Talk:Reboot (fiction)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Comics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Television (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Simcity[edit]

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)

Casino Royale[edit]

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)

That information was false, as it's been confirmed numerous times by Wilson and Brocoli that Casino Royale is a reboot of the James Bond franchise. Bond 22 has also been confirmed to be a direct sequel to Casino Royale, making it the first true 007 sequel. Therefore, none of the original 20 missions will be referenced. Brandon Rhea 04:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What about the latest Pink Panther prequel film with Steve MArtin, and the REturn to the Castle Wolfenstein game? Pictureuploader 10:14, 30 December 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)

Retcon vs. Reboot[edit]

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)

Enterprise and Video Games[edit]

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.

When you think about movie adaptations that are based on popular comic book character, alot of liberties are taken when developing the screenplay. Revisions are made on certain characters or situations, and sometimes even omitted altogether for the sake of brevity. Yet, most writers are mindful of retaining certain key elements surrounding a character, such as a traumatic event they may have experienced in life, or the nature of their occupation in their civilian life. The X-Men movies have lifted a number of storylines from the comic books, but took certain liberties with aspects of them (i.e. the roster that made up Magneto's Brotherhood of Mutants, Lt. Stryker's profession, The Jean Grey/Phoenix resurrection angle). All differed considerably with their published counterparts. Also, the X-Men animated series that was broadcast on Fox during the 1990's sort of did the same thing in that many of the classic storylines were featured on the show. But again, in many cases, there were often discrepancies between the show and the comic books for a variety of reasons. Characters, and sequential order of events immediately come to mind, but there are probably others as well.
The Battlestar Galactica series on the Sci-Fi channel also plays along this formula as well by slowly and incrementally introducing classic elements into the current plotline, oftentimes sequentially out of order in contrast with the original series.
In this regard, Metal Gear Solid could be seen as a reboot, since much of the themes I've listed above have slowly been integrated into the current storyline. The references to both Outer Heaven and FOX-HOUND in the recent Metal Gear Solid 4 trailer help bolster my point.

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.

Video game continuity CAN be rebooted, but I understand why you removed the Legend of Zelda, since that series doesn't reboot. Star Fox might qualify, since they threw out the story from the original Star Fox and started over with SF64; and there's some evidence that the comic in NP would be part of the canon (a character appeared in an early beta of the cancelled SF2), but SF64 would have rendered that storyline obsolete as well. -- VederJuda 13:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

GTA IV[edit]

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

Yeah, it's pretty much useless to have GTA IV listed on there, particularly since the GTA games tend not to follow a particular story, aside from references to characters from previous games. Sandwiches99 07:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Origin?[edit]

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)

Questions[edit]

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)

Well they do make occasional references to each other, eg. one or two mentions of Bond's wife, and SPECTRE.--Codenamecuckoo 10:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Whilst continuity is fairly 'loose' in the Bond movies, it's quite clear that the character and his world do develop. The 1960s Connery films certainly tell a 'story' Bond is introduced to SPECTRE in Dr No, comes into personal conflict with several of its operatives and learns of the organization's goals in From Russia With Love, foils SPECTRE's first 'public' scheme in Thunderball, and finally meets Number One in You Only Live Twice.

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)

Metal Gear Solid[edit]

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

Digimon[edit]

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)

"Official" versions[edit]

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)

Hmm, it is debatable but I think I know what the author of the sentence intended. I think the author was trying to distingush a reboot from simply another interpretation. For example, in the Battlestar Galactica and Batman Begins reboots, the intent was to effectively stop production on the previous continuity completely. No new movies will follow after Batman and Robin and no new TV will be produced off the old BSG. By comparison, with the Ultimate series (which it has been noted in the article is not a true reboot) which is just a separate interpretation, the existence of the reboot does not preclude new production based on the old continuity. That distinction is probably what the author was trying to highlight. Does that make sense? Mucus 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can see that what you are describing is internally consistent. What I'm saying is that -- in my experience -- it is not consistent with the way the term is actually used. In your BSG and Batman examples, neither of the prior incarnations has been in production for many years, so I think it's off target to say that the "intent" of the new versions was to "stop production" on the old ones. Plus, there are at least three other Batman continuities currently running (the regular Batman comics, the Justice League Unlimited comics, and "The Batman" cartoon and comic), and a new comic book series based on the original BSG show has just launched as well. So, really neither of them matches the statement in the article that I am objecting to... There are other current, official versions that contradict them. Yet I would agree that the new BSG and Batman Begins *are* reboots. They just don't claim to "replace" the old stories. There are multiple "official versions". --Steve-o 00:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
*Shrug* I'm not particularly attached to the current definition, but I would say that my interpretation of those two franchises would be different from yours. Thus, to answer your question, your experience might not necessarily be universal. Anyways, if you can find a better way of explaining the difference between a reboot and a reinterpretation, then feel free to be bold. Mucus 05:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Smallville[edit]

Shouldn't Smallville be listed on this page? It's obviously a reboot of Superman.

Doctor Who???[edit]

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)

Ultimate Universe[edit]

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)

May 1st Reboot[edit]

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)

Casino Royale and Batman Begins - reboots?[edit]

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)

The next time you want to get in on the discussion, don't create new discussion categories for subjects that are already on the talk page. Your question about Casino Royale has already been asked and answered: it's a reboot because the studio said so, it doesn't have to "directly contradict" anything...if the studio says they're "starting over," then it's a reboot. Even if it doesn't "contradict" anything, they've already given themselves the freedom to contradict things in the future. Everything they did before doesn't count. Get it?
That's all well and good, but calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so. Don't get so caught up on the fact that the movie marketing people latched onto a buzzword and use it to promote their movie(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.220.21 (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Well Casino Royale certainly conforms to the basics of a reboot by starting the story again and ignoring any seeming contradictions - there's no reference to Bond's Cold War era and the female M is Bond's boss at the start of his career not later down the line. It's not much but the Bond films in general don't have that many ongoing points to ignore.
It's true the Connery through Brosnan movies do have moments of defying logic, particularly the actors changing and the ages of characters changing quite a bit, as well as a few contradictions (although off the top of my head Bond meeting Blofeld in You Only Live Twice and then not being recognised in On Her Majesty's Secret Service is about the only one that really stands out) but much of this falls into the realm of dramatic licence whereby the lead character is kept young and recastings are just naturally accepted. There are often references back to events in earlier films and a number of characters who recur over several films, plus in the Brosnan films there are explicit references to Bond having had a long career (indeed it contributed to Bond being a bit too old in these films) that all adds up to an ongoing narrative that is reset by Casino Royale. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The same applies to Batman Begins. The studio made it clear they were starting a brand new series, that it was completely disconnected from the existing series. Did it "directly contradict" much? Of course not...they still have to stay within the confines of Bob Kane's original creation, otherwise it just wouldn't be Batman. But it's still a reboot, simply because the studio says so. And besides: it DID contradict plenty of facts from the previous film, especially the circumstances of the Waynes' murders.
I don't see what's so hard about understanding the concept of a "reboot." It simply means they're starting over. In the simplest terms, it's a remake...not a remake of a film, but a remake of a whole series. What's so hard to understand about that? If moviegoers get confused, it's probably because of foolish members of the media that simply don't do their homework. Lots of people thought Casino Royale was a prequel because the media stupidly TOLD THEM that. Gotham23 13:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The next time you want to reply to another editor, raising questions in good faith, with such a haughty and hostile tone, maybe you'll go do something else instead. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Does Batman Begins directly contradict the events of the previous four movies? Yes. In Tim Burton's Batman (1988), The Joker was the man who killed Bruce Wayne's parents. In Batman Begins, their killer was Joe Chill, as in the comics, and the Joker only appears at the end Nick xylas 15:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Tomb Raider Legend[edit]

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)

Legend of Zelda[edit]

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)

I agree, if the series has no continuity the it is not possible to reboot the continuity. Neitherday 14:41, 16 July 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)

Twisted Metal[edit]

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)

Newhart[edit]

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)

No, it would not. Reboots are subsequently made series based on the original, not the other way around. This isn't science fiction. That was simply a parody of Patrick Duffy's return to Dallas (1978 TV series), with a double joke banking on viewers remembering the old Bob Newhart show. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Would Path of Radiance be considered a reboot?[edit]

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)

Earlier examples?[edit]

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)

WCW[edit]

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)

IWC[edit]

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)

let's not overdo it[edit]

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)

Video games[edit]

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".Jinnai 01:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek[edit]

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)

It's far from unknown for serial fiction to explain the reboot in-universe either by timeline alterations or some cosmic reality alteration - the DC Crisis is an example of the latter, the Legion of Super-Heroes of the former and both predated the Star Trek reboot. Once the new version is launched the previous version is nearly always completely forgotten about and the new continuity runs on. The Star Trek movie is slightly unusual in that the reboot event comes with the launch of the new continuity rather than at the end of the old one but it's a new start as much as any other. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

'Reboot' a 21st century phenomenon?[edit]

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)

There is nothing restricting this to the 21st century. Heck, you can add the second version of the creation story in Genesis -- if you can cite a reliable source calling it a "reboot". That's where the problem comes in: the term is relatively new. While it's certainly valid to use a new term to describe an older film, the source applying the term obviously has to be new (to use the new term) while writing about an older film. Not many authors are writing much about the 1989 Batman these days. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, Batman '89 was an obvious reboot, and so was The Bourne Identity. Faust and Carmen may have been rebooted a few times too, though there was no definite franchise to do it in. It's just difficult to find any suitable citations for the word in connection with Batman (1989) or Berlioz's Damnation of Faust, which shows a weakness in the way some people here think of accepted ways of verifying content.
So the basic idea isn't new, but it's become much more common in the last dozen years, due to Hollywood and the gaming and comics industries tending to go for methods of storytelling which permit having it packaged in portions and added a few more at a regular pace, rather than telling stories with a beginning, a middle and a definite ending. No one demanded a sequel to a Hitchcock film or a '50s/'60s Broadway musical.83.254.151.33 (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

X-Men: First Class[edit]

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)

I can see your logic. But, does that mean that the Rise of the Planet of the Apes shouldn't be counted either? and what about the Christopher Nolan Batman films? All these could be argued both as reboots and simple prequels; they defiantly fall into a bit of a grey area. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know that much about "Rise of the Planet Apes", or the earlier Batman films, but from what I know, at least the Christopher Nolan Batman films are reboots as they are retelling the same storyline, but different. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:15, 28 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)

That is beside the point. Just because someone says it is a reboot doesn't mean it fits the definition. A reboot completely disregards previous movies, whereas a prequel fits in as part of the same story. "X-Men: First Class" is clearly a prequel and not a reboot. --121.45.79.247 (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. "That" (verifiable information from reliable sources) is entirely the point. (The source given for First Class has the director of the film calling it a reboot.) - SummerPhD (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia that is supposed to provide reliable or correct information. One man's opinion (that has been sourced) that goes against the definition even listed on the page is not reliable. I'm sure you could find many sources that say that it is a prequel, and some that say it is a reboot. Unless you can find a reliable source that matches the definition of a reboot, then it is not a reboot. --121.45.79.247 (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
You opinion that it does not match the definition is contradicted by a reliable source directly calling the film a "reboot". "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." WP:V It is verifiable that this is a reboot. You feel the truth is otherwise. Sorry. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:54, 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)

This is getting way too technical and specific than it needs to be. I think that, although some of these could be argued to be both sequels/preqels and reboots we should still use what the most reliable source says; that being said, I would say that the word of the director/exec. producer of the film is pretty much final. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Also calling it a reboot: NPR, nj.com, hollywoodreporter.com, KQED, Pittsburgh Live, Wired, NY Post, Times Union, afterellen.com, and on and on and on. Dozens of reliable sources say it's a reboot, so Wikipedia says its a reboot. Barring discussion to the contrary, I'll re-add it in several hours. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I was back to restore it, but a drive-by IP already did. The source given was using a source name that isn't here. I've corrected the cite to reflect the source that was here earlier. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The original source (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). SuperMarioMan 17:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
That source just twists Vaughn's quote which was on a previous source. It is just the author's inference that sequels to "First Class" would be part of a rebooted universe. He explains this on the previous source, that "First Class" and possible sequels to it would be part of the same universe as the trilogy, which contradicts wikipedia's definition of a reboot. You are taking his words far too literally, as he simply uses the word "reboot" to say that they are attempting to continue the previous franchise after a considerable period of time since the last movies. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Also calling it a reboot: NPR, nj.com, hollywoodreporter.com, KQED, Pittsburgh Live, Wired, NY Post, Times Union, afterellen.com, and on and on and on. Dozens of reliable sources say it's a reboot, so Wikipedia says its a reboot. (I feel like I'm repeating myself... because I am.) - SummerPhD (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe that none of those sources are reliable, as they are all reviews and haven't sought out or at least referenced professional opionions. Besides, they do not discuss it as a reboot, but simply refer to it as one in the title of each of those articles. The main argument for it being considered a reboot is that it changes some of the continuity (examples including issues with Xavier's hair and Emma's age). However, it keeps most of the continuity of the original trilogy (examples including Hugh Jackman returning as Wolverine, the design of certain objects being exactly the same (when they differ from the original comics in the first place), and a heavy focus on characters they wished to introduce further, leading into the trilogy (some of which would not have had such a great focus on if it was indeed a reboot)). Besides, all of those sources refer to it as a prequel as well, considering it to be part of the same franchise (which it is, with some cast and crew remaining the same). You can't use a confused source that contradicts itself. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The "main argument" for calling it a reboot is that reliable sources (such as those listed) say it's a reboot. We have numerous reliable sources saying it's a reboot and, on the "no it isn't" side, we have... you. The reliable sources say it is a reboot. It's a reboot. Anything else is original research and/or synthesis. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm talking about the main argument that those so-called "reliable sources" provide. I've told you several times, and I will tell you again: they are not reliable sources, as they are arguments provided by unproffesional reviews. The arguments provided by the director state that it is part of the continuity and hence is a reboot. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
See below. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is; No it isn't[edit]

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)

I think we need to treat this topic more like an overview and less like a list. We should discuss the topic in a broad manner, for example using this, and mention select (clear-cut) examples in the process. Here, if you search reboot, the Batman films are assessed as an example. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I was actually going to suggest this compromise if you didn't give up... But anyway, definitely treat it as an overview and use clear examples. Sounds like a plan. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, First Class is one of the best sourced examples we have. Your only source disputing it [www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=21023] does not have anyone attached to the film saying it is not a reboot (your interpretation is moot). Dozens of reliable sources categorically say it is a reboot. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
If you had read what I said earlier, you would know that, frankly, that source contains an interview with the director, as does the original source- both of which stating that it is in the same continuity as the original franchise. All of those other sources are just reviews and not reliable (your interpretation is moot). --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Your interpretation is that in August 2010 when he said he would say it will "use the same timeline and be 'an official, in-continuity prequel'" means that the movie that was later completed did not turn out to be a reboot. My interpretation is that Reliable sources call the finished film a reboot. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Your interpretation of my interpretation is as you would say, moot. Filming had begun in August 2010, and so the script would have been fully completed. Meaning that the entire story (written as 'an official, in-continuity prequel', rather than a reboot) was produced as a prequel rather than a reboot. And again, those "reliable sources" are not reliable (I feel like I'm repeating myself, because I am). --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm intrigued by these "unproffesional reviews". Why are major media outlets paying writers for "unprofessional reviews"? I've determined (not "decided") that your source has someone at a fansite [www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=21023] saying the director said it wasn't a reboot, while the director did not utter the word "reboot". I've also determined that dozens of major media outlets paid writers to write reviews (making them professional[1] reviews) that actually say the film is a reboot. Your interpretation of what the director said or the fansite's interpretation? I don't care: it's an unreliable source's interpretation. He did not say, "It is not a reboot." The dozens of professional reviews ... wait for it ... say directly it's a fucking reboot. You may disagree with them. You may believe that what the director said when compared to the definition of a reboot doesn't match. Alfred Hitchcock may have come to you in a dream and said it isn't a reboot. It may be true that it isn't a reboot. Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Ideally, Wikipedia is about the truth. However, as that is sometimes difficult to determine, it relies on verifiability instead. Perhaps "unproffesional" was a poor choice of words. "Uninformed" perhaps... I am completely ignoring the fansite's interpretation of the director's comments, and I am by no means suggesting that I have superior knowledge on the topic, but merely restating the director's comments (which is verifiable- and true). He says it is "absolutely" an official in-continuity prequel, which means it cannot be a reboot. That word coming to regular use is because of a simple misinterpretaion. Oh, and there's no need to get angry. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
He said it would absolutely be an official in-continuity prequel. You say this means it cannot now be a reboot. You would likely also say that a prequel cannot be a reboot. Wyatt says Rise of the Planet of the Apes is both. It would be nice if Zeus would come down from the mountain carrying a stone slab telling us the "truth". Until then, we can verifiably say it is a reboot. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The only reason you say we can verifiably say it is a reboot is because we have "reliable sources" that are available and all refer to it as a reboot because that's what they heard it was. They are misinterpreting of the definition of the word "reboot". They are not reliable, so get it out of your head that we can verifiably say it is a reboot.As to the director's comments- I believe you are synthesising my synthesis. You have put together my conclusion and your definition of synthesis to determine (rather than decide) that I am synthesising. Hence, your conclusion is that I have taken the director's words and the definition of a reboot and put them together, to determine (rather than decide) that it is not a reboot. However, that interpretation is not verifiable as it is synthesised- I have never directly said that I am synthesising, yet you accuse me of it. If one could synthesise on wikipedia, then "my conclusion" on "First Class" should be taken into account. However, as you should not synthesise on wikipedia, you cannot accuse me of synthesising (for you would be synthesising), and therefore "my conclusion" on "First Class" should be taken into account. However, the same can be said of me- that I am synthesising your synthesis of my synthesis. Point is, everyone synthesises. If we didn't, humans would have never made any scientific discoveries, as science would not even exist. Synthesis is all over Wikipedia, and is everywhere for that matter. You can't escape it. If, indeed, I was synthesising, then you cannot verifiably say it is not a reboot. So if can't verifiably say either, why say anything at all? Didn't we already arrange a compromise? What's the need for you to continue arguing a pointless case? And what's with your obsession with famous or godly figures coming to you in dreams providing you with guidance? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This part of what you said is true "The only reason you say we can verifiably say it is a reboot is because we have 'reliable sources' that are available and all refer to it as a reboot..." Yes, reliable sources call it a reboot. Your synthesis is taking what is actually said comparing it to the definition we give in the article and saying it doesn't match, therefore it's not a reboot. The most you can say from your source is what it says the movie is, not "it says it is A, which is incompatable with B, therefore it is not B". This is especially true when we have dozens of reliable sources that say it is "B", which is verifiable.
This part seems to be coming out of nowhere: "...because that's what they heard it was. They are misinterpreting of the definition of the word 'reboot'." It sounds like you are saying the major media outlets are reporting rumors ("they heard") and that they are wrong and you are right. That may or may not be true. But it is not verifiable. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it just be easier to get rid of X-men first class altogether (in the reboot section)? It seems that this is kinda a waste of time. I'm not saying that I agree with either side, but can I be the one to suggest waving the white flag? Queen of Death Metal (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
It may not be verifiable that they are reporting rumours (keeping in mind it is just a word and not a full-on story about the word), but they are not reliable sources anyway... So, we do not have dozens of reliable sources saying it is "B"! The only mentioned sources that are reliable enough (the director), say "A"- but yes, this means it cannot be "B". Here's an example of the same thing (one you might understand better): I noticed on your talk page that you said you were a lesbian (not that I have anything against that). If this is a reliable source, and other reliable sources say that lesbians are not males, then one could determine (rather than decide) that you are not male. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
As previously noted, the upcoming Planet of the Apes film is quite solidly sourced as a prequel and a reboot. As for the example I might "better understand"... You're synthesis sucks. Taking my self-identifying as a lesbian on my talk page and synthesizing that with what other sources say lesbians are/are not, you are out of your depth. Rather than educating you on identity and gender, try synthesizing my lesbian identity with my user page that says I'm not gay. Oops. Not confusing enough? Compare my signature to File:Bisexual_flag.jpg. Seriously, pull all of that together and you come up with something not dreamt of in your philosophy. Yes, you can verifiably say I'm a lesbian. You can also verifiably say I'm not gay. Based on what we have here, you cannot verifiably say that I am or am not male. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
As to "Planet of the Apes", I don't know anything about it, so I am not as concerned by it. It may be that it is a rare exception to the rule, however, as there is roughly a 40 year gap between the two, it is easy to see the possibility of confusion. However, I am not going to go ahead and judge it. As to your gender, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. If your point is that these sources contradict, so you cannot verifiably say anything about your gender, then if you refer back to "First Class", it is a different case, as the director's words are more reliable than that of reviewers (meaning you can say that it is not a reboot). If your point is that all of these sources are true and verifiable, then you must not be a male as it contradicts the definition of a lesbian (meaning you can say that "First Class" is not a reboot). If neither of these satisfy your case, then I think you are the one who is confused about your identity and/or gender. Anyway, this is getting just a little bit off track. Oh, and "you're" grammar sucks. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Queen of Death Metal that we should drop mention of the film from this article. Like I suggested earlier, we should have this article be an overview of the topic. If we're to do that, let's worry less about listing all possible films and more about discussing in general what a reboot is/means. Surely we can use examples both of you agree on, because this discussion is rapidly degrading. Erik (talk | contribs) 10:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree also. There's no point arguing for its inclusion. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay then, issue resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen of Death Metal (talkcontribs) 08:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Rise of the Planet of the Apes[edit]

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)

Understanding what a "reboot" is in context[edit]

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring. This disruptive act has cost me time and effort during my research for the most appropriate phraseology and references.

Superman Begins Is as Much a Reboot as Man of Steel Is[edit]

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)

Reboot vs. Remake or Prequel[edit]

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)

Texas Chainsaw 3D ignores most of the franchise's continuity and is therefore a reboot, or a semi-reboot, but a reboot nonetheless. And Prometheus is gone.--MississippiSouth (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Unless more Texas films have been made, it's a remake. A reboot is a remake that spawns its own sequels. MrZoolook (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The Platinum Dunes version was a remake/reboot, but Texas Chainsaw 3D really is neither, it's a sequel. It opens with footage from the original Tobe Hooper movie, then tells the story that takes place after the events depicted in the original movie. It doesn't ignore it, it doesn't retell the same story, it's a continuation of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.171.156 (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Max Max: Fury Road[edit]

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.

[1] [2]

Reboot/Remake/Sequel[edit]

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)

Terminator Genisys is a sequel. It does not ignore the earlier films. Texas Chainsaw 3D picks up after the events of the original The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. It's clearly a sequel, intended to follow the first film in continuity. Your claim it's a reboot and that there's no question about that one shows you don't know what you're talking about. -
Uh, if a film blatanlty ignores the majority of previous sequels in a series it's a continuity reboot. It breaks continuity, so, a reboot. It was intended to reboot the franchise and bring it back to the storyline established before the previous films were produced. It's a reboot by definition. --Kieranwilcox (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
That is your opinion, contradicting the definition. It does not address or dismiss the events of the sequels. If it follows the first film, it is not ignoring it. It even uses clips from it as a prologue. By definition it's a sequel, not a reboot. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't contradict it at all. It's a sequel to the first film, but ignores the rest of the franchise. It is highly unlikely that the events of the original sequel and subsequent films could have happened after how this movie ended. TC3D is clearly not supposed to be in the same continuity as the original sequels to the film. It even takes place in 2012, the original is from 1794, so it's definitely not a "sequel" but rather a reboot/quasi reimagining.--Kieranwilcox (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
So sequels without perfect continuity are reboots? No, that's not what the definition says. Little flaws and other sequels are side issues. What's most important is the work's relationship to the original - that's what the chart on the reboot article shows. Texas Chainsaw 3D is not intended to be seen as breaking continuity with The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. That's all that matters. Having these two on the chart is misleading readers as to their relationship. Your arguments have gotten quite tiresome - you admit it's a sequel, then you say it's definitely not a "sequel". There is clearly nothing definite about your position, but you make these emphatic statements. People like you make me regret my time here. Gothicfilm (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Your arguments really weren't compelling enough to justify this level of snobbery and immaturity. But yeah I guess a film in a franchise that isn't in the same timeline as any of the other films and creates a new contuinuity where the events of a 1974 film take place in the 2010s is just a regular sequel and obviously NOT a continuity reboot. Where you pulled the idea that a reboot has to start a new series from is also beyond me. Like it matters, talk pages are clearly intended for petty hostility and not discussions on a topic. --Kieranwilcox (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)