Reboot yuckiness: Buffy the Vampire Slayer

[innerSpaceman]

Casino Royale's interesting, too, because for the first time a new actor playing Bond was supposed to be a new (or the very first) Bond, but in the same film "M" was suppose to be a continuation character. Oddball stuff.


Or should I say, "Oddjob stuff?"

[Moonliner]

So perhaps what really sets a reboot apart is that it breaks with existing canon. A fresh start that may or may not be at the beginning of the overall story.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

So perhaps what really sets a reboot apart is that it breaks with existing canon. A fresh start that may or may not be at the beginning of the overall story.

True, it doesn't have to start at the beginning. But there does have to be something that explicitly identifies it as breaking from canon. So even though Batman Returns and Batman Forever don't tie into Burton's Batmans, there was nothing in them that explicitly conveys a novel new direction with the intent of separating these new movies from what came before. If anything they were purposely (if misguidedly) trying to tie it back to the campiness of the 60s series.

Hmm, perhaps Singer's Superman is better described as "restore from last known good" than "reboot".

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

So even though Batman Returns and Batman Forever don't tie into Burton's Batmans, there was nothing in them that explicitly conveys a novel new direction with the intent of separating these new movies from what came before.

Ok, you said it twice, so I have to ask. Batman Returns is the Burton sequel featuring Michelle Pfeiffer. Batman Forever is the first Schumacher sequel, with Val Kilmer at the Bat.

I'm not sure if you meant to reference the two Schumacher sequels (Batman Forever and Batman and Robin) or the two Nolan films (Batman Begins and Dark Knight).