2] [3]
I looked back through the edit history and a random IP removed this, claiming that this was an "improper" definition with "poor" examples. JDC808 ♫ 11:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 11:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I have restored the soft-reboot content after its bold removal; a consensus is not one where a discussion was held between three editors without any outside opinions our outside advertising. A proper discussion needs to unfold, and if there is further disagreement on it, perhaps an RFC would solve any issues. -- Alex TW 03:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Some writers have completely ignored continuity, in a special way that essentially reboots for every story arc or even for every story.
A notable example is the Carl Barks universe for which Scrooge McDuck, Huey, Dewey and Louie, Gyro Gearloose and his helper, April, May and June, Gladstone Gander, and probably others I've forgotten were created by him, as was the fictional city of Duckburg.
This technique is similar to floating timeline and reset button technique, but isn't really covered by either of those articles. But surely others have noticed its use? If so, it should have a name somewhere in reliable secondary sources.
The Donald Duck Universe is particularly interesting because Barks' successor Don Rosa abandoned this technique, and instead introduced massive retcons to give his fictional universe a timeline. Again, this should surely be documented in RSS. Andrewa ( talk) 19:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the bizarre drive by a few editors to make sure that the term "soft reboot" does not enter this article. I understand that this is a new term, and that it's never 100% clear what is a soft reboot and what is just a sequel; but there are now at least two notable sources that provide a definition of sorts for "soft reboot", plus at least another two (I would say more) that tie the concept to specific films. That surely seems like enough to justify a few sentences about soft reboots in this article.
You may think that the term "soft reboot" is meaningless - it's a valid opinion. But at this point, using that to justify removal of content starts to seem like original research, unless someone can find some notable sources similarly discounting the concept of a soft reboot. Korny O'Near ( talk) 00:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood the "chugging along" comment (they weren't defining "soft reboot", they were just pointing out that Daniel Craig is still playing James Bond) - but more importantly, are websites like Mandatory, Screen Rant and The Agony Booth now reliable sources? If so, it would actually make writing this article a lot easier. If not, there's no point discussing what they say. And if "soft reboot" is an ambiguous term, the correct solution is to describe that ambiguity in this article, and mention the mixed perspectives on which films if any are soft reboots, not to keep it out. There are plenty of ambiguous terms covered in Wikipedia. Korny O'Near ( talk) 23:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I've rewritten the article lead to better reflect the ambiguity of "reboot". Hopefully this will better illuminate the fact how any of multiple and conflicting definitions of "soft reboot" as a type of reboot rests on shaky legs. Daß Wölf 01:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Sequels which are released many years after previous films in the series, and are set in a different time period, e.g. Jurassic World and Star Wars: The Force Awakens, are sometimes called soft reboots. [1] [2] This term has also been applied to films such as Casino Royale (2006) and Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. [3]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Korny O'Near claimed above that the definition of "soft reboot" is clear: it's a reboot that maintains continuity. Given that is the same as a sequel, it is a meaningless term that only serves as a marketing buzzword that some online writers inconsistently use as click bait. It is worthless to readers looking for accurate information. If you're looking for a word for a followup that maintains continuity but comes years later, try revival. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 17:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
"...often sold as soft reboots."). Using reviews or opinion articles which use a term in passing to suggest a concrete definition is WP:SYNTH, at best. Stripping the context about marketing and PR from the Bloomberg article would also be inappropriate for similar reasons. Grayfell ( talk) 18:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Gothicfilm: Yeah, I agree that the term "sequel" will probably be misunderstood unless the reader clicks on the wikilink (although lots of reboots are also thought of as sequels, e.g. Casino Royale). I'm not sure what to put there ("installment of an established series"? -- it sounds a bit complicated).
However, I don't think your new definition is accurate. Reboots don't discard all continuity (e.g. character names and backstories are typically preserved). Similarly the backstories are not recreated completely, e.g. Batman's parents are certainly long dead in every series, although IIRC the circumstances of their death change. This is not mentioned in your sources either. Daß Wölf 19:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe we should have a list of only comic book reboots on this article. It is WP:UNDUE without films, TV series and novels, etc. Particularly as only two of the 12 entries on the list has a source. We have
and it seems to me best to just leave it to those categories. Otherwise there will always be people who want to restore the other lists and edit war over them. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 01:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Rather than have an edit war, let's discuss the relative pros and cons of removing this section. Maybe we can take bits of it and place them under a different section? What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawMuldoon ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 6 December 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
I'd like to contest the example of The Force Awakens as a soft reboot as, while the films are left in the continuity, everything else that previously was in continuity was ignored and removed and yes the other materiel was in fact in continuity contrary to what some may say Tnu1138 ( talk) 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I have removed most of the lists of reboots in various media. At first I wanted to remove some obvious nonsense, for instance the Need for Speed franchise which never had any continuity to discard, and the various series of remakes (Aren't a remake and a reboot supposed to be different? Even if so, I think we should limit the examples to things which are reboots and only reboots to decrease the vagueness that pervades the article). Then I realized that nearly all of this was guaranteed to be either wholly WP:OR, or sourcable at best to an industry tidbit issued decades post festum. The one and only reference in the whole section was James Bond's Casino Royale, which begs the question of what makes it a reboot, and not On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Live and Let Die, etc. I'm sure there is a case here for both sides of the argument, and that just proves that without sources any list such as this is arbitrary, and therefore I have removed it. I have left in comic books as that's where the term "reboot" came from, and thus instances of comic book reboots are more likely to have concrete sources. Daß Wölf 16:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@
Jamster93: I'm aware this was a really major change, so I understand if you disagree with me, but I'd like to know for what reason.
Daß
Wölf 00:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Please don't delete lists of reboot films, television series and video games. It's better to put all of the known reboots back in the page, not removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Antony ( talk • contribs) 00:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Please put all of the known reboots back in the page, STOP REMOVING!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Antony ( talk • contribs) 03:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Stop removing stuff from the list! Jamster93 ( talk) 21:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I've fully protected the page for a week, (requiring admin access to edit the article) since both IPs and established editors were edit warring on this. Contact me if a resolution on this comes sooner, and I can unprotect before then. Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Added the list back, as I may have come up with a solution. I'll need to check on a few things before I finish things up. Also, would the Sonic Comics really count for a reboot? Because it feels more like a soft reboot rather than a full one. Gameman18 ( talk) 19:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Basically, in the case of films, any remakes of single films are out, but if said film started a franchise and a new film is made that starts it over (like the Ghostbusters, Smurfs and the upcoming Tomb Raider reboot), then it can be added to the list. In the case of video games, that's usually obvious via change in artsyle/setting, lack of connection to the previous games, the publishers/developers saying so themselves (kinda like in this Need for Speed article: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/need-for-speed-open-world-full-reboot-hitting-ps4-/1100-6427492/), etc. Comics usually start over at Issue 1 (which is why I'm debating on if I should remove Sonic from the list because it was more of a soft reboot that started on issue 252). Gameman18 ( talk) 23:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the "Soft reboot" section, change the nonsensical, poorly worded, and unsourced description to:
Unlike a reboot, which discards all continuity in a franchise, a "soft reboot" relaunches and introduces a film, television, or video game series to a new generation of consumers while still maintaining continuity with previous installments in a franchise. [1] Examples of soft reboots include the 2015 films Jurassic World, with the Jurassic Park franchise; Mad Max: Fury Road with the Mad Max franchise; and Star Wars: The Force Awakens, with the Star Wars franchise. [2] [3]
I looked back through the edit history and a random IP removed this, claiming that this was an "improper" definition with "poor" examples. JDC808 ♫ 11:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 11:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I have restored the soft-reboot content after its bold removal; a consensus is not one where a discussion was held between three editors without any outside opinions our outside advertising. A proper discussion needs to unfold, and if there is further disagreement on it, perhaps an RFC would solve any issues. -- Alex TW 03:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Some writers have completely ignored continuity, in a special way that essentially reboots for every story arc or even for every story.
A notable example is the Carl Barks universe for which Scrooge McDuck, Huey, Dewey and Louie, Gyro Gearloose and his helper, April, May and June, Gladstone Gander, and probably others I've forgotten were created by him, as was the fictional city of Duckburg.
This technique is similar to floating timeline and reset button technique, but isn't really covered by either of those articles. But surely others have noticed its use? If so, it should have a name somewhere in reliable secondary sources.
The Donald Duck Universe is particularly interesting because Barks' successor Don Rosa abandoned this technique, and instead introduced massive retcons to give his fictional universe a timeline. Again, this should surely be documented in RSS. Andrewa ( talk) 19:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the bizarre drive by a few editors to make sure that the term "soft reboot" does not enter this article. I understand that this is a new term, and that it's never 100% clear what is a soft reboot and what is just a sequel; but there are now at least two notable sources that provide a definition of sorts for "soft reboot", plus at least another two (I would say more) that tie the concept to specific films. That surely seems like enough to justify a few sentences about soft reboots in this article.
You may think that the term "soft reboot" is meaningless - it's a valid opinion. But at this point, using that to justify removal of content starts to seem like original research, unless someone can find some notable sources similarly discounting the concept of a soft reboot. Korny O'Near ( talk) 00:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood the "chugging along" comment (they weren't defining "soft reboot", they were just pointing out that Daniel Craig is still playing James Bond) - but more importantly, are websites like Mandatory, Screen Rant and The Agony Booth now reliable sources? If so, it would actually make writing this article a lot easier. If not, there's no point discussing what they say. And if "soft reboot" is an ambiguous term, the correct solution is to describe that ambiguity in this article, and mention the mixed perspectives on which films if any are soft reboots, not to keep it out. There are plenty of ambiguous terms covered in Wikipedia. Korny O'Near ( talk) 23:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I've rewritten the article lead to better reflect the ambiguity of "reboot". Hopefully this will better illuminate the fact how any of multiple and conflicting definitions of "soft reboot" as a type of reboot rests on shaky legs. Daß Wölf 01:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Sequels which are released many years after previous films in the series, and are set in a different time period, e.g. Jurassic World and Star Wars: The Force Awakens, are sometimes called soft reboots. [1] [2] This term has also been applied to films such as Casino Royale (2006) and Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. [3]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Korny O'Near claimed above that the definition of "soft reboot" is clear: it's a reboot that maintains continuity. Given that is the same as a sequel, it is a meaningless term that only serves as a marketing buzzword that some online writers inconsistently use as click bait. It is worthless to readers looking for accurate information. If you're looking for a word for a followup that maintains continuity but comes years later, try revival. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 17:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
"...often sold as soft reboots."). Using reviews or opinion articles which use a term in passing to suggest a concrete definition is WP:SYNTH, at best. Stripping the context about marketing and PR from the Bloomberg article would also be inappropriate for similar reasons. Grayfell ( talk) 18:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Gothicfilm: Yeah, I agree that the term "sequel" will probably be misunderstood unless the reader clicks on the wikilink (although lots of reboots are also thought of as sequels, e.g. Casino Royale). I'm not sure what to put there ("installment of an established series"? -- it sounds a bit complicated).
However, I don't think your new definition is accurate. Reboots don't discard all continuity (e.g. character names and backstories are typically preserved). Similarly the backstories are not recreated completely, e.g. Batman's parents are certainly long dead in every series, although IIRC the circumstances of their death change. This is not mentioned in your sources either. Daß Wölf 19:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe we should have a list of only comic book reboots on this article. It is WP:UNDUE without films, TV series and novels, etc. Particularly as only two of the 12 entries on the list has a source. We have
and it seems to me best to just leave it to those categories. Otherwise there will always be people who want to restore the other lists and edit war over them. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 01:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Rather than have an edit war, let's discuss the relative pros and cons of removing this section. Maybe we can take bits of it and place them under a different section? What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawMuldoon ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)