NBC Reboots Original Apprentice

Found this off of TVGuide.com: NBC Reboots Original Apprentice

Now, anyone who knows me knows that I hate when that word is just thrown around (like the recent announcement of a Vacation reboot) and this is not an exception. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but can you really reboot something that is still on the air. If that's the case, then Desperate Housewives did the same thing with it's jump into the future. What I do like about the idea is that they are going to use people who have been affected by the recession, and who really need something to help them jump start their lives. Is this the best way? Maybe not, but sometimes people need to resort to this sort of thing. As long as we don't get another Omarosa in the mix, I think all will be well (No offense to the lady, but overexposure always has a price).

Question of the Day 3/11/2010

With shows such as reboots of V, Melrose Place and 90210 on the air,  and Hawaii Five-O and The Rockford Files on the way, have we lost the ability to come up with anything original?

Reboot vs. Remakes vs. Sequels

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!!