So what's wrong with using the word "reboot"in that same way?
If it's not REALLY "New", or "modern" or "classic" - why is it so wrong to use the word "reboot" - it can't be any more "wrong" than any of those?
A reboot denotes a break with previous continuity. The recent Batman trilogy was a reboot, a break with the previous 1990's Batman movies. The recent Superman movie was a reboot with the old movies. The Battlestar Galactica series was a reboot of the old series. Doctor Who is a revival, a continuation, not a reboot.
"New", "Modern" or "Classic" are used to refer to eras. You could refer to the current revival of Doctor Who as "the Reboot" if you would like, but while you can use that as a name for an era, it would be misleading since there was no reboot. Classic, Modern or New are all straightforward and intuitive designations, as is Revival. Reboot would be a counter-intuitive designation since it is incorrect.
So it's a completely different format - commissioned and produced in a different way by different people, in a different country and with a different cast - and the central character is or isn't half-human depending on who you ask - and he can fly - and turn in a house elf - and he's been married many times - and he ages a thousand years in one series...
But it's the same series because - it has the same name.
It is produced in a different fashion by the same company, The BBC, in a different country inside of the same country (U.K.), with a mostly different cast but with many returning characters played by the exact same actors/actresses where available and applicable (Sarah Jane Smith, The Eighth Doctor, K-9) and which acknowledges its former history and continuity constantly. Series of The Doctors' faces are shown in order many times from the First Doctor until the then current Doctor. The fact that it is a continuation of the same show is acknowledged and repeated over and over again throughout the current revival.
A reboot denotes a break with previous continuity. The recent Batman trilogy was a reboot, a break with the previous 1990's Batman movies. The recent Superman movie was a reboot with the old movies.
As I said earlier as they are based on comic books they are more re-imaginings than reboots as it's just a new take on the comics set in a different continuity.
That is why you can have different actors playing the same parts at the same time for example Smallville was airing when Superman Returns was made but neither was a reboot of the other one
Now Man Of Steel is out and soon Superman vs Batman that is a different universe which brings me to my point in Superman vs Batman and the next Justice League movie The Flash and Green Arrow are in it but played by different actors and set in a different universe to the TV series but they are not a reboot.
With Marvel 2 actors are now playing Quick Silver one in The X-Men movies and one in The Avengers movies again both are set in different universes but the latest one out is not a reboot of the one before.
Still wait for someone to cite at least one independent definition of the word "reboot" taht says that my interpretation of the word is incorrect.
What I'm getting is a number of people say what that word means TO THEM and I have no problem with that - as long as they acknowledge that their interpretation is not necessarily correct or exclusive.
I have provide definitions and the links to them - I didn't cherry-pick them, they are the only ones listed in the first page of hits is a Google search for "reboot definition". I've presented a a reasoned and reasonable case with suporting links and evidence - and I'm still more than happy to say "it's just my take on things". Some people here have done the same thing from the other side of the debate - some haven't.
Still wait for someone to cite at least one independent definition of the word "reboot" taht says that my interpretation of the word is incorrect.
What I'm getting is a number of people say what that word means TO THEM and I have no problem with that - as long as they acknowledge that their interpretation is not necessarily correct or exclusive.
I have provide definitions and the links to them - I didn't cherry-pick them, they are the only ones listed in the first page of hits is a Google search for "reboot definition". I've presented a a reasoned and reasonable case with suporting links and evidence - and I'm still more than happy to say "it's just my take on things". Some people here have done the same thing from the other side of the debate - some haven't.
I think it might be best to just agree to disagree. Neither side is going to back down and neither side is going to be happy with the opposing definition because we fundamentally disagree.
Maybe best left.
Still wait for someone to cite at least one independent definition of the word "reboot" taht says that my interpretation of the word is incorrect.
What I'm getting is a number of people say what that word means TO THEM and I have no problem with that - as long as they acknowledge that their interpretation is not necessarily correct or exclusive.
I have provide definitions and the links to them - I didn't cherry-pick them, they are the only ones listed in the first page of hits is a Google search for "reboot definition". I've presented a a reasoned and reasonable case with suporting links and evidence - and I'm still more than happy to say "it's just my take on things". Some people here have done the same thing from the other side of the debate - some haven't.
I typed reboot into my computer and it went to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia definition is:
"Verb
reboot (third-person singular simple present reboots, present participle rebooting, simple past and past participle rebooted)
(computing) To cause a computer to execute its boot process, effectively resetting the computer and causing the operating system to reload, especially after a system or power failure
(narratology) To discard all previous continuity in a series and restart the series.
(video games) To restart a (computer or video game) from the beginning."
Please note the second definition under narratology (the one which would apply here): To discard all previous continuity in a series and restart the series.
I typed reboot into my computer and it went to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia definition is:
"Verb
reboot (third-person singular simple present reboots, present participle rebooting, simple past and past participle rebooted)
(computing) To cause a computer to execute its boot process, effectively resetting the computer and causing the operating system to reload, especially after a system or power failure
(narratology) To discard all previous continuity in a series and restart the series.
(video games) To restart a (computer or video game) from the beginning."
Please note the second definition under narratology (the one which would apply here): To discard all previous continuity in a series and restart the series.
Does that work for you?
Check post #34 - I already quoted from that wikipedia entry - only I posted the detailed entry rather than the loosely worded opening...
Reboots remove any non-essential elements associated with a franchise by starting the franchise's continuity over and distilling it down to the core elements and concepts. For consumers, reboots allow easier entry for newcomers unfamiliar with earlier titles in a series. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboot_%28fiction%29
Check post #34 - I already quoted from that wikipedia entry - only I posted the detailed entry rather than the loosely worded opening...
Reboots remove any non-essential elements associated with a franchise by starting the franchise's continuity over and distilling it down to the core elements and concepts. For consumers, reboots allow easier entry for newcomers unfamiliar with earlier titles in a series. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboot_%28fiction%29
Using the broad definition, almost every James Bond film is a reboot. Yet, in reality, the 1996 Casino Royale is the only true reboot of the EON James Bond series.
Using the broad definition, almost every James Bond film is a reboot. Yet, in reality, the 1996 Casino Royale is the only true reboot of the EON James Bond series.
The last three films are not a "reboot" - they are prequels. They show how Bond, M, Q and Moneypenny reached the positions they were in at the start of Dr No - the first film made.
The last three films are not a "reboot" - they are prequels. They show how Bond, M, Q and Moneypenny reached the positions they were in at the start of Dr No - the first film made.
Despite the fact they are clearly set in the present day and the early films were clearly set during the Cold War? Casino Royale (2006) is blatantly a reboot, not a prequel.
Plus the Judi Dench M can't be at the start and end of Bond's career. She's either two completely separate characters or, more sensibly, a rebooted version of the same character shifted to a different part of the continuity.
Despite the fact they are clearly set in the present day and the early films were clearly set during the Cold War? Casino Royale (2006) is blatantly a reboot, not a prequel.
Plus the Judi Dench M can't be at the start and end of Bond's career. She's either two completely separate characters or, more sensibly, a rebooted version of the same character shifted to a different part of the continuity.
It's always been part of the "suspension of disbelief" that the passage of time in Bond is generally ignored in the same way that the change of actors is - no different to the way we accept that Bart Simpson has been a ten year old boy for the past 25 years. If you don't do that, Bond is now around 90 years old.
As for "M" - Dench definitely plays two different people doing the same job...
There are also some specific character differences aside from her career path and length of time in the job - such as having/not having kids or being married/widowed.
It's always been part of the "suspension of disbelief" that the passage of time in Bond is generally ignored in the same way that the change of actors is - no different to the way we accept that Bart Simpson has been a ten year old boy for the past 25 years. If you don't do that, Bond is now around 90 years old.
I don't like the Bond films so never watch them but isn't there a fan theory that it's not the same James Bond but more James Bond is just a code name used by different spies over the years
Not a reboot by any stretch of the imagination for me.
I can understand why folk who came to the show new might think so, but a bit baffled by anyone else. Theophile (sp?) has explained why better than I could, amongst others.
I don't like the Bond films so never watch them but isn't there a fan theory that it's not the same James Bond but more James Bond is just a code name used by different spies over the years
That was proposed as a way to explain away the changes in leading actor and the passing years of the original run of films but it was just a "fan theory" and no more .
In this case, the simple truth is that they had started making Bond films part way through the series of book - they never bothered with Casino Royale which was Bond's "origins" story. They decided to go back and film that story after running out of original Fleming stories and after a long and enforced absence from the screen.
Put simply, they filmed "missing episodes" in Bond's existing life as we had seen it on screen.
Well, the new M has been named on-screen as Gareth Mallory. So he's clearly not intended to be the Admiral Sir Miles Messervy from the Connery films.
It seems bizarre to me that anyone could claim Casino Royale 2006 is not a reboot, yet Doctor Who 2005 is a reboot. Are you just being contrary?
And given that there were two "M's" in the last film, how do you know that here won't be two M's in the next one - with the film ending in a shot of a blonde buying a bikini?
Or maybe NONE of the names are intended to be real - even Bond has had several different names displayed on various documents throughout the run of films. Prime example - you can see a name on Dench-M's personal belonging at the end but the studio has officially said that it's not necessarily her character's real name.
And no - I'm not being "contrary". I politely replied to someone asking why I use the word "reboot" and am constantly being told that I'm not ALLOWED to hold that opinion (along with the obvious trolling from my ill-mannered stalker).
Fact is, you call Casino Royale a "reboot" and I am proving that it isn't - it's a previously unfilmed book written by Fleming. The fact that it was also the first Bond book and introduced the character has allowed the studio to use it as a prequel.
You have to admit that it's just your OPINION that Casino Royale is a "reboot" - so why not accept that the word is so ill-defined that you are no more "right" or "wrong" than I am when I say the same thing about Doctor Who?
In short - there shouldn't BE an argument about "right" and "wrong" on this and it's a sad indictment of some DW "fans" that they believe they are entitled to insist that I follow their dogmatic view of this TV series.
And food for thought - I only referred to the FRANCHISE as being rebooted - so the people treating the SHOW as their precious baby can breathe out now.
That was proposed as a way to explain away the changes in leading actor and the passing years of the original run of films but it was just a "fan theory" and no more .
In this case, the simple truth is that they had started making Bond films part way through the series of book - they never bothered with Casino Royale which was Bond's "origins" story. They decided to go back and film that story after running out of original Fleming stories and after a long and enforced absence from the screen.
Put simply, they filmed "missing episodes" in Bond's existing life as we had seen it on screen.
You are wrong. Fleming had sold the rights to Casino Royale to a different film company and this is why it was not included in the main franchise. A deal was struck in the 60's to film CR with Connery but pushed back for Thunderball ( I know it was more complicated than that Bondies, but have simplified it). The rights owners then went ahead and made the 1967 spoof. A deal was struck again in 1999 when the rights for CR were swapped with Spiderman ( I think) allowing CR to be made (eventually!). The production company themselves have stated that CR was not a prequel, continuation or part of any existing continuity but a fresh start for the Bond story. It is probably the best example of the correct use of the term 'reboot' you will find!
No. Broccoli did not have the rights to CR, Feldman did. The deal was for the rights owners to make CR under the Broccoli banner, but this never transpired. They were going to film OHMSS then CR, but then Thunderball came a long and they wanted to go with that. Feldman tried to get Connery to play Bond in us own produced version but was put off by his fee demands. ($1million). Feldman then went ahead with the spoof. Broccoli never held the rights to CR and that is the only reason it was never filmed by him.
No. Broccoli did not have the rights to CR, Feldman did. The deal was for the rights owners to make CR under the Broccoli banner, but this never transpired. They were going to film OHMSS then CR, but then Thunderball came a long and they wanted to go with that. Feldman tried to get Connery to play Bond in us own produced version but was put off by his fee demands. ($1million). Feldman then went ahead with the spoof. Broccoli never held the rights to CR and that is the only reason it was never filmed by him.
And Broccoli could still have made the film - it would merely have meant paying Feldman rather than Fleming.
And Broccoli could still have made the film - it would merely have meant paying Feldman rather than Fleming.
...if he paid the rights owners, yes. He didn't pay for those rights so never made it. The deal for the Broccoli estate (not right way to describe it, but you know what I mean!) to acquire those rights didn't happen until 1999 and part of the reason they were prepared to do a deal at that time was because they wanted the first novel (and the only one not to have provided a title for a Broccoli film) to be the first film in the rebooted franchise. It wasn't necessary before that because they had already successfully started naming films from other sources when the novel titles had been exhausted and, as the franchise was kind of ongonig, didn't see the need for an origins story. They wanted to start again and rather than name the first film in the reboot 'Bond Begins' they made an effort to secure Casino Royale as this added weight to the fact that this was going to be a fresh start, ditching the baggage that had turned Bond into a bit of a pantomime.
...if he paid the rights owners, yes. He didn't pay for those rights so never made it. The deal for the Broccoli estate (not right way to describe it, but you know what I mean!) to acquire those rights didn't happen until 1999 and part of the reason they were prepared to do a deal at that time was because they wanted the first novel (and the only one not to have provided a title for a Broccoli film) to be the first film in the rebooted franchise. It wasn't necessary before that because they had already successfully started naming films from other sources when the novel titles had been exhausted and, as the franchise was kind of ongonig, didn't see the need for an origins story. They wanted to start again and rather than name the first film in the reboot 'Bond Begins' they made an effort to secure Casino Royale as this added weight to the fact that this was going to be a fresh start, ditching the baggage that had turned Bond into a bit of a pantomime.
In your opinion.
I gave a link to an in-depth article from an independent reputable source saying that it was not as you are describing it - can you provide a similar source to support your proposition?
Comments
A reboot denotes a break with previous continuity. The recent Batman trilogy was a reboot, a break with the previous 1990's Batman movies. The recent Superman movie was a reboot with the old movies. The Battlestar Galactica series was a reboot of the old series. Doctor Who is a revival, a continuation, not a reboot.
"New", "Modern" or "Classic" are used to refer to eras. You could refer to the current revival of Doctor Who as "the Reboot" if you would like, but while you can use that as a name for an era, it would be misleading since there was no reboot. Classic, Modern or New are all straightforward and intuitive designations, as is Revival. Reboot would be a counter-intuitive designation since it is incorrect.
It is produced in a different fashion by the same company, The BBC, in a different country inside of the same country (U.K.), with a mostly different cast but with many returning characters played by the exact same actors/actresses where available and applicable (Sarah Jane Smith, The Eighth Doctor, K-9) and which acknowledges its former history and continuity constantly. Series of The Doctors' faces are shown in order many times from the First Doctor until the then current Doctor. The fact that it is a continuation of the same show is acknowledged and repeated over and over again throughout the current revival.
As I said earlier as they are based on comic books they are more re-imaginings than reboots as it's just a new take on the comics set in a different continuity.
That is why you can have different actors playing the same parts at the same time for example Smallville was airing when Superman Returns was made but neither was a reboot of the other one
Now Man Of Steel is out and soon Superman vs Batman that is a different universe which brings me to my point in Superman vs Batman and the next Justice League movie The Flash and Green Arrow are in it but played by different actors and set in a different universe to the TV series but they are not a reboot.
With Marvel 2 actors are now playing Quick Silver one in The X-Men movies and one in The Avengers movies again both are set in different universes but the latest one out is not a reboot of the one before.
What I'm getting is a number of people say what that word means TO THEM and I have no problem with that - as long as they acknowledge that their interpretation is not necessarily correct or exclusive.
I have provide definitions and the links to them - I didn't cherry-pick them, they are the only ones listed in the first page of hits is a Google search for "reboot definition". I've presented a a reasoned and reasonable case with suporting links and evidence - and I'm still more than happy to say "it's just my take on things". Some people here have done the same thing from the other side of the debate - some haven't.
I think it might be best to just agree to disagree. Neither side is going to back down and neither side is going to be happy with the opposing definition because we fundamentally disagree.
Maybe best left.
I typed reboot into my computer and it went to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia definition is:
"Verb
reboot (third-person singular simple present reboots, present participle rebooting, simple past and past participle rebooted)
(computing) To cause a computer to execute its boot process, effectively resetting the computer and causing the operating system to reload, especially after a system or power failure
(narratology) To discard all previous continuity in a series and restart the series.
(video games) To restart a (computer or video game) from the beginning."
Here is the link:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reboot
Please note the second definition under narratology (the one which would apply here): To discard all previous continuity in a series and restart the series.
Does that work for you?
Check post #34 - I already quoted from that wikipedia entry - only I posted the detailed entry rather than the loosely worded opening...
Reboots remove any non-essential elements associated with a franchise by starting the franchise's continuity over and distilling it down to the core elements and concepts. For consumers, reboots allow easier entry for newcomers unfamiliar with earlier titles in a series. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboot_%28fiction%29
The last three films are not a "reboot" - they are prequels. They show how Bond, M, Q and Moneypenny reached the positions they were in at the start of Dr No - the first film made.
Plus the Judi Dench M can't be at the start and end of Bond's career. She's either two completely separate characters or, more sensibly, a rebooted version of the same character shifted to a different part of the continuity.
It's always been part of the "suspension of disbelief" that the passage of time in Bond is generally ignored in the same way that the change of actors is - no different to the way we accept that Bart Simpson has been a ten year old boy for the past 25 years. If you don't do that, Bond is now around 90 years old.
As for "M" - Dench definitely plays two different people doing the same job...
" In this new continuity, M has worked for MI6 for some time, at one point muttering, "Christ, I miss the Cold War".[40] According to Skyfall, M was previously in charge of MI6's operations in Hong Kong during the 1990s" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_%28James_Bond%29#Judi_Dench:_1995.E2.80.932012
There are also some specific character differences aside from her career path and length of time in the job - such as having/not having kids or being married/widowed.
It seems bizarre to me that anyone could claim Casino Royale 2006 is not a reboot, yet Doctor Who 2005 is a reboot. Are you just being contrary?
I don't like the Bond films so never watch them but isn't there a fan theory that it's not the same James Bond but more James Bond is just a code name used by different spies over the years
I can understand why folk who came to the show new might think so, but a bit baffled by anyone else. Theophile (sp?) has explained why better than I could, amongst others.
But, hey, people can believe what they like
That was proposed as a way to explain away the changes in leading actor and the passing years of the original run of films but it was just a "fan theory" and no more .
In this case, the simple truth is that they had started making Bond films part way through the series of book - they never bothered with Casino Royale which was Bond's "origins" story. They decided to go back and film that story after running out of original Fleming stories and after a long and enforced absence from the screen.
Put simply, they filmed "missing episodes" in Bond's existing life as we had seen it on screen.
And given that there were two "M's" in the last film, how do you know that here won't be two M's in the next one - with the film ending in a shot of a blonde buying a bikini?
Or maybe NONE of the names are intended to be real - even Bond has had several different names displayed on various documents throughout the run of films. Prime example - you can see a name on Dench-M's personal belonging at the end but the studio has officially said that it's not necessarily her character's real name.
And no - I'm not being "contrary". I politely replied to someone asking why I use the word "reboot" and am constantly being told that I'm not ALLOWED to hold that opinion (along with the obvious trolling from my ill-mannered stalker).
Fact is, you call Casino Royale a "reboot" and I am proving that it isn't - it's a previously unfilmed book written by Fleming. The fact that it was also the first Bond book and introduced the character has allowed the studio to use it as a prequel.
You have to admit that it's just your OPINION that Casino Royale is a "reboot" - so why not accept that the word is so ill-defined that you are no more "right" or "wrong" than I am when I say the same thing about Doctor Who?
In short - there shouldn't BE an argument about "right" and "wrong" on this and it's a sad indictment of some DW "fans" that they believe they are entitled to insist that I follow their dogmatic view of this TV series.
And food for thought - I only referred to the FRANCHISE as being rebooted - so the people treating the SHOW as their precious baby can breathe out now.
You are wrong. Fleming had sold the rights to Casino Royale to a different film company and this is why it was not included in the main franchise. A deal was struck in the 60's to film CR with Connery but pushed back for Thunderball ( I know it was more complicated than that Bondies, but have simplified it). The rights owners then went ahead and made the 1967 spoof. A deal was struck again in 1999 when the rights for CR were swapped with Spiderman ( I think) allowing CR to be made (eventually!). The production company themselves have stated that CR was not a prequel, continuation or part of any existing continuity but a fresh start for the Bond story. It is probably the best example of the correct use of the term 'reboot' you will find!
Oh - and you may want to check your facts - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/9988216/Casino-Royale-60-years-old.html
No. Broccoli did not have the rights to CR, Feldman did. The deal was for the rights owners to make CR under the Broccoli banner, but this never transpired. They were going to film OHMSS then CR, but then Thunderball came a long and they wanted to go with that. Feldman tried to get Connery to play Bond in us own produced version but was put off by his fee demands. ($1million). Feldman then went ahead with the spoof. Broccoli never held the rights to CR and that is the only reason it was never filmed by him.
And Broccoli could still have made the film - it would merely have meant paying Feldman rather than Fleming.
...if he paid the rights owners, yes. He didn't pay for those rights so never made it. The deal for the Broccoli estate (not right way to describe it, but you know what I mean!) to acquire those rights didn't happen until 1999 and part of the reason they were prepared to do a deal at that time was because they wanted the first novel (and the only one not to have provided a title for a Broccoli film) to be the first film in the rebooted franchise. It wasn't necessary before that because they had already successfully started naming films from other sources when the novel titles had been exhausted and, as the franchise was kind of ongonig, didn't see the need for an origins story. They wanted to start again and rather than name the first film in the reboot 'Bond Begins' they made an effort to secure Casino Royale as this added weight to the fact that this was going to be a fresh start, ditching the baggage that had turned Bond into a bit of a pantomime.
In your opinion.
I gave a link to an in-depth article from an independent reputable source saying that it was not as you are describing it - can you provide a similar source to support your proposition?
Was or was not the more recent version of Casino Royale a reboot of the sixties original?