The Word 'Reboot' in Relation to Movies

[Jim Bob]

I'm sure that you've all heard the word 'reboot' in relation to modern movies.  After all, how can you not have?  It's the go-to description for pretty much any new movie these days.

Is it a remake? No, it's a reboot.

Is it a sequel? Reboot, innit.

Is it an original idea, which doesn't really upon an existing intellectual property? Ha! As if. Nah, it's a reboot.

What was that 90's CGI kids show that they used to show on CITV? Reboot, mate.

So, what exactly is a reboot?  Surely it can't be a word used to describe anything and everything... can it?  If there's one thing for certain, it's that I can't think of anything funny to put here.  If there's a second thing for certain, then it's that there is no agreed upon single definition for the term 'reboot' in relation to movies and there's a very good reason for that.  Allow me to explain...

People tend to forget where the term 'reboot' (specifically in relation to movies) actually originated from; the offices of Hollywood PR.  Back in the mid-late 2000s, when there was an influx of remakes being made and audiences were becoming increasingly annoyed and wary of them.  It was around this time, that some bright spark in Hollywood rebranded their upcoming remake as a "reboot", to try and fool audiences into not associating the studio's upcoming remake with something which they had grown to dislike (i.e. a remake).

As someone who spends at least 2 hours a day reading movie news and discussing films (believe you me, that is not a brag. Quite the opposite in fact), I can still vividly remember the first time that I encountered the term 'reboot' and I'm 90% certain that it was the first ever use of the word in relation to movies; it was spouted in a Hollywood press release spiel, peddling yet another pointless remake (I can't for the life of me remember which specific remake this was now, because almost undoubtedly, like the vast majority of remakes - it came out, made a modest profit and was forgotten about almost as quickly as it had been greenlit).  I can still remember the sales pitch to this day; the producer going to great lengths to talk about how this movie was not a remake, it was what he liked to call "a reboot".  On and on he went, explaining what he meant by 'reboot' and talking about how his 'reboot' differed from a remake because... yams and clams.

Needless to say, this exercise in PR worked absolute wonders because not only were audiences fooled and not only did other studios soon adopt the same coded terminology when discussing their own upcoming remakes, as a means to disguising their creatively bankrupt ways but surprisingly quickly, audiences themselves also adopted the term and started using it to describe any sequel or remake of an existing property, providing that it wasn't a direct continuation of the previous movie and even then, sometimes even if it was a direct continuation.  Within the span of a year, the word 'reboot' had became a catch-all term for any kind of an expansion of an existing property and in the process had become utterly meaningless; a word without definition.

That's the problem; nobody can agree on what the term reboot means because it doesn't actually mean anything (and if it ever had meant something, then it was simply an alternate word for 'remake').  It was an invention of a cynical Hollywood PR cokehead, keen to disassociate their remake from negative connotations.  My blood boils every time that I see someone use the term and it only gets worse when they then try to provide a definition for the word; a definition which only applies within their own head and would be disagreed upon by the next person, who has their own personal definition.  Nobody is right.  There is no definition.  Show me somebody who thinks that they know what the definition of 'reboot' is and I'll show you a thousand more people who disagree with them and have their own differing definition.

The world of movies got along just fine for decades without the term 'reboot' and as such, I wish that people would stop using it and revert to using the actual specific terms, which already exist and have done for decades, whenever talking about a continuation of a franchise (for example; a direct sequel; a loose sequel; a spin-off; a remake etc.).  By using the term 'reboot', you're playing right into Hollywood's hands and allowing them to pull the wool over your eyes; you're pliable like putty and willingly adopting their bulllshit terminology.  It's exactly what they wanted you to do.  The phrase 'hook, line and sinker' springs to mind.

History is doomed to repeat itself.  Mark my words; one day, people will become overwhelmingly wary of any project which is branded a reboot and then, once again, the Hollywood PR machine will kick into gear and invent a new word and I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that everyone will happily adopt that rebranded name as the new standard too.  I won't though.  Just as I didn't adopt 'reboot'.  I'll just be over in the corner, shaking my head at the crowds, as they endlessly parrot this new word, handed down to them by the fat cats of Hollywood and argue amongst themselves over what this meaningless word actually means.

Aside from anything else, 'reboot' is such a hideous term for what is supposed to be an art form (film).  It's describing a continuation of a narrative as nothing more than the rebooting a PC; resetting the software and re-configuring the binary data.  It's as soulless as it is cynical, which admittedly is rather apt for many modern Hollywood productions, but to hear audiences adopt and parrot the term, so readily, compliantly and unironically, is well... a shame, to say the least.

[popcorn]

It is different from a remake though. Batman Begins isn't a remake of the original Batman film.

[Bronzy]

Das Reboot

[Jim Bob]

It is different from a remake though. Batman Begins isn't a remake of the original Batman film.

Whoever said that it was?  Certainly not myself.  Batman Begins is an adaptation (being that it's an interpretation of the original source material; the DC comics).  It is indeed not a remake.  More to the point, it's not a "reboot" either because that word has no concrete definition outside of your own head.

[popcorn]

But it's an adaptation and a reboot - these are not mutually exclusive terms. You might find the term a cynical invention but it has actual, consistent, non-invented meaning, it conveys information.

[popcorn]

If anything the word has probably arisen out of necessity in response to these franchise-driven times (even moreso than in recent history I mean). We now have so many franchises on the go, each with their own shared universes, that the concept of restarting them occasionally is a concept that needs to exist. Would you prefer the term "restart"?

Is your actual complaint that there are too many franchises?

[Jim Bob]

But it's an adaptation and a reboot - these are not mutually exclusive terms. You might find the term a cynical invention but it has actual, consistent, non-invented meaning, it conveys information.

Pray tell, please do provide the actual, consistent, non-invented your personal definition of what a reboot is, so that other posters can disagree with your definition, thus proving the very point I was making.

Would you prefer the term "restart"?

No, I would not.  I've never encountered any kind of movie which can't make use of any number of the perfectly good, pre-exisiting descriptive words.  There's never any need to invoke the term "reboot", just as there would never be any justifiable reason to use the word "restart".

Is your actual complaint that there are too many franchises?

No.  I mean, there are too many franchise movies and it annoys me but that's not the point of this thread and it's certainly not what I was trying to secretly communicate, as you so imply.  You can take my words at face value.  If I wanted to rant about the number of franchise movies in modern cinema, then I'd create a separate thread in which to do so.

[Kelvin]

Speaking of reboots, I assume you're St Eddie's new account? I hadn't realised you were still posting under a new name.

If so, very glad to see you, man. I was thinking just yesterday that you were missed in the film threads, and that I hoped you were okay :) 

[Jim Bob]

Speaking of reboots, I assume you're St Eddie's new account?

I prefer the term 'Digital Reincarnation', if you please.

If so, very glad to see you, man. I was thinking just yesterday that you were missed in the film threads, and that I hoped you were okay :)

Well, thank you kindly.  Good to see you too, Kelvin.

[Famous Mortimer]

I've never encountered any kind of movie which can't make use of any number of the perfectly good, pre-exisiting descriptive words.

Which are?

[Jim Bob]

Which are?

I already gave some examples in my original post, but to reiterate and expand; descriptive terms such as 'sequel' (direct or loose), 'prequel', 'remake', 'spin-off', 'crossover', 'adaptation'.  Please tell me what purpose the word 'reboot' serves when all of those terms and more already exist.

[Mister Six]

Sorry, OP was TL;DR, but a reboot is a relaunching of a franchise with an explicitly new continuity that is not beholden to what came before at all.

So Batman Begins was a reboot for the Batman franchise because it was a new beginning, whereas the four films from Batman to Batman and Robin were supposed to be a continuation of the same "world", despite everything except Michael Gough changing.

Meanwhile, the Brandon Routh-starring Superman Returns was a revival of the Christopher Reeve franchise because Bryan Singer wanted it set in the same continuity.

Batman Vs Superman was another reboot for both franchises, because they were a fresh (or as fresh as one can get in this situation) start for both.

All the Broccoli James Bonds from Dr No to whatever the last Brosnan film was are supposed to be the same continuity (a bit, kind of) whereas Casino Royale was explicitly a reboot, telling a new origin for Bonds. despite carrying over Judi Dench.

[Mister Six]

I already gave some examples in my original post, but to reiterate and expand; descriptive terms such as 'sequel' (direct or loose), 'prequel', 'remake', 'spin-off', 'crossover', 'adaptation'.  Please tell me what purpose the word 'reboot' serves when all of those terms and more already exist.

None of those words serve the same purpose. The closest is "remake", but that implies a single work, whereas reboots are more properly applied to franchises or ongoing works (film series or TV shows, generally).

Also "remake" implies that the second work is derivative of the first, whereas with a reboot both can be derivative of a third work, and separate from each other (as with the Batman franchises).

[Jim Bob]

So Batman Begins was a reboot for the Batman franchise because it was a new beginning, whereas the four films from Batman to Batman and Robin were supposed to be a continuation of the same "world", despite everything except Michael Gough changing.

Batman Begins was a fresh adaptation of the source material.

Meanwhile, the Brandon Rout-starring Superman Returns was a revival of the Christopher Reeve franchise because Bryan Singer wanted it set in the same continuity.

Superman Returns was primarily a pile of shite, but if indeed renowned peadophile Bryan Singer intended it to be set in the same continuity as the Christopher Reeve movies, then it's a belated sequel, with a recast protagonist (much like Mad Max: Fury Road).

Batman Vs Superman was another reboot for both franchises, because they were a fresh (or as fresh as one can get in this situation) start for both.

It's a crossover/new adaptation.

All the Broccoli James Bonds from Dr No to whatever the last Brosnan film was are supposed to be the same continuity (a bit, kind of) whereas Casino Royale was explicitly a reboot, telling a new origin for Bonds. despite carrying over Judi Dench.

Casino Royale (2006) was a relatively faithful adaptation of Ian Fleming's novel of the same name.  Like all James Bond movies, it plays fast and loose when it comes to continuity with the movies which came before.  Elastic continuity does not preclude a movie from being a sequel/adaptation.  Otherwise, Highlander II: The Quickening would not qualify as a sequel, despite the presence of a II in its very title.

Also "remake" implies that the second work is derivative of the first...

I vehemently disagree.  Scarface (1983) is a remake of Scarface (1932).  The two have little in common beyond the broadest of thematic strokes.  A remake needn't be a beat-for-beat retelling of the source material.  Some of the best remakes are those which take the basic premise and put a fresh spin on it.  Or are we now going to start retroactively branding films from decades previous as 'reboots'?  There was never any need for a different definition when Scarface (1983) came out.  It was accepted as a remake, which is what it is.  I don't support cultural revisionism.

[Mister Six]

Batman Begins was a fresh adaptation of the source material.

And a reboot of the Batman movie franchise.

Superman Returns was primarily a pile of shite, but if indeed renowned peadophile Bryan Singer intended it to be set in the same continuity as the Christopher Reeve movies, then it's a belated sequel, with a recast protagonist (much like Mad Max: Fury Road

Yes, that was my point.

It's a crossover/new adaptation.

And another reboot of the Batman franchise (but not the Superman one - that came in Man of Steel; my mistake).

Casino Royale (2006) was a relatively faithful adaptation of Ian Fleming's novel of the same name.  Like all James Bond movies, it plays fast and loose when it comes to continuity with the movies which came before.

No, it was explicitly a reboot of the Bond franchise, It resets Bond to the start of his 00 career, replaces or removed all of the familiar trappings of the long-standing franchise and makes no bones about it being a new beginning, even holding off the Bond theme until the end of the film, as he's not The James Bond until the very end.

I vehemently disagree.  Scarface (1983) is a remake of Scarface (1932).  The two have little in common beyond the broadest of thematic strokes.  A remake needn't be a beat-for-beat retelling of the source material. 

You didn't understand my point.

Scarface 83 is a remake of Scarface 32 because that was it's originating source. It is a derivative work even if it replaces aost everything. Just as The Thing is a remake of The Thing From Another World.

That wouldn't apply to (going back to our example of a franchise reboot) Tim Burton's Batman and Chris Nolan's Batman Begins because Nolan's not remaking the Burton film (just as Burton wasn't remaking the 60s TV spin-off film, and that Batman wasn't remaking the old Columbia serials.

In that case, both films are separate creative works that are derivative of a substantial body of comic books (and Nolan is drawing from Batman Year One specifically, which Burton wasn't).

You don't appear to understand that a reboot is a term applied to an ongoing creative work (eg. a TV, comic or film series), typically a franchise, not to an individual film (although a film may signify a reboot, or an attempt at one).

The term serves a very specific function that is not served by other words. You are simply wrong. Sorry.

[Jim Bob]

Batman Begins was a fresh adaptation of the source material.

And a reboot of the Batman movie franchise.

Why do you need to add the word 'reboot'?  It's unnecessary.  "A fresh adaptation of the source material" summed it up perfectly.

No, it was explicitly a reboot of the Bond franchise, It resets Bond to the start of his 00 career, replaces or removed all of the familiar trappings of the long-standing franchise and makes no bones about it being a new beginning, even holding off the Bond theme until the end of the film, as he's not The James Bond until the very end.

So... it's a prequel/adaptation (which like all James Bond movies, plays loose with the existing movie continuity).  Why do you feel the need to invoke the word 'reboot' with that description?

Scarface 83 is a remake of Scarface 32 because that was it's originating source.

Let me ask you this, would you consider the 2016 Ghostbusters movie to be a 'reboot'?

Just as The Thing is a remake of The Thing From Another World.

Actually, no.  John Carpenter's The Thing is not a remake of Christian Nyby's The Thing From Another World*.  Both are adaptations of John W. Campbell's 1938 novella Who Goes There?, with the 1951 film being a very loose adaptation and the 1982 film being a far more faithful adaptation.  The only part of Carpenter's film which is a remake of Nyby's film is the opening title, with the burning letters spelling out 'The Thing'.

That wouldn't apply to (going back to our example of a franchise reboot) Tim Burton's Batman and Chris Nolan's Batman Begins because Nolan's not remaking the Burton film (just as Burton wasn't remaking the 60s TV spin-off film, and that Batman wasn't remaking the old Columbia serials.

In that case, both films are separate creative works that are derivative of a substantial body of comic books (and Nolan is drawing from Batman Year One specifically, which Burton wasn't).

Yep.  That's another way of phrasing exactly what I already stated.  At what point does any of that define Nolan's movie as being a 'reboot'?  Like you say, Batman Begins is a fresh adaptation of the original source material.

You don't appear to understand that a reboot is a term applied to an ongoing creative work (eg. a TV, comic or film series), typically a franchise, not to an individual film (although a film may signify a reboot, or an attempt at one).

According to you.  Plenty of people would disagree with your definition because it's a definition which you made up within your own mind, Mr. Merriam-Webster.

The term serves a very specific function that is not served by other words. You are simply wrong. Sorry.

Still waiting for an actual example of a film or series which falls under that "very special function, not served by other words".  All I've been provided with so far are examples of works which already fall under different, pre-existing descriptions, with the added addendum of "...but it's also a reboot".  "Not served by other words", huh?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_{* Or Howard Hawks' The Thing From Another World, depending on who you choose to believe.}

[phantom_power]

Why do you need to add the word 'reboot'?  It's unnecessary.  "A fresh adaptation of the source material" summed it up perfectly.

Because it isn't an adaptation of any source material. It uses characters from DC comics but there is not single text it draws from and so would be misleading. We are in a place in film now where Batman is a well-established cinematic character apart from the source comics. Saying the film is a reboot lets the audience know that the film contains this film character but is not a continuation of the previous films.

I think you are onto a loser here. Reboot has a very clear and obvious definition to pretty much everyone other than you

[Jim Bob]

Because it isn't an adaptation of any source material. It uses characters from DC comics but there is not single text it draws from and so would be misleading.

A cinematic adaptation of a comic book character doesn't need to draw from a single comic for inspiration.  It can use a whole wealth of material, as has been the case for pretty much every comic book movie ever made (yes, even for second attempts at an adaptation of the same character and before the term 'reboot' was ever invented).  An adaptation is not limited to 'a single story from a different medium'.  It can also be an adaptation of the character and that character's history and lore.

Saying the film is a reboot lets the audience know that the film contains this film character but is not a continuation of the previous films.

I'd have thought that the title 'Batman BEGINS' might be enough of a clue that it's not a continuation.  Also the trailers and the fact that the movie itself makes it quite clear that it's not a continuation of the Burton movies.  One wonders how on Earth audiences back in 1989 were able to figure out that Burton's Batman wasn't a big screen continuation of the TV series without someone to tell them that it was a 'reboot'.  It's almost as though people aren't that dense.

You're honestly trying to say that if it weren't for the word reboot, then general audiences would have been confused as to what exactly the movie Batman Begins was?  What even leads you to believe that your average cinema goer had even read an article with the word 'reboot' in it?  It's my understanding that the vast majority of people; the casual audiences, see an advert or a trailer for a movie and then turn up to the cinema to watch it.  The people most likely to have encountered the word 'reboot' in association with Batman Begins are people like me; cinephiles, who regularly read movie related news articles and reviews and therefore, were already plenty aware of what exactly Batman Begins was, without needing some nonsensical usage of the word 'reboot' to suddenly go "oooooohhhhh, now I get it!"

I think you are onto a loser here. Reboot has a very clear and obvious definition to pretty much everyone other than you

Please do provide me with your definition of the word because though I may abhor the word on any level, I can assure you that the people who do use it, seldom agree upon the definition.  Pretty much any movie which isn't entirely original is branded as a reboot these days and the comments section for these announcements is filled with people saying that it's not a reboot and then proceeding to get into arguments with other over what the definition of a reboot is.  Yet, it has a "very clear and obvious definition".  'Nonsense' has a very clear and obvious definition.  'Reboot' does not.

[Bad Ambassador]

Just to add my twopenn'orth that reboot is a real term that means something, and has an agreed upon definition cited above.

[Jim Bob]

Just to add my twopenn'orth that reboot is a real term that means something, and has an agreed upon definition cited above.

Mate.  You're an agreed upon definition cited above, if anyone is.

[touchingcloth]

Reboot means something to me, and I'm not a cinephile who spends much time discussing films.

For something like the Batman, Superman, Spider-Man and Terminator films it's a useful description. I know (or at least I think I know) that most of those films have had at least two different franchises on the go in the past twenty years.

As someone who doesn't follow those particular films closely, "Batman Begins is a reboot" tells me that it's a Batman film I can watch without needing to have seen the last Schumacher one. Conversely, "Batman Begins is a fresh adaptation of the source material" just raises the question of what the source material actually is: the comics, Adam West, the cartoons, Burton...?

EDIT: there's probably an argument to be made that we could use a term where a film picks up on the continuity of a film earlier than the most recent one before it. The upcoming Terminator film is billed as a "direct sequel to Terminator 2", but there's nothing in that description which describes the fact that there have already been sequels to that film which share a different continuity.

[Jim Bob]

Well, it's pretty clear that nobody is going to agree with me.  Equally, I'm not going to back down.  It's a stalemate.  Y'all can continue to use the term 'reboot' and I can continue to be annoyed by it.  What a worthwhile thread this has turned out to be.

See you all again in another 3 months.

[touchingcloth]

Well, it's pretty clear that nobody is going to agree with me.  Equally, I'm not going to back down.  It's a stalemate.  Y'all can continue to use the term 'reboot' and I can continue to be annoyed by it.  What a worthwhile thread this has turned out to be.

It could use a reboot.

[Bad Ambassador]

EDIT: there's probably an argument to be made that we could use a term where a film picks up on the continuity of a film earlier than the most recent one before it. The upcoming Terminator film is billed as a "direct sequel to Terminator 2", but there's nothing in that description which describes the fact that there have already been sequels to that film which share a different continuity.

My understanding is that a "soft reboot" resets the series not to the start, but to an earlier point and overwriting some, but not all, of the previous entries. In this manner, X-Men: Days of Future Past softly rebooted the X-Men film series, as it changed the timeline and wiped at least some of the events of previous films.

It doesn't have to have an in-universe reason though. As you note with Terminator: Dark Fate, the makers of a new film can just ignore the existence of a previous one.

[SavageHedgehog]

I'll split the difference here; there's a logical definition but it's not always adhered to which muddies the waters. God help me that this is the first example I thought of, but that Lizzie McGuire reunion series that was announced at D23 was billed as a reboot, even though it clearly doesn't fit the definition in any sense. And I always remember about 10 years ago some company made a big deal about their Cliffhanger "reboot" which they promised would do for "the Cliffhanger franchise what JJ Abrams did for the Star Trek franchise".

[Bad Ambassador]

Like the word "literally", it has a specific meaning but has been muddied through misuse by idiots.

[Phil_A]

My understanding is that a "soft reboot" resets the series not to the start, but to an earlier point and overwriting some, but not all, of the previous entries. In this manner, X-Men: Days of Future Past softly rebooted the X-Men film series, as it changed the timeline and wiped at least some of the events of previous films.

It doesn't have to have an in-universe reason though. As you note with Terminator: Dark Fate, the makers of a new film can just ignore the existence of a previous one.

[Phil_A]

My understanding is that a "soft reboot" resets the series not to the start, but to an earlier point and overwriting some, but not all, of the previous entries. In this manner, X-Men: Days of Future Past softly rebooted the X-Men film series, as it changed the timeline and wiped at least some of the events of previous films.

It doesn't have to have an in-universe reason though. As you note with Terminator: Dark Fate, the makers of a new film can just ignore the existence of a previous one.

In TV series terms I think this also applies to established formats which have some significant change to the status quo to the point where it's effectively a new show, e.g. using the same characters transplanted to a radically different setting.

The second season of Buck Rogers were it turns into a shitty ratings-plunging Star Trek ripoff is an example. For a less extreme (and considerably more succesful) attempt look at Red Dwarf Series 3.

[Mister Six]

My understanding is that a "soft reboot" resets the series not to the start, but to an earlier point and overwriting some, but not all, of the previous entries. In this manner, X-Men: Days of Future Past softly rebooted the X-Men film series, as it changed the timeline and wiped at least some of the events of previous films.

It doesn't have to have an in-universe reason though. As you note with Terminator: Dark Fate, the makers of a new film can just ignore the existence of a previous one.

Kind of. It doesn't have to be an earlier point - a soft reboot is when you keep the same continuity (more or less) of the franchise but replace most of the stuff in it to provide a new jumping on point for viewers.

I didn't bother watching MIB International, but that looked like an example: all new characters save a couple of cameos, new introduction to the world, but still technically the same universe as the earlier MIB films.

Revivals can be soft reboots too - Doctor Who's revival was a soft reboot, as it basically ignored a bunch of old continuity and wrote some new stuff (Gallifrey destroyed, Time Lords and Daleks almost all wiped out, new origin for Cybermen) while slowly dribbling stuff from the original series in until they were one and whole again.

Or those weird moments you occasionally get in American sitcoms where the central characters are all suddenly working in a completely different place/city, and all the supporting cast are different, because the network wanted to retool it for better ratings.

"Reboot" (soft or hard) describes the function of a series of films or episodes in a franchise, specifically giving new audiences a jumping-on point, rather than the content of the individual film (which is what sequel, prequel, remake and those other words Joe Bob mentioned do). It can therefore work in tandem with, rather than replacing, those words. X-Men: First Class was both a prequel and a soft reboot, for example. Terminator: Dark Genesys is a sequel and a soft reboot.

[touchingcloth]

Whether or not we can come to an agreement on "reboot", can we agree that using "live action" to refer to the new Lion King with its zero live action is total shit for cunts?