This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
where is the criticism section!? reboots are often along the worst reviewed products of their category. clearly the very idea of rebooting ALWAYS has massive potential to alienate and offend the fans of the original product/franchise. this has to be reflected in the article!!!
Why is SimCity (2013) listed as a Reboot? It is a city building game. It's not like there is any storyline to reboot. 114.134.166.150 ( talk) 00:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
cause they didn't name it SimCity 5 (!) and took out a lot of features. ergo, it's a reboot
Why is Casino Royale a reboot? The Bond movies have never followed any strict continuity - characters like Moneypenny, Blofeld and Leither have been played by different people with little attempt at disgusing the change of actor. I've never thought of Bond movies coming one after another - sure, the one where Blofeld dies is later than the ones where he's alive - but Bond movies don't exist on any logical timeline - HAD they done so, they would make no sense. Fx even Pierce Brosnan is sometimes told off with comments like "you're getting too old" etc. Had he really saved the world as many times as he has in the previous 2? movies, such behaviour would be completely crazy. The reactions of criminals towards Bond when he shows up also reflects, that each and every Bond movie sort of exists in its own little world (otherwise they'd be a lot more careful around him, had he just saved the world some 15 times) - it has connections to the other movies, but doesn't pretend any sort of actual consistency. And then Casino Royale isn't really a reboot, now is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.24.213 ( talk) 14:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this would apply but I have heard on tv from the film company that Casino Royale is not an official reboot. Apparently it is a prequel to the other movies but set in the present day. This could be so it allows them to reference Bond's "previous" missions in Quantum of Solace. JP Godfrey ( Talk to me) 09:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Might it make sense to recast the remake/reboot/continuity discussion in terms of some sort of continuum, rather than an either/or set of categories? The Bond Canon, pre-Casino Royale, did not have tight continuity--both in terms of limited continuity failings, and more generally in that the films don't relate to each other much. But the new Bond feels more different than simply another in the same series, with a new actor. Is this because the character itself is written and played more differently than in the case of past actor changes? Or because it explicitly situates the beginning of Bond's career in the present day? Does this sort of time-based continuity disjuncture feel more disruptive--giving rise to the desire to call it a "reboot"--than the "garden-variety" differences among the prior Bond canon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.141.14 ( talk) 19:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a reboot, because the first Bond Movie from 1954 was Casino Royale. This should be edited! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.132.9 ( talk) 03:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
In retroactive continuity, the series generally doesn't restart; it just briefly explains things are now different, and carries on with those relatively minor changes, filling in the gaps as it goes. With reboots, it's a whole new ball game, that usually only preserves the core elements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.153.213 ( talk) 17:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
But the Metal Gear Solid series IS arguably a remake in that much of the driving themes that were dominant in the previous games are explored in the current series. When Kojima developed the first Metal Gear Solid title, he did so with the idea in mind of selling his concept to an audience that was largely unfamiliar with his previous titles. While most of the game's cast and setting were entirely new, Metal Gear Solid did retain many of the driving elements from the first 2 titles, and made frequent references to them throughout MGS1's storyline. This was done to help establish a backstory to a game that essentially was being re-introduced to an untested audience. The hardware limitations of the MSX prohibited Kojima from presenting his story in a way he probably would have intended. With the emergence of CD-ROM technology, he was able to transcend some of these barriers, and repackage his series as a cinematic experience.
1. It's not the same thing to reboot a video game, because 95% of the time it's more of a remake or spin-off. Besides, when a franchise or series is rebooted, it’s the maker’s way of saying "We have too much garbage to put up with, let just start over." So, I’m going to have to delete the game in question.
2. Enterprise is *NOT* a reboot! They said it’s a prequel! A reboot is when someone deletes *everything* that came before. I’m going to have to delete this as well.
Why is GTA 4 on here? We don't know that the game is a reboot of the franchise, just because it used a redesigned Liberty City doesn't make it a reboot (lots of games use updated engines-Age of Empires 3 isn't a reboot just because it redesigns the Britons, it's a sequel). Everything we know about the game (pretty much) is based on a 50-second trailer. I've removed it, and lets keep it off unless someone can come up with evidence for it to be on here. 132.198.84.93 13:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Anonymous Coward
It is still their saying that none of the characters are mentioned, the main characters of previous games are comformed dead on a wall of some sort (I only read this) and Lasilio is on the radio again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.76.19 ( talk) 02:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
they called it GTA IV, not GTA. ergo it's not a reboot. it's really that simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.81.208 ( talk) 09:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know when and in what context the term "reboot" crossed over from computer terminology to this usage? The first I recall encountering it was around 1994 or 1995, with discussion of the post- Zero Hour reboot of the Legion of Super-Heroes. -- Kelson 23:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
What about when a television animation series is started based on a comic book series? They usually vary quite a bit from each other. Examples: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Sailor Moon. Dustin Asby 21:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Bond Movies had a continuity? Outside of M, Q and R I don't recall continuity being much of an issue... Conan-san 14:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
It was once Connery left after You Only Live Twice that the producers began using the 'reset button'. In On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Bond and Blofeld fail to recognize each other despite having met two years earlier. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that the films have always tacitly implied that everything which went before was part of continuity and, as such, Casino Royale is indeed a reboot.
....... I am very interested in this article and I think that Reboot is a really topical idea. It seems that alot of stuff is being rebooted. I have two points that perhaps someone would like to discuss.
1. I think that including stuff that is referred to as a parial reboot is a cop-out. I can't partially reboot my computer, it is either a reboot or not, TMNT and Superman are just fresh aditions to a series. The term reboot should be consistent if it seeks to be useful.
2. There is a interesting development in music where old bands have reformed and rebooted, coming up with a new image and a new thrust. For example the UK boy band 'Take That' , 'The Police' reforming and 'Rage Against the Machine' for new gigs. I think that this is perhaps a contentious area as they are existing as only a continuation of what has happened before.
What I think is really interesting about developing this article with more clarity is that there is obviously a public interest in popular culture being rebooted. Perhaps the style of the reboot is what is crucial - both Bond and Batman seem very pure reboots and take their cues from making the new film very tangible and plausible. There seems a need to make gaudy larger than life characters alot more real. Could this be with the heightened survielance that people now have of each other, reality TV, Blogs, Celeb personal lives more popular than the work of celebs? There is something there I believe-- Peej 15:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think the above mentioned trend has led to an excessive overuse of the term. Up until recently, many considered Doom III and Return to Castle Wolfenstein to be modern remakes of their respective originals, but ever since the success of Batman Begins everything game- and moviewise that revisits the first steps in a fictional character's life/career has been called a reboot. Of course, it would be tough to come up with hard evidence on whether the term actually IS being overused or not, but that's not really my point. Rather, it is my intention to adress each and everyone participating in this article to be more careful in their use of the term, before we wind up listing a third of all franchises in the entertainment industry in this article as reboots. Opinions? Broadbandmink 23:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Reboot seems to imply something involving not only a resetting of the continuity, but also a thematic re-imaging of the character and setting. Which is why Casino Royale is considered a reboot while the previous Bond movies to ignore continuity aren't. Same thing with Batman Begins. Another element seems to be that there has to be some level of it being made a point that the franchise is being re-imagined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.45.4 ( talk) 12:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the section about Metal Gear Solid because the game (and series) is not a reboot. You can't even argue it. Read the first sentence of the article to get a definition of the word: "Reboot means to discard all previous continuity in the series and start anew." The key word here is continuity. Metal Gear Solid did not discard the previous continuity established with Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake. Whether Metal Gear Solid recycles some of the gameplay elements of the previous games means absolutely nothing because the story of the game picks up where the previous one left off. Let's put this ridiculous argument to rest. DT29 9 June 2006
It is a reboot, in that there has since been numerous revisions to the previous storyline in favor of the current. The current series has practically disregarded much of the continuity of the original in order to make way for much of the plotline featured in the current series. In fact, the first Metal Gear Solid game was made with the idea in mind that its targetted audience had not played the original titles, hence the first game's similarity to the Metal Gear 1 & 2 in terms of both storyline and gameplay. But despite casting aside the old in favor of the new, Kojima has been keen to integrate the core elements from the original games into the current series. Themes such as FOX-HOUND, Outer Heaven, and Metal Gear are continuously are featured as integral elements to the series, alongside the new MGS-oriented concepts such as the Patriots and the Cyborg Ninja.
The numerous references to the original Metal Gear series during the first MGS title was for the purpose of establishing a backstory for Solid Snake's character. That makes sense, given that most of the gamers that Kojima was targetting (from the West in particular)were largely unfamiliar with the previous 2 titles. The success of the first MGS enabled for Kojima to branch his series out into a niche franchise. And with each passing installment in the current series, he has become less and less dependant on the original for source material.
With technology at his disposal that he had lacked during his early years as a game developer, Kojima is now slowly but surely creating a revisionist take on his own series; and retelling it from a cinematic standpoint.
It's often a formula used when bringing comic book characters to the big screen. In this instance, screenwriters pick and choose which classic themes, characters, and situations are to be incorperated into the main storyline, inevitably discarding a great deal of official canon along the way. It should also be noted that in many cases, discarded themes are re-incorperated back into a comic book series, even after it has undergone a reboot.
Crackhead Bob -- 6/18/2006
Not that anyone cares, but what about Digimon? I think that the Digimon Tamers weren't too much of a reboot, but the forth season definitly was... 68.228.33.74 09:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Near the beginning of the article, it says, "This differs from a creator producing a separate interpretation of another creator's work; rather, the owner of the creation declares that the rebooted continuity is now the official version."
My experience with the term reboot is limited mainly to comics and Transformers, but in those domains at least, this statement is definitely not true. Sometimes a reboot "replaces" the old stuff (Crisis on Infinite Earths, for example), but usually it's just a "new version". Often the reboot exists alongside the original, as is the case with Marvel's Ultimate books, and even the X-Men: Evolution cartoon which the article provides as an example. I would imagine that the term is used that way in most other fandoms as well, but, I don't want to just assume that my experience is universal and change it without at least bringing it up here. Any opinions?
-- Steve-o 17:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't Smallville be listed on this page? It's obviously a reboot of Superman.
The Doctor Who series is not a reboot. I've never seen it described as such nor have I (as a fan) ever considered it as such. It is a direct follow on to the previous series as can be seen by the inclusion of such characters as K9 and Sarah-Jane Smith. Before I delete this I'd like to take a few opinions on it. AlanD 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It would appear that this has been deleted already. AlanD 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
How is that a reboot in the terms mentioned in the first paragraph of the article? I'd only say the marvel universe was rebooted if all the original titles restarted. -- Charlesknight 09:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The Ultimate Universe is a reboot. It is not a reboot of the whole universe but it certainly is one of selected characters. AlanD 14:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Then again I see your point. It is perhaps more of a reimagining... Crisis was a reboot... mmmm actually I think you may be right there. AlanD 14:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I think if we are going to call something a reboot - the original has to cease - other we are talking about a version, no? -- Charlesknight 14:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree. AlanD 15:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I've just removed the mention of the May 1st Reboot, as it does not fit the description of this article, i.e. it is not a discarding of the history and continuity of the involved websites.
According to the organizing website it's...
"... designers subscribing to one event in order to publisise their work..." Pjbflynn 20:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that Casino Royale (2006) is a reboot, as it is part of a series that does not follow strict continuity anyway (just as well, really, or the movie Bond would now be about 75 years old, and Connery would still be playing him!) "Reboot" suggests that the previous 20 Bonds were all part of a "single session", with no discrepancies or contradictions - which evidently wasn't the case.
I'm also struggling to see how Batman Begins is a reboot and not a prequel. Does the movie directly contradict the events of the previous four movies?
It's fairly difficult to grasp these distinctions given that "reboot" (in this sense) isn't exactly an everyday turn of phrase. Every moviegoer - every man in the street - has a clear understanding of what a prequel is, but most people would have difficulty getting their heads around the concept of a reboot. It's more of a fandom thing. 217.34.39.123 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I'd have to disagree and say this definitely isnt a reboot. What "tragic events" happened in the last 3 TR games that contradicts with this one? For one, Lara never died, if that's what was meant. There were no previously dead characters that came back to life in Legend or anything.
This last installment was pretty different from the other ones, I'm guessing they were trying to make it more like the movie. But even with the new guys in the manor there's nothing contradictory that says this is a reboot and not just a continuation of the series
so I'm gonna delete that part from this article, and if anyone has a problem with that then they can put it back. Radioactive Cactus 8:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone ought to bring this issue over to the Tomb Raider Legend-article, as that particular article clearly states that the game works as a reboot plotwise. What about Tomb Raider Anniversary? Should it be considered a reboot or remake? Broadbandmink 23:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
According to the article, none of the games follow on from the previous game, and the creators themselves say there isn't a connection. So this entire section is here just because a few fans think there is a tenuous connection?? Delete? VonBlade 21:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Does this put the GTA series in the same boat? I am not all that familiar with 1 and 2, but every game since has had different characters, different city and different story. Snake robot podium ( talk) 05:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I've removed Twisted Metal: Black from the list of video game examples, as it's not a reboot of the Twisted Metal series. It portrays the Twisted Metal universe from the viewpoint of a specific character. ("This is how he sees the world, how Sweet Tooth sees his life.") It's like a Batman movie that's told from the perspective of the Joker. An entire Talk page could probably be filled discussing the continuity issues inherent in such a story, but it's difficult to consider it a definite reboot when you take Twisted Metal: Head-On into account, which references both the "colorful world" of Twisted Metal 2 and the "dark world" of Twisted Metal: Black. DT29 21:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Would it be correct to say the final episode of the television series Newhart rebooted itself into the timeline of The Bob Newhart Show ? Wlindley 13:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason why i ask that is because the article for this game says that the setting is completely unrelated to the previous installments. 68.147.223.143 ( talk) 03:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
No, since it is not going back and contradicting anything, the series itself has no real continuity to adhere to anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.40.36 ( talk) 01:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Are there any examples of continuity restarts in serial fiction prior to the 20th century? The article lists many (arguably too many) examples, but none predates the 20th century. I get the impression that this technique did not exist before that time. Is this an intended and correct impression? Matt Fitzpatrick ( talk) 05:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Removed the following from the Television section
This was not a reboot, at least in the context of this article. Yes, there was a large revamp of the visual elements, and the titles were vacated, but the title histories remained, as did most of the wrestlers and their gimmicks. A reboot for WCW would mean that everything prior to April 10 did not officially occur, as if it was Day 1 for the promotion. -- RoninBK T C 11:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Should Irregular Webcomic! be listed? Recently everyone (in at least some of the threads) died and the Mythbusters are trying to recreate the Big Bang ... — Tamfang ( talk) 01:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like some people want to include every remake of a movie! — Tamfang ( talk) 19:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Films that did not manage to reboot a franchise (i.e managed to produce no sequels) should probably not be considered reboots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.50.169 ( talk) 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Several of the games are contested as probably being remakes rather than reboots. Like movies, video games often retell the same story after a time, but unlike movies, the interactive element changes as well as this may appear to some as a "reboot". 陣 内 Jinnai 01:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
While I don't deny the role of the latest Star Trek movie is to act as a reboot, at least in terms of the freedom it allows the director (and the viewer) to ignore previous story developments, it is different from most reboots as it exists in the same universe. In essence, all other reboots are 'parallel universes' whereas Star Trek is an 'alternate timeline'. I think it deserves mentioning as a different kind of reboot. Famico666 ( talk) 21:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not really a rebot at all, in the true sense of the term. Since the origional continuity still exists and is refered to now as Prime Reality, the new storyline is called the alternate reality. At least thats the term i see everyone using including memory alpha. Smitty1337 ( talk) 09:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Star Trek does not fit the definition of a reboot. The original timeline still exists and events that took place in it affected the latest movie by creating the alternative timeline that is now taking place. Leonard Nimoy even plays the same character that he did in the original series and movies. A reboot would not have needed Nimoy or any events from the previous series/movies. It would have simply started over again. KitHutch ( talk) 01:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see, all these reboots have taken place since 2000. Surely the 1989 film incarnation of batman should also count as a reboot? Or does the reboot by definition require an 'origin' story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.85.248 ( talk) 17:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This movie is not a reboot as it follows the same continuity! It is just a "prequel", set before the other movies, and released a little while after. A long period of time between movies in a series should not affect whether it is a prequel or not. A prime example of this is the "Toy Story" series, as the final movie was released much later than the second. As "Toy Story 3" is not a reboot, neither is "X-Men: First Class". Although many actors differ between "X-Men: First Class" and other X-Men movies, some do remain the same, notably the character of Wolverine (played by Hugh Jackman), who makes a cameo appearance in "X-Men: First Class". An appearance which makes no sense if the movie was not part of the original series. Most importantly, "X-Men: First Class" is used to set up most of the events in the rest of the continuity. Therefore, it is not a reboot at all! -- ProfessorKilroy ( talk) 14:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
You're both overthinking this. If reliable sources say it's a reboot, we list it as a reboot. If not, we don't. - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
SummerPhD, you are missing the point. Another interview with Matthew Vaughn (the director) states that is is a prequel and not a reboot (www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=21023), hence contradicting that aspect of the current source (which also states it is a prequel). According to this article, "A reboot differs from a prequel in that a prequel is generally consistent with the canon (previously established continuity) of the series. With a reboot, the older continuity is largely discarded and replaced with a new canon." The latter is clearly not the case in this instance. Both of the mentioned sources verify that the film is consistent with the established continuity. As to Vaughn's opinions on sequels to "X-Men: First Class", no such official plans for these sequels have been made (at least in public), meaning that "First Class" is still labeled as a part of the X-Men series continuity if it was indeed partly intended as a reboot (verified by the source I provided). Also, Vaughn goes on to say that possible sequels to this film would take place after "First Class", but before the original X-Men trilogy (meaning that they would be part of the continutiy). This article then goes on to state, "Additionally, prequels are often developed by the same creator as the original series they lead up to, while a remake is often produced by a different author from that of the original series, and can be seen as re-telling of the same story and essentially maintaining the same canon." Whilst the directors are different, Bryan Singer, who directed "X-Men" and "X2", produced "First Class" as well as contributing to the story of all these three. Also, "First Class" does not retell the story told in the original trilogy, but instead a different story that leads to the original story, making it a prequel. -- ProfessorKilroy ( talk) 07:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
slashfilm.com
interview) may have been found
here, in the FAQ section of the IMDb entry. Of course, I'm not suggesting that IMDb be used as a source in this article, but the FAQ seems to offer a good explanation of the director's thoughts (i.e. X-Men: First Class contains elements of both a prequel and a reboot).
Super
Mario
Man 17:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)What should be done with entries that some reliable sources say are reboots and other reliable sources say are not? This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, so we don't have to keep all of them. IMO, we should ditch borderline/muddy cases in favor of clear examples. If, OTOH, some of the sources are mere mentions while the contrary sources are giving the discussion some depth (like a review calling it a "reboot" versus the director discussing why it is not a reboot), I would give some weight to the depth. Opinions? - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
hello. I noticed that Rise of the Planet of the Apes is listed as a reboot however I don't feel this to be true. my evidence for this is that Planet of the Apes (both versions of the movie as far as I know) takes place when the apes are already developed into a nation and have there own planet and all that such thing while Rise of the Planet of the Apes acts as more of a prequel showing how the apes became the way they did to cause them to own the planet and come together into the nation... in other words Rise of the Planet of the Apes is the cause and Planet of the Apes is the effect (the titles even hint to Rise being a prequel as RISE of the planet of the apes suggests the beginning and how they ROSE to power while Planet of the Apes they are already in power and all that such thing). and while Rise of the Planet of the Apes has a supposed sequel (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) it could easily just be a tie-in film (much like how the Star Wars: Force Unleashed games take place between the already established timeline of Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes could easily just show what happens between the Conclusion of Rise and the beginning of Planet) this is just the way I understand it (as I have seen both films) I could be wrong. if I am wrong please correct me however I believe I have provided evidence to prove that it isnt a reboot but instead a Prequel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.112.51 ( talk) 21:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Since my work in the movie business which began in 1990 and my exposure to a horde of industry professionals, I wanted to chime in on how "reboot" is sorting itself out as a term as I hear it. I rewrote the introduction to this article. Please feel free to further qualify it, but be careful to take in the following notes:
1) The term "reboot" emerged from the movie marketing niche and like many pop terms it was never "coined" with an official definition in mass media. Instead, it's defined and re-defined by our culture in various contexts. I am not sure when the first time I heard the term - it might have been with Batman Begins, and at that time it was to clarify that the entire franchise was being remade, not just a specific movie, and without any attempt at continuity to the original. Therefore most contextual references to a "reboot" are about a serialized predecessor that is being discarded.
2) That being said, to this day, the term is used in other ways. It has been used to refer to the remake of a single film, such as The Incredible Hulk (which, if you want to split hairs, was a re-adaptation from the source material), as well as even to a sequel or prequel with obvious continuity to the original universe (see the recent Variety article I cited about Jurassic Park 4). There are also examples of blended sequels / franchise remakes, such as Superman Returns, which has only partial continuity to Superman in 1978 and was commonly referred to as a reboot. Abrams' Star Trek was an especially interesting example of a prequel / sequel / franchise remake blend, because using science fiction ideas it created a parallel world in which the audience can decide for themselves what it is. If you like it to be a traditional "reboot" (a franchise remake), without any continuity to the original franchise (accepting that Nimoy is playing "old Spock" in the remade franchise, not "old Spock" from the original), then fine. If you like it to be the exact same franchise as the original, but a mirrored universe in which all the characters (except "old Spock") look different, and the technology is different, etc, then fine. This marketing strategy captures both interests.
It seems prudent that this Wikipedia article should note this contextual ambiguity, which is what I'm attempting to do. If we, as a community, prefer to nail it down as definition #1 only - that it's the remake of a franchise and nothing else, then at least it should be noted that the term is being used "incorrectly" by others, although this approach seems elitist because some of those people are professional media reporters, film critics, marketing professionals, etc.
Marketers, in particular, will use what ever term seems to beef up the most interest in their product, no matter if it makes sense or not.
Let me know what you think.
BTW: whoever has been reverting my submission back without any plausible explanation is incorrectly using Wikipedia and can get you barred. See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Edit_warring. This disruptive act has cost me time and effort during my research for the most appropriate phraseology and references.
I don't understand why the 2006 movie Superman Begins was not listed as the reboot example for the 1979 movie Superman. It is as much a reboot as Man of Steel is. The only thing I can conclude is that whoever comprised the table was one of the many people who didn't like Superman Begins and is allowing their own personal bias against the film to compromise their objectivity in designating what is a reboot of the 1979 film.
The already entered comments attempting to rationalize why Superman Begins is not entirely a reboot are vague, incomplete, and subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.205.100 ( talk) 00:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The film section cites "Total Recall" and "Prometheus" as examples of reboots. Unless I'm missing something, Total Recall was a single film, and it was later remade. And Prometheus is a prequel to the Alien franchise. MrZoolook ( talk) 01:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, Texas Chainsaw 3D ignores most of the Texas Chainsaw continuity but it is definitely a direct sequel to the original movie and not a reboot of the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.171.156 ( talk) 00:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Mad Max: Fury Road should probably not be considered a reboot. Director George Miller calls it a "revisit" and says it probably takes place after Thunderdome. He says all four movies are connected.
A reboot is a film in a franchise that breaks continuity of previous films, a remake is a film based on another film. Two completely different things. A reboot of a franchise can be a remake, it can also have an all-original storyline. If said reboot isn't a remake of anything, and it didn't start a new series, it isn't suddenly a remake. eg - Friday the 13th (2009 film)?
And is Terminator Genesys not a reboot? It was announced as one. Texas Chainsaw 3D is very much a reboot and ignored the previous 6 films in the franchise so there's no question about that one.-- Kieranwilcox ( talk) 01:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Reboot (fiction)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
==Stub class rating as of
2007-10-19==
Severely defiencent for such an important article:
Basically, this is written like it came from a fan forum/blog, not an encyclopedia. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC) (Note: I am not watchlisting this article or comments file, so any issue regarding these comments should be taken to my talk page.) |
Last edited at 12:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This article covers reboot in regards to fiction, but it doesn't cover soft reboot (and no other article does). I believe there should be a section on what a soft reboot is. This article goes into it pretty well: http://screenrant.com/movie-franchise-soft-reboot-continuation-discussion/ -- JDC808 ♫ 23:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Would reboots like Daredevil (2003) to Marvel's Daredevil count as a Film reboot or TV reboot? Also does The Flash (2014) count as reboot of The Flash (1990), because they both exist in the same multiverse. Batman3095 ( talk) 16:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
where is the criticism section!? reboots are often along the worst reviewed products of their category. clearly the very idea of rebooting ALWAYS has massive potential to alienate and offend the fans of the original product/franchise. this has to be reflected in the article!!!
Why is SimCity (2013) listed as a Reboot? It is a city building game. It's not like there is any storyline to reboot. 114.134.166.150 ( talk) 00:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
cause they didn't name it SimCity 5 (!) and took out a lot of features. ergo, it's a reboot
Why is Casino Royale a reboot? The Bond movies have never followed any strict continuity - characters like Moneypenny, Blofeld and Leither have been played by different people with little attempt at disgusing the change of actor. I've never thought of Bond movies coming one after another - sure, the one where Blofeld dies is later than the ones where he's alive - but Bond movies don't exist on any logical timeline - HAD they done so, they would make no sense. Fx even Pierce Brosnan is sometimes told off with comments like "you're getting too old" etc. Had he really saved the world as many times as he has in the previous 2? movies, such behaviour would be completely crazy. The reactions of criminals towards Bond when he shows up also reflects, that each and every Bond movie sort of exists in its own little world (otherwise they'd be a lot more careful around him, had he just saved the world some 15 times) - it has connections to the other movies, but doesn't pretend any sort of actual consistency. And then Casino Royale isn't really a reboot, now is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.24.213 ( talk) 14:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this would apply but I have heard on tv from the film company that Casino Royale is not an official reboot. Apparently it is a prequel to the other movies but set in the present day. This could be so it allows them to reference Bond's "previous" missions in Quantum of Solace. JP Godfrey ( Talk to me) 09:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Might it make sense to recast the remake/reboot/continuity discussion in terms of some sort of continuum, rather than an either/or set of categories? The Bond Canon, pre-Casino Royale, did not have tight continuity--both in terms of limited continuity failings, and more generally in that the films don't relate to each other much. But the new Bond feels more different than simply another in the same series, with a new actor. Is this because the character itself is written and played more differently than in the case of past actor changes? Or because it explicitly situates the beginning of Bond's career in the present day? Does this sort of time-based continuity disjuncture feel more disruptive--giving rise to the desire to call it a "reboot"--than the "garden-variety" differences among the prior Bond canon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.141.14 ( talk) 19:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a reboot, because the first Bond Movie from 1954 was Casino Royale. This should be edited! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.132.9 ( talk) 03:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
In retroactive continuity, the series generally doesn't restart; it just briefly explains things are now different, and carries on with those relatively minor changes, filling in the gaps as it goes. With reboots, it's a whole new ball game, that usually only preserves the core elements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.153.213 ( talk) 17:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
But the Metal Gear Solid series IS arguably a remake in that much of the driving themes that were dominant in the previous games are explored in the current series. When Kojima developed the first Metal Gear Solid title, he did so with the idea in mind of selling his concept to an audience that was largely unfamiliar with his previous titles. While most of the game's cast and setting were entirely new, Metal Gear Solid did retain many of the driving elements from the first 2 titles, and made frequent references to them throughout MGS1's storyline. This was done to help establish a backstory to a game that essentially was being re-introduced to an untested audience. The hardware limitations of the MSX prohibited Kojima from presenting his story in a way he probably would have intended. With the emergence of CD-ROM technology, he was able to transcend some of these barriers, and repackage his series as a cinematic experience.
1. It's not the same thing to reboot a video game, because 95% of the time it's more of a remake or spin-off. Besides, when a franchise or series is rebooted, it’s the maker’s way of saying "We have too much garbage to put up with, let just start over." So, I’m going to have to delete the game in question.
2. Enterprise is *NOT* a reboot! They said it’s a prequel! A reboot is when someone deletes *everything* that came before. I’m going to have to delete this as well.
Why is GTA 4 on here? We don't know that the game is a reboot of the franchise, just because it used a redesigned Liberty City doesn't make it a reboot (lots of games use updated engines-Age of Empires 3 isn't a reboot just because it redesigns the Britons, it's a sequel). Everything we know about the game (pretty much) is based on a 50-second trailer. I've removed it, and lets keep it off unless someone can come up with evidence for it to be on here. 132.198.84.93 13:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Anonymous Coward
It is still their saying that none of the characters are mentioned, the main characters of previous games are comformed dead on a wall of some sort (I only read this) and Lasilio is on the radio again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.76.19 ( talk) 02:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
they called it GTA IV, not GTA. ergo it's not a reboot. it's really that simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.81.208 ( talk) 09:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know when and in what context the term "reboot" crossed over from computer terminology to this usage? The first I recall encountering it was around 1994 or 1995, with discussion of the post- Zero Hour reboot of the Legion of Super-Heroes. -- Kelson 23:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
What about when a television animation series is started based on a comic book series? They usually vary quite a bit from each other. Examples: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Sailor Moon. Dustin Asby 21:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Bond Movies had a continuity? Outside of M, Q and R I don't recall continuity being much of an issue... Conan-san 14:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
It was once Connery left after You Only Live Twice that the producers began using the 'reset button'. In On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Bond and Blofeld fail to recognize each other despite having met two years earlier. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that the films have always tacitly implied that everything which went before was part of continuity and, as such, Casino Royale is indeed a reboot.
....... I am very interested in this article and I think that Reboot is a really topical idea. It seems that alot of stuff is being rebooted. I have two points that perhaps someone would like to discuss.
1. I think that including stuff that is referred to as a parial reboot is a cop-out. I can't partially reboot my computer, it is either a reboot or not, TMNT and Superman are just fresh aditions to a series. The term reboot should be consistent if it seeks to be useful.
2. There is a interesting development in music where old bands have reformed and rebooted, coming up with a new image and a new thrust. For example the UK boy band 'Take That' , 'The Police' reforming and 'Rage Against the Machine' for new gigs. I think that this is perhaps a contentious area as they are existing as only a continuation of what has happened before.
What I think is really interesting about developing this article with more clarity is that there is obviously a public interest in popular culture being rebooted. Perhaps the style of the reboot is what is crucial - both Bond and Batman seem very pure reboots and take their cues from making the new film very tangible and plausible. There seems a need to make gaudy larger than life characters alot more real. Could this be with the heightened survielance that people now have of each other, reality TV, Blogs, Celeb personal lives more popular than the work of celebs? There is something there I believe-- Peej 15:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think the above mentioned trend has led to an excessive overuse of the term. Up until recently, many considered Doom III and Return to Castle Wolfenstein to be modern remakes of their respective originals, but ever since the success of Batman Begins everything game- and moviewise that revisits the first steps in a fictional character's life/career has been called a reboot. Of course, it would be tough to come up with hard evidence on whether the term actually IS being overused or not, but that's not really my point. Rather, it is my intention to adress each and everyone participating in this article to be more careful in their use of the term, before we wind up listing a third of all franchises in the entertainment industry in this article as reboots. Opinions? Broadbandmink 23:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Reboot seems to imply something involving not only a resetting of the continuity, but also a thematic re-imaging of the character and setting. Which is why Casino Royale is considered a reboot while the previous Bond movies to ignore continuity aren't. Same thing with Batman Begins. Another element seems to be that there has to be some level of it being made a point that the franchise is being re-imagined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.45.4 ( talk) 12:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the section about Metal Gear Solid because the game (and series) is not a reboot. You can't even argue it. Read the first sentence of the article to get a definition of the word: "Reboot means to discard all previous continuity in the series and start anew." The key word here is continuity. Metal Gear Solid did not discard the previous continuity established with Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake. Whether Metal Gear Solid recycles some of the gameplay elements of the previous games means absolutely nothing because the story of the game picks up where the previous one left off. Let's put this ridiculous argument to rest. DT29 9 June 2006
It is a reboot, in that there has since been numerous revisions to the previous storyline in favor of the current. The current series has practically disregarded much of the continuity of the original in order to make way for much of the plotline featured in the current series. In fact, the first Metal Gear Solid game was made with the idea in mind that its targetted audience had not played the original titles, hence the first game's similarity to the Metal Gear 1 & 2 in terms of both storyline and gameplay. But despite casting aside the old in favor of the new, Kojima has been keen to integrate the core elements from the original games into the current series. Themes such as FOX-HOUND, Outer Heaven, and Metal Gear are continuously are featured as integral elements to the series, alongside the new MGS-oriented concepts such as the Patriots and the Cyborg Ninja.
The numerous references to the original Metal Gear series during the first MGS title was for the purpose of establishing a backstory for Solid Snake's character. That makes sense, given that most of the gamers that Kojima was targetting (from the West in particular)were largely unfamiliar with the previous 2 titles. The success of the first MGS enabled for Kojima to branch his series out into a niche franchise. And with each passing installment in the current series, he has become less and less dependant on the original for source material.
With technology at his disposal that he had lacked during his early years as a game developer, Kojima is now slowly but surely creating a revisionist take on his own series; and retelling it from a cinematic standpoint.
It's often a formula used when bringing comic book characters to the big screen. In this instance, screenwriters pick and choose which classic themes, characters, and situations are to be incorperated into the main storyline, inevitably discarding a great deal of official canon along the way. It should also be noted that in many cases, discarded themes are re-incorperated back into a comic book series, even after it has undergone a reboot.
Crackhead Bob -- 6/18/2006
Not that anyone cares, but what about Digimon? I think that the Digimon Tamers weren't too much of a reboot, but the forth season definitly was... 68.228.33.74 09:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Near the beginning of the article, it says, "This differs from a creator producing a separate interpretation of another creator's work; rather, the owner of the creation declares that the rebooted continuity is now the official version."
My experience with the term reboot is limited mainly to comics and Transformers, but in those domains at least, this statement is definitely not true. Sometimes a reboot "replaces" the old stuff (Crisis on Infinite Earths, for example), but usually it's just a "new version". Often the reboot exists alongside the original, as is the case with Marvel's Ultimate books, and even the X-Men: Evolution cartoon which the article provides as an example. I would imagine that the term is used that way in most other fandoms as well, but, I don't want to just assume that my experience is universal and change it without at least bringing it up here. Any opinions?
-- Steve-o 17:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't Smallville be listed on this page? It's obviously a reboot of Superman.
The Doctor Who series is not a reboot. I've never seen it described as such nor have I (as a fan) ever considered it as such. It is a direct follow on to the previous series as can be seen by the inclusion of such characters as K9 and Sarah-Jane Smith. Before I delete this I'd like to take a few opinions on it. AlanD 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It would appear that this has been deleted already. AlanD 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
How is that a reboot in the terms mentioned in the first paragraph of the article? I'd only say the marvel universe was rebooted if all the original titles restarted. -- Charlesknight 09:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The Ultimate Universe is a reboot. It is not a reboot of the whole universe but it certainly is one of selected characters. AlanD 14:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Then again I see your point. It is perhaps more of a reimagining... Crisis was a reboot... mmmm actually I think you may be right there. AlanD 14:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I think if we are going to call something a reboot - the original has to cease - other we are talking about a version, no? -- Charlesknight 14:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree. AlanD 15:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I've just removed the mention of the May 1st Reboot, as it does not fit the description of this article, i.e. it is not a discarding of the history and continuity of the involved websites.
According to the organizing website it's...
"... designers subscribing to one event in order to publisise their work..." Pjbflynn 20:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that Casino Royale (2006) is a reboot, as it is part of a series that does not follow strict continuity anyway (just as well, really, or the movie Bond would now be about 75 years old, and Connery would still be playing him!) "Reboot" suggests that the previous 20 Bonds were all part of a "single session", with no discrepancies or contradictions - which evidently wasn't the case.
I'm also struggling to see how Batman Begins is a reboot and not a prequel. Does the movie directly contradict the events of the previous four movies?
It's fairly difficult to grasp these distinctions given that "reboot" (in this sense) isn't exactly an everyday turn of phrase. Every moviegoer - every man in the street - has a clear understanding of what a prequel is, but most people would have difficulty getting their heads around the concept of a reboot. It's more of a fandom thing. 217.34.39.123 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I'd have to disagree and say this definitely isnt a reboot. What "tragic events" happened in the last 3 TR games that contradicts with this one? For one, Lara never died, if that's what was meant. There were no previously dead characters that came back to life in Legend or anything.
This last installment was pretty different from the other ones, I'm guessing they were trying to make it more like the movie. But even with the new guys in the manor there's nothing contradictory that says this is a reboot and not just a continuation of the series
so I'm gonna delete that part from this article, and if anyone has a problem with that then they can put it back. Radioactive Cactus 8:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone ought to bring this issue over to the Tomb Raider Legend-article, as that particular article clearly states that the game works as a reboot plotwise. What about Tomb Raider Anniversary? Should it be considered a reboot or remake? Broadbandmink 23:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
According to the article, none of the games follow on from the previous game, and the creators themselves say there isn't a connection. So this entire section is here just because a few fans think there is a tenuous connection?? Delete? VonBlade 21:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Does this put the GTA series in the same boat? I am not all that familiar with 1 and 2, but every game since has had different characters, different city and different story. Snake robot podium ( talk) 05:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I've removed Twisted Metal: Black from the list of video game examples, as it's not a reboot of the Twisted Metal series. It portrays the Twisted Metal universe from the viewpoint of a specific character. ("This is how he sees the world, how Sweet Tooth sees his life.") It's like a Batman movie that's told from the perspective of the Joker. An entire Talk page could probably be filled discussing the continuity issues inherent in such a story, but it's difficult to consider it a definite reboot when you take Twisted Metal: Head-On into account, which references both the "colorful world" of Twisted Metal 2 and the "dark world" of Twisted Metal: Black. DT29 21:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Would it be correct to say the final episode of the television series Newhart rebooted itself into the timeline of The Bob Newhart Show ? Wlindley 13:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason why i ask that is because the article for this game says that the setting is completely unrelated to the previous installments. 68.147.223.143 ( talk) 03:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
No, since it is not going back and contradicting anything, the series itself has no real continuity to adhere to anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.40.36 ( talk) 01:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Are there any examples of continuity restarts in serial fiction prior to the 20th century? The article lists many (arguably too many) examples, but none predates the 20th century. I get the impression that this technique did not exist before that time. Is this an intended and correct impression? Matt Fitzpatrick ( talk) 05:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Removed the following from the Television section
This was not a reboot, at least in the context of this article. Yes, there was a large revamp of the visual elements, and the titles were vacated, but the title histories remained, as did most of the wrestlers and their gimmicks. A reboot for WCW would mean that everything prior to April 10 did not officially occur, as if it was Day 1 for the promotion. -- RoninBK T C 11:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Should Irregular Webcomic! be listed? Recently everyone (in at least some of the threads) died and the Mythbusters are trying to recreate the Big Bang ... — Tamfang ( talk) 01:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like some people want to include every remake of a movie! — Tamfang ( talk) 19:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Films that did not manage to reboot a franchise (i.e managed to produce no sequels) should probably not be considered reboots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.50.169 ( talk) 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Several of the games are contested as probably being remakes rather than reboots. Like movies, video games often retell the same story after a time, but unlike movies, the interactive element changes as well as this may appear to some as a "reboot". 陣 内 Jinnai 01:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
While I don't deny the role of the latest Star Trek movie is to act as a reboot, at least in terms of the freedom it allows the director (and the viewer) to ignore previous story developments, it is different from most reboots as it exists in the same universe. In essence, all other reboots are 'parallel universes' whereas Star Trek is an 'alternate timeline'. I think it deserves mentioning as a different kind of reboot. Famico666 ( talk) 21:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not really a rebot at all, in the true sense of the term. Since the origional continuity still exists and is refered to now as Prime Reality, the new storyline is called the alternate reality. At least thats the term i see everyone using including memory alpha. Smitty1337 ( talk) 09:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Star Trek does not fit the definition of a reboot. The original timeline still exists and events that took place in it affected the latest movie by creating the alternative timeline that is now taking place. Leonard Nimoy even plays the same character that he did in the original series and movies. A reboot would not have needed Nimoy or any events from the previous series/movies. It would have simply started over again. KitHutch ( talk) 01:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see, all these reboots have taken place since 2000. Surely the 1989 film incarnation of batman should also count as a reboot? Or does the reboot by definition require an 'origin' story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.85.248 ( talk) 17:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This movie is not a reboot as it follows the same continuity! It is just a "prequel", set before the other movies, and released a little while after. A long period of time between movies in a series should not affect whether it is a prequel or not. A prime example of this is the "Toy Story" series, as the final movie was released much later than the second. As "Toy Story 3" is not a reboot, neither is "X-Men: First Class". Although many actors differ between "X-Men: First Class" and other X-Men movies, some do remain the same, notably the character of Wolverine (played by Hugh Jackman), who makes a cameo appearance in "X-Men: First Class". An appearance which makes no sense if the movie was not part of the original series. Most importantly, "X-Men: First Class" is used to set up most of the events in the rest of the continuity. Therefore, it is not a reboot at all! -- ProfessorKilroy ( talk) 14:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
You're both overthinking this. If reliable sources say it's a reboot, we list it as a reboot. If not, we don't. - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
SummerPhD, you are missing the point. Another interview with Matthew Vaughn (the director) states that is is a prequel and not a reboot (www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=21023), hence contradicting that aspect of the current source (which also states it is a prequel). According to this article, "A reboot differs from a prequel in that a prequel is generally consistent with the canon (previously established continuity) of the series. With a reboot, the older continuity is largely discarded and replaced with a new canon." The latter is clearly not the case in this instance. Both of the mentioned sources verify that the film is consistent with the established continuity. As to Vaughn's opinions on sequels to "X-Men: First Class", no such official plans for these sequels have been made (at least in public), meaning that "First Class" is still labeled as a part of the X-Men series continuity if it was indeed partly intended as a reboot (verified by the source I provided). Also, Vaughn goes on to say that possible sequels to this film would take place after "First Class", but before the original X-Men trilogy (meaning that they would be part of the continutiy). This article then goes on to state, "Additionally, prequels are often developed by the same creator as the original series they lead up to, while a remake is often produced by a different author from that of the original series, and can be seen as re-telling of the same story and essentially maintaining the same canon." Whilst the directors are different, Bryan Singer, who directed "X-Men" and "X2", produced "First Class" as well as contributing to the story of all these three. Also, "First Class" does not retell the story told in the original trilogy, but instead a different story that leads to the original story, making it a prequel. -- ProfessorKilroy ( talk) 07:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
slashfilm.com
interview) may have been found
here, in the FAQ section of the IMDb entry. Of course, I'm not suggesting that IMDb be used as a source in this article, but the FAQ seems to offer a good explanation of the director's thoughts (i.e. X-Men: First Class contains elements of both a prequel and a reboot).
Super
Mario
Man 17:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)What should be done with entries that some reliable sources say are reboots and other reliable sources say are not? This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, so we don't have to keep all of them. IMO, we should ditch borderline/muddy cases in favor of clear examples. If, OTOH, some of the sources are mere mentions while the contrary sources are giving the discussion some depth (like a review calling it a "reboot" versus the director discussing why it is not a reboot), I would give some weight to the depth. Opinions? - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
hello. I noticed that Rise of the Planet of the Apes is listed as a reboot however I don't feel this to be true. my evidence for this is that Planet of the Apes (both versions of the movie as far as I know) takes place when the apes are already developed into a nation and have there own planet and all that such thing while Rise of the Planet of the Apes acts as more of a prequel showing how the apes became the way they did to cause them to own the planet and come together into the nation... in other words Rise of the Planet of the Apes is the cause and Planet of the Apes is the effect (the titles even hint to Rise being a prequel as RISE of the planet of the apes suggests the beginning and how they ROSE to power while Planet of the Apes they are already in power and all that such thing). and while Rise of the Planet of the Apes has a supposed sequel (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) it could easily just be a tie-in film (much like how the Star Wars: Force Unleashed games take place between the already established timeline of Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes could easily just show what happens between the Conclusion of Rise and the beginning of Planet) this is just the way I understand it (as I have seen both films) I could be wrong. if I am wrong please correct me however I believe I have provided evidence to prove that it isnt a reboot but instead a Prequel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.112.51 ( talk) 21:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Since my work in the movie business which began in 1990 and my exposure to a horde of industry professionals, I wanted to chime in on how "reboot" is sorting itself out as a term as I hear it. I rewrote the introduction to this article. Please feel free to further qualify it, but be careful to take in the following notes:
1) The term "reboot" emerged from the movie marketing niche and like many pop terms it was never "coined" with an official definition in mass media. Instead, it's defined and re-defined by our culture in various contexts. I am not sure when the first time I heard the term - it might have been with Batman Begins, and at that time it was to clarify that the entire franchise was being remade, not just a specific movie, and without any attempt at continuity to the original. Therefore most contextual references to a "reboot" are about a serialized predecessor that is being discarded.
2) That being said, to this day, the term is used in other ways. It has been used to refer to the remake of a single film, such as The Incredible Hulk (which, if you want to split hairs, was a re-adaptation from the source material), as well as even to a sequel or prequel with obvious continuity to the original universe (see the recent Variety article I cited about Jurassic Park 4). There are also examples of blended sequels / franchise remakes, such as Superman Returns, which has only partial continuity to Superman in 1978 and was commonly referred to as a reboot. Abrams' Star Trek was an especially interesting example of a prequel / sequel / franchise remake blend, because using science fiction ideas it created a parallel world in which the audience can decide for themselves what it is. If you like it to be a traditional "reboot" (a franchise remake), without any continuity to the original franchise (accepting that Nimoy is playing "old Spock" in the remade franchise, not "old Spock" from the original), then fine. If you like it to be the exact same franchise as the original, but a mirrored universe in which all the characters (except "old Spock") look different, and the technology is different, etc, then fine. This marketing strategy captures both interests.
It seems prudent that this Wikipedia article should note this contextual ambiguity, which is what I'm attempting to do. If we, as a community, prefer to nail it down as definition #1 only - that it's the remake of a franchise and nothing else, then at least it should be noted that the term is being used "incorrectly" by others, although this approach seems elitist because some of those people are professional media reporters, film critics, marketing professionals, etc.
Marketers, in particular, will use what ever term seems to beef up the most interest in their product, no matter if it makes sense or not.
Let me know what you think.
BTW: whoever has been reverting my submission back without any plausible explanation is incorrectly using Wikipedia and can get you barred. See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Edit_warring. This disruptive act has cost me time and effort during my research for the most appropriate phraseology and references.
I don't understand why the 2006 movie Superman Begins was not listed as the reboot example for the 1979 movie Superman. It is as much a reboot as Man of Steel is. The only thing I can conclude is that whoever comprised the table was one of the many people who didn't like Superman Begins and is allowing their own personal bias against the film to compromise their objectivity in designating what is a reboot of the 1979 film.
The already entered comments attempting to rationalize why Superman Begins is not entirely a reboot are vague, incomplete, and subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.205.100 ( talk) 00:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The film section cites "Total Recall" and "Prometheus" as examples of reboots. Unless I'm missing something, Total Recall was a single film, and it was later remade. And Prometheus is a prequel to the Alien franchise. MrZoolook ( talk) 01:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, Texas Chainsaw 3D ignores most of the Texas Chainsaw continuity but it is definitely a direct sequel to the original movie and not a reboot of the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.171.156 ( talk) 00:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Mad Max: Fury Road should probably not be considered a reboot. Director George Miller calls it a "revisit" and says it probably takes place after Thunderdome. He says all four movies are connected.
A reboot is a film in a franchise that breaks continuity of previous films, a remake is a film based on another film. Two completely different things. A reboot of a franchise can be a remake, it can also have an all-original storyline. If said reboot isn't a remake of anything, and it didn't start a new series, it isn't suddenly a remake. eg - Friday the 13th (2009 film)?
And is Terminator Genesys not a reboot? It was announced as one. Texas Chainsaw 3D is very much a reboot and ignored the previous 6 films in the franchise so there's no question about that one.-- Kieranwilcox ( talk) 01:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Reboot (fiction)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
==Stub class rating as of
2007-10-19==
Severely defiencent for such an important article:
Basically, this is written like it came from a fan forum/blog, not an encyclopedia. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC) (Note: I am not watchlisting this article or comments file, so any issue regarding these comments should be taken to my talk page.) |
Last edited at 12:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This article covers reboot in regards to fiction, but it doesn't cover soft reboot (and no other article does). I believe there should be a section on what a soft reboot is. This article goes into it pretty well: http://screenrant.com/movie-franchise-soft-reboot-continuation-discussion/ -- JDC808 ♫ 23:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Would reboots like Daredevil (2003) to Marvel's Daredevil count as a Film reboot or TV reboot? Also does The Flash (2014) count as reboot of The Flash (1990), because they both exist in the same multiverse. Batman3095 ( talk) 16:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)