Okay, so I know I've used the word reboot before, but I'm beginning to wonder if maybe like jump the shark, this phrase is beginning to be misused quite a bit. Given my understanding, a reboot is supposed to have a break in continuity from the original series in order to give it fresh ideas. My question to you is if you take a character from the series and put them in a new situation, doesn't that make it a sequel and not a reboot, since there is still a connection in continuity? Take this article from Access Hollywood which I found via Yahoo: 80's Classics Vacation and Best Little Whorehouse Heading for Reboots. Apparently in the new Vacation reboot, the focus will be on the son, Rusty Griswald, as an adult, and his adventures as he sets off to Wally World. Since they are still using Rusty and throw in Wally World, doesn't that leave an outright connection to the original? The idea in itself is not fresh, since it is basically taking the first movie and just moving it to the son, which in opinion, doesn't make it a reboot. If it did, then I guess we can consider Son of the Mask more of a reboot, since I believe it didn't have a connection to the original except for the Mask, and used it for a new take on the source (poor example, I know, I was just trying to be funny. I guess I need to work on that). A better example would be Batman Begins, which took the same character but adjusted some of the mythos to tell a new, compelling story, abandoning the previous Batman films(Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin) altogether.It's a fine line, since they still were using the character of Batman and others, but I believe it is closer to the definition than most films and shows trying to work under that label.
Of course, I haven't eaten yet, and as anyone else who is on the chubby side like myself knows, it could make me a little cranky, which might be why I am picking on this idea. Or maybe I'm right? I'll let you decide. Comment away!!
No comments:
Post a Comment