Begins Filming in January?

Started by Ultramorph, Aug 02, 2015, 11:26:19 PM

Author
Begins Filming in January? (Read 23,293 times)

System Apollo

System Apollo

#60
Quote from: NickisSmart on Aug 10, 2015, 10:02:02 AM
Reboots tend to reinvent things. What if Alien 5 plays out like the first two films? Is it still a reboot?
By definition; yes.

HuDaFuK

HuDaFuK

#61
Quote from: System Apollo on Aug 10, 2015, 10:49:14 AMBy definition; yes.

No.

A reboot is a fresh start, wiping the slate of anything that has happened before and starting over afresh. See: Batman Begins. By definition it writes off the previous Batman films.

Simply being similar in story and tone or "making a franchise relevant again" does not make it a reboot. That isn't what a reboot is.

System Apollo

System Apollo

#62
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 10, 2015, 11:45:19 AM
Quote from: System Apollo on Aug 10, 2015, 10:49:14 AMBy definition; yes.

No.

A reboot is a fresh start, wiping the slate of anything that has happened before and starting over afresh. See: Batman Begins. By definition it writes off the previous Batman films.

Simply being similar in story and tone or "making a franchise relevant again" does not make it a reboot. That isn't what a reboot is.
That is the definition of a remake. Remake is not synonymous to reboot.

By definition of Reboot:

Quotesomething, especially a series of films or television programs, that has been restarted or revived.

Definition of Revive:

Quoterestore interest in or the popularity of.

By definition of Remake:

Quotea movie or piece of music that has been filmed or recorded again and rereleased.

A film can be a reboot and a remake at the same time.

Sources:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Remake&oq=Remake&aqs=chrome..69i57.1257j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=define+Reboot
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Remake&oq=Remake&aqs=chrome..69i57.1257j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=define+Revive
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Remake&oq=Remake&aqs=chrome..69i57.1257j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=define+Remake

HuDaFuK

HuDaFuK

#63
Wrong.

When you reboot something, you switch it off and start again. "In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning."

A remake is a retreading of the same plot. A reboot can restart a series without being a remake of any of the previous entries (e.g. Casino Royale or, again, Batman Begins).

System Apollo

System Apollo

#64
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 10, 2015, 12:12:11 PM
Wrong.

When you reboot something, you switch it off and start again. "In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning."

A remake is a retreading of the same plot. A reboot can restart a series without being a remake of any of the previous entries (e.g. Casino Royale or, again, Batman Begins).
Sources?


Ah I see now; Wikipedia.
Although stated under types the definition is as follows:
QuoteFilm
With reboots, filmmakers revamp and reinvigorate a film series in order to attract new fans and stimulate revenue.[2] A reboot can renew interest in a series that has grown stale, and can be met with positive, mixed, or negative results by both the consumers and film critics.[4] Reboots also act as a safe project for a studio, as a reboot with an established fan base is less risky (in terms of expected profit) than an entirely original work, while at the same time allowing the studio to explore new demographics.[5] Reboots also allow directors and producers to cast a new set of younger actors for the familiar roles of a film series, which can attract a younger audience.[citation needed]

HuDaFuK

HuDaFuK

#65
http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue344/reboot1.html
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2009/08/25/top-12-forthcoming-franchise-reboots
http://reboot.askdefinebeta.com/
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ContinuityReboot
https://www.wordnik.com/words/reboot

The actual quote I posted is admittedly taken from Wikipedia, but it cites some of those links as sources, and it's the best one-line explanation I've come across.


Quote from: System Apollo on Aug 10, 2015, 12:14:23 PM
QuoteWith reboots, filmmakers revamp and reinvigorate a film series in order to attract new fans and stimulate revenue. A reboot can renew interest in a series that has grown stale, and can be met with positive, mixed, or negative results by both the consumers and film critics.

None of which actually explains what a reboot is. Sure, a reboot can reinvigorate a series, but so can a straight-up sequel. Does that mean sequels are now reboots too?

System Apollo

System Apollo

#66
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 10, 2015, 12:33:03 PM
http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue344/reboot1.html
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2009/08/25/top-12-forthcoming-franchise-reboots
http://reboot.askdefinebeta.com/
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ContinuityReboot
https://www.wordnik.com/words/reboot

The actual quote I posted is admittedly taken from Wikipedia, but it cites some of those links as sources, and it's the best one-line explanation I've come across.


Quote from: System Apollo on Aug 10, 2015, 12:14:23 PM
QuoteWith reboots, filmmakers revamp and reinvigorate a film series in order to attract new fans and stimulate revenue. A reboot can renew interest in a series that has grown stale, and can be met with positive, mixed, or negative results by both the consumers and film critics.

None of which actually explains what a reboot is. Sure, a reboot can reinvigorate a series, but so can a straight-up sequel. Does that mean sequels are now reboots too?
These definitions use Discard, Non-Essential and Continuity. When we look at Discard it is referring to removing something of no use, which can mean anything. Non-Essential referring to something which is not important, which can be anything. Continuity referring to consistent detail of various scenes in a film or broadcast; again using a word like Detail, which could also mean anything!

I think we have come across a paradoxical noun that can only be fixed by someone with the authority on the matter.

This is why only the U.K should invent English words!

HuDaFuK

HuDaFuK

#67
No, you're just nit-picking. "To restart an entertainment universe that has already been previously established, and begin with a new story line and/or timeline that disregards the original writer's previously established history, thus making it obsolete and void" is perfectly specific. That is what a reboot is.

That said, the press seems to have a habit of throwing the term at any new entry in an established film series, regardless of whether or not it's warranted. Everyone was claiming Predator 4 was a reboot, until Shane Black himself pointed out it isn't.

Corporal Hicks

Corporal Hicks

#68
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 10, 2015, 01:08:32 PM
That said, the press seems to have a habit of throwing the term at any new entry in an established film series, regardless of whether or not it's warranted. Everyone was claiming Predator 4 was a reboot, until Shane Black himself pointed out it isn't.

Something that happens too much now-a-days. There's too much of a confusion between reboot/remake and just plain sequel.

System Apollo

System Apollo

#69
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 10, 2015, 01:08:32 PM
No, you're just nit-picking. "To restart an entertainment universe that has already been previously established, and begin with a new story line and/or timeline that disregards the original writer's previously established history, thus making it obsolete and void" is perfectly specific. That is what a reboot is.
Your citation comes from a writer that proclaimed the definition for his article. I'm sorry but I am a bit skeptical on that being what a reboot is.

Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 10, 2015, 01:08:32 PM
That said, the press seems to have a habit of throwing the term at any new entry in an established film series, regardless of whether or not it's warranted. Everyone was claiming Predator 4 was a reboot, until Shane Black himself pointed out it isn't.
Ah yes, the press, also writers whom proclaim the definition for their own articles. I guess we can confirm that Shane Black is the vocabulary enforcer.

HuDaFuK

HuDaFuK

#70
Quote from: System Apollo on Aug 10, 2015, 01:22:09 PMYour citation comes from a writer that proclaimed the definition for his article. I'm sorry but I am a bit skeptical on that being what a reboot is.

And yet it agrees with every other source I provided.

Quote from: System Apollo on Aug 10, 2015, 01:22:09 PMI guess we can confirm that Shane Black is the vocabulary enforcer.

We can confirm Shane Black is the man actually making the movie. I'm inclined to listen to his analysis of it over some reporter who's subsequently been proven incorrect in his/her statements

System Apollo

System Apollo

#71
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 10, 2015, 01:43:35 PM
And yet it agrees with every other source I provided.
Whilst adding input upon it. Your writer also referred to Star Trek (2009) as a reboot, which is in the same continuation as the originals (although in a separate timeline.) Which contradicts his definition in the first place.


Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 10, 2015, 01:43:35 PM
We can confirm Shane Black is the man actually making the movie. I'm inclined to listen to his analysis of it over some reporter who's subsequently been proven incorrect in his/her statements
No, he/she was not proven incorrect. He/She just used a fairly new figurative term, people misunderstood, and then Shane clarified that it was not a reboot in the definition that they might have been thinking.

By literal definition the term has no relevance to film. By figurative we can see that nothing can be confirmed for it.

So under these circumstances I am sticking with the rudimentary approach to the word. Feel free to disagree with me.

HuDaFuK

HuDaFuK

#72
Quote from: System Apollo on Aug 10, 2015, 02:13:53 PMYour writer also referred to Star Trek (2009) as a reboot, which is in the same continuation as the originals (although in a separate timeline.) Which contradicts his definition in the first place.

Not it doesn't. Star Trek 2009 is a reboot. In continuity terms, it wipes the slate clean and begins again. It's just an incredibly specific case whereby, thanks to the miracles of time travel, it does so in a way that allows them to say the previous films still happened in some way. Because if they'd literally tried to start over the Trek fans would've gone apeshit. But in terms of its story, and the story now ongoing in the subsequent sequels, it was a completely fresh start, done specifically to jettison the baggage of the previous movies. Sure, it's a very unusual case that comes with a notable 'but', yet it's still a reboot.

Quote from: System Apollo on Aug 10, 2015, 02:13:53 PMBy literal definition the term has no relevance to film.

It has total relevance to film ever since the term reboot has become synonymous with the act of restarting a film franchise from zero.

Quote from: System Apollo on Aug 10, 2015, 02:13:53 PMSo under these circumstances I am sticking with the rudimentary approach to the word. Feel free to disagree with me.

The most rudimentary approach would be to use 'reboot' as defined in the original computer context, I suppose. Which means to reset and restart again from scratch. Exactly as I have been saying.

System Apollo

System Apollo

#73
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 10, 2015, 02:29:54 PM
Quote from: System Apollo on Aug 10, 2015, 02:13:53 PMYour writer also referred to Star Trek (2009) as a reboot, which is in the same continuation as the originals (although in a separate timeline.) Which contradicts his definition in the first place.

Not it doesn't. Star Trek 2009 is a reboot. In continuity terms, it wipes the slate clean and begins again. It's just an incredibly specific case whereby, thanks to the miracles of time travel, it does so in a way that allows them to say the previous films still happened in some way. Because if they'd literally tried to start over the Trek fans would've gone apeshit. But in terms of its story, and the story now ongoing in the subsequent sequels, it was a completely fresh start, done specifically to jettison the baggage of the previous movies. Sure, it's a very unusual case that comes with a notable 'but', yet it's still a reboot.

Quote from: System Apollo on Aug 10, 2015, 02:13:53 PMBy literal definition the term has no relevance to film.

It has total relevance to film ever since the term reboot has become synonymous with the act of restarting a film franchise from zero.

Quote from: System Apollo on Aug 10, 2015, 02:13:53 PMSo under these circumstances I am sticking with the rudimentary approach to the word. Feel free to disagree with me.

The most rudimentary approach would be to use 'reboot' as defined in the original computer context, I suppose. Which means to reset and restart again from scratch. Exactly as I have been saying.
Whatever dude.

NickisSmart

NickisSmart

#74
There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what reboot means, as far as I can tell from these posts.

Here's my take on it, for what it's worth: A reboot is essentially a retelling of a classic story franchise. It doesn't have to borrow the exact details of the plot, even. Many episodes or movies have basic parts that you can swap out and still maintain the structure of the story (hero, villain, love interest, plot-twist, etc). What's important is that you have enough elements from a series to make it somewhat recognizable. So the new Star Trek has Kirk and Bones and Spock in it, even though the story itself is "original," in the sense that isn't an exact retelling of an old episode or film from the franchise. It is something "old" that has been adapted to modern audiences.

So, simply put, a reboot is an adaptation. It's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the novel, versus Kenneth Branagh's film of the same name. It's Star Trek the 1960's TV show versus the 2009 J.J. Abrams film of the same name, and so on. 

A sequel, on the other hand, is a continuation of a story or episode. It is Empire Strikes Back following A New Hope. It is The Fly 2 following The Fly. The stories are actually connected, and more than thematically. They are sequential and take place in the same universe, with the same exact characters, and are distinguished from one another chronologically.

Alien 5 is a sequel because it takes place in the same exact universe that Cameron created, with the same characters, following the events that transpired in Aliens, just as Aliens was a sequel for the same reasons in regards to Alien.

That's how I see it, anyways.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News