Jump to content

"Remake" vs. "Reboot"


workingcinderellaman
 Share

Recommended Posts

The term "reboot" has come into vogue when describing certain movies in the last few years and I used to think I knew what it meant. But the way some people use it today, I don't know if I do.

 

The way I use the term is to define a movie that is starting a series over again. The Amazing Spiderman under this definition is a "reboot" of the Spiderman series that starred Toby Maguire. "Batman Begins" is a reboot of the Tim Burton Batman series that started with Micheal Keaton.

 

The term "remake" to me defines a singular move that takes the basic story and concept of another movie. The 1978 movie "Heaven Can Wait" was described as a "remake" of the 1941 movie "Here Comes Mr. Jordan". "Always" is a remake of "A Guy Named Joe". That's how I define it. The term "reboot" didn't exist in 1978, at least I had never heard it.

 

Anyway, some people use the term "reboot" to describe a movie that has been redone but with some changes to the plot. I find this definition to be vague and rather useless as almost all movies that are remade have some changes to the plot. "A Guy Named Joe" was about a WW2 pilot where "Always" was about a firefighter pilot.

 

The term "reboot" comes from computer nomenclature and describes the restarting of a whole computer system and the processes it's running. Which is another reason I think it makes sense that it's describing the restarting of a movie series or franchise.

 

But this is my opinion on a definition. So what do the terms actually mean to you?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, your definition is quite accurate. Rebooting means that you're planning more films. A remake is a one & done deal.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A remake is a film that is directly trying to redo what came before, with slight adjustmets. Think of something like The Thomas Crown Affair, or Ocean's 11.

 

A reboot is normally a kickstart of a franchise, restarting the story but not in the same way as before.

 

Some people get confused about certain films, calling something like The War Of The World's a remake of the 1959 film, when in actual fact it is just another interpretation of the same source material. If this is the case, and it was a remake, then the same should be said of Peter Jackson's The Lord Of The Rings, or every new Jane Austen adaptation.

 

It could be argued that Jurassic World is a reboot, but considering it follows directly from previous movies it is clearly a sequel in disguise, a sub-franchise of a bigger whole, taking the same journey down a different path with little relation to the specific events of the first three (it seems the second and third films are completely sidelined, but there is one returning character).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I hear the term "reboot" I think of nothing except turning my computer or phone off and then back on again. That is it period... :codger:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I hear the term "reboot" I think of nothing except turning my computer or phone off and then back on again. That is it period... :codger:

You're not as old as you think. Some would probably think it has something to do with haveing the soles of your cowboy boots replaced.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A remake is a film that is directly trying to redo what came before, with slight adjustmets. Think of something like The Thomas Crown Affair, or Ocean's 11.

 

A reboot is normally a kickstart of a franchise, restarting the story but not in the same way as before.

 

Some people get confused about certain films, calling something like The War Of The World's a remake of the 1959 film, when in actual fact it is just another interpretation of the same source material. If this is the case, and it was a remake, then the same should be said of Peter Jackson's The Lord Of The Rings, or every new Jane Austen adaptation.

 

It could be argued that Jurassic World is a reboot, but considering it follows directly from previous movies it is clearly a sequel in disguise, a sub-franchise of a bigger whole, taking the same journey down a different path with little relation to the specific events of the first three (it seems the second and third films are completely sidelined, but there is one returning character).

I suppose there are other more descriptive terms like "re-imagined" when a remake is significantly different than the original.

 

And like you say, some films have sort of created another category altogether which seems to be popular lately. You mentioned "Jurassic World" where it's a sequel to the first one but has skipped the second and third movies. Another example of this is "Terminator Genisis" and possibly the new Mad Max movie. To me all these are sequels, but don't fit in the franchise. How about "alternative sequel" because it follows like an alternative universe? :huh:

Edited by workingcinderellaman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the JJ Abrams Star Trek run a reboot? Obviously it's not a remake BUT the Nimoy Spock is in there independent from the young (whatever his name is) Spock. What would you call it? A sequel alternate universe with a decent actor playing a shit Khan? ;)

 

I think they said it was, so they could avoid having to stick to the run of events of the original

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a problem with all the constant Superman 'Reboots'..I mean why do they need to educate us on how baby Clark Kent landed in some farmers field??

 

Or how Bruce Wayne's parents were gunned down? No one cares and it has ZERO influence on what Superman or Batman do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a problem with all the constant Superman 'Reboots'..I mean why do they need to educate us on how baby Clark Kent landed in some farmers field??

 

Or how Bruce Wayne's parents were gunned down? No one cares and it has ZERO influence on what Superman or Batman do.

I see what you mean. My problem is that half those movies suck! Hehe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the JJ Abrams Star Trek run a reboot? Obviously it's not a remake BUT the Nimoy Spock is in there independent from the young (whatever his name is) Spock. What would you call it? A sequel alternate universe with a decent actor playing a shit Khan? ;)

 

It's a reboot. But yet the old continuity exists. Leave it to JJ to give us another sideways shift. LOL.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...