Reboot yuckiness: Buffy the Vampire Slayer

[innerSpaceman]

Hahahah, that's great.

Oh, I posted, commence Superman and Batman talk.


Interesting all that Superman stuff. Generally, I'm not sure if new incarnations are the same as a reboot. Since reboot is a new term, I'm not sure if we're all talking about the same thing, or where the line is exactly between a simple new incarnation and an attempt to refresh an ailing series.

One such definition, that works for Bond as well as Star Trek, is if the new start comes while the series is essentially still ongoing.


It's questionable if that works for Batman. It was a number of years between the Burton-fueled series and the new Nolans, but I'd argue the Burtons were still fresh in the pop-cultural zeitgeist.


In that sense, though, the Chris Reeve Superman series would not have been a reboot, and I'm agreeable to that. And, by the same token, I think that series was dead so long before Lois and Clark or Smallville that neither were reboots in the sense I'm using that term. The same would have to be true of the Singer attempt (certainly less of a reboot than a remake at any rate).

I certainly cop to the fuzziness. People certainly remembered the Chris Reeve Supermans, but I don't think they were as "fresh" in the pop culture as the Burton Batmans were when Nolan more legitimately tried to revive that franchise.



This is ridiculous minutia ... but oh well, it's a message board.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I see one of the keys to considering it a "reboot" is revisiting the origin story, with the aim of saying, "This is NOT part of any existing timeline for this character, this is an entirely self-contained new universe that does not hinge on what's already been established." So event though Batman Returns and Batman Forever bear little resemblance to Burton's 2 Batman movies, I don't consider them reboots since they weren't an attempt to start everything from scratch and create a new timeline independent of what was before. Whereas Batman Begins is clearly a reboot since it went back to square one.

In that vein, Chris Reeve definitely counts as a reboot.

Raime's Spiderman, even though there hadn't been a widely popular incarnation of Spiderman since the old cartoon series, is still a reboot by that definition.

Trek is a bit of an oddball in that it tied itself into the existing timeline instead of just ignoring that timeline and creating its own. But the end result is essentially the same as a reboot, with the connection to the original timeline thrown in, as I've theorized before, to soften the blow to an audience that would otherwise not have been receptive to a reboot.

[mousepod]

GD - I completely agree with you. Even though 'reboot' is a shiny new term, it's a tried-and-true tactic to revive old franchises.

Pretty much every Superman that Bornieo cited is a reboot, and I'd also agree that there have been several Batman reboots, with the first Burton and Batman Begins being the latest two.

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Trek is a bit of an oddball in that it tied itself into the existing timeline instead of just ignoring that timeline and creating its own. But the end result is essentially the same as a reboot, with the connection to the original timeline thrown in, as I've theorized before, to soften the blow to an audience that would otherwise not have been receptive to a reboot.

And since there's a dead horse here that needs beating, I think the "half reboot" of Star Trek is the root of all of my issues with the movie.

[innerSpaceman]

I see the value in Ghoulish Delight's defintion, but the exceptions are glaring.

Was Casino Royale a reboot or not? It posited James Bond as a brand-new agent getting his Double Oh status. But it did not re-tell any origin story.

In fact, since there never was an origin story, one could argue Casino Royale told the origin story for the first time. Does that make it a reboot? Or is starting the main character from scratch sufficient, even if it's not retelling a story told before?

In a sense, the same can be said of Star Trek. It told the "origin" story of how these characters came to be together, and did so for the first time ever. Yet it, too, was clearly a reboot. Starting the characters from scratch again the only pertinent factor.



Singer's Superman was likey an attempt to reboot. But while it was essentially a remake of Superman I and II of the Reeve series, it did not restart the timeline or the character at all.


This is all clearly subjective, then ... it seems.


And to get back to the original point, and without the benefit of the finished product yet existing, I'd peg the new Buffy as a new incarnation and not a reboot.


But this is all the silliest of semantics.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Bond is its own massive exception since, really, every movie is a reboot. It was never serial, so it kinda doesn't really fit the whole model at all, so no I don't consider any Bond movie a "reboot" as it's not the kind of series that can be rebooted.

Of course it's subjective, and of course you can find exceptions. But "attempt to start a new timeline that is whole without need of other series that came before it" I think is the most complete generalization that covers most cases.

[Moonliner]

Could someone please reboot the Chronicles of Narnia. That franchise is in desperate need of a reboot.

[mousepod]

Yes, Casino Royale was a reboot.

As you've stated before (I think in the Star Trek thread), iSm, the James Bond series kept changing - with new actors playing Bond (and M, and Moneypenny, and Felix...) with the occasional reference to a previous adventure. While the movies were all basically standalone, there was a feeling of a series (albeit a sloppy one, I'll admit). We were always meeting Bond in the middle of his career - he always already had a reputation. The problem was, he was perpetually the same age, while the world around him changed. Was he a Cold War spy? An anti-terrorist? Yes, depending on when the movie was made.

With Casino Royale, an attempt was made to start the series again. He's a new agent, just achieving his "Double-0" status. The next movie, Quantum of Solace (without making a value judgement) picked up the specific thread from the CR and continued the story.

As far as Singer's Superman is concerned, I'd agree that it's a tenuous reboot, as it's more a sequel to Superman II. While it erased the timeline after the second Reeve movie, it didn't restart the story... interesting point.

[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?"

[Gn2Dlnd]

What word were the comix geeks using before "reboot?" I dislike using the term.

[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.