Reboots vs. Remakes: Understanding Movie Lingo

 There's yet another misunderstanding in language that's on the rise at the moment.  Being able to distinguish what movie is a remake or a reboot.  In some cases, people are confused about which is which, and in other cases they seem to be using the words interchangeably, as if they meant the same thing.  But that's the thing - they don't.  So in today's blog, I'm here to set things straight to avoid any further confusion.

REMAKES - When a movie is receiving the remake treatment, it means that it's going to be a new version of what we already have.  In the musical sense, a remake is basically a cover.

For example: The original 1976 movie, "Carrie" starring Sissy Spacek got its remake in the form of the 2013 adaption starring Chloë Grace Moretz.  And that's another key word to look out for - adaption.

Another example: The 1971 original of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" starring Gene Wilder getting its remake in 2005 with Johnny Depp.

It's basically the same film.  Mostly shot for shot, but not in all cases.  It tells the same story, but with a different cast.  The script isn't always word for word, but you get the idea.

REBOOTS - To understand movie reboots, you need to know the dictionary definition of the word:

 

As you can see from the screenshot above, under the list of verbs you can see one that states a reboot as a form of restarting or reviving something.  In other words, it's a completely different thing to what we already have.  A new story.

 

Example: The "Ghostbusters" franchise now has 4 movies in total.  However, only 3 of those are what the movie industry calls "canon" - following a particular series of stories and events to tell an even bigger story.  In this case, "Ghostbusters" from 1984, "Ghostbusters II" from 1989 and "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" from 2021 are all a part of the same timeline.  "Afterlife" may be the 4th movie made, but it's basically the third in the story.

 

The 2016 version of "Ghostbusters" - the one with the female cast - is considered a reboot.  It doesn't follow any timelines attached to the previous 2 movies.

 

Another example: The 1995 movie, "Judge Dredd" starring Sylvester Stallone was rebooted in 2012 as "Dredd" and starred Kiwi actor, Karl Urban as the lead role.  "Dredd" is not one of those cheap, unwanted sequels that had a different cast to the original (that's another movie topic for later).  It's a separate story detached from the Stallone version, as if it never happened.  That is how reboots work...it is the law! 😜

MIXING IT UP - In some rare cases, you may have a movie franchise that likes to tell stories that are canon, and yet it doesn't really matter that much about the order in which you watch certain ones.

For example: "The Matrix" franchise now has 4 movies with its recent addition in 2021, "The Matrix Resurrections".  However, there is a 5th title attached - "The Animatrix" (2003).

In this case, you can get away with binge watching the 4 live action movies from the 1999 film to the most recent and not worry too much about "The Animatrix" and at what point you should throw it in there (but if you're going to, I would recommend watching it before the 2021 film).  "The Animatrix" is kind of a stand-alone movie, as it's just a collection of 9 animated short stories in the Matrix universe that help explain some of the origin stories and lore behind it, to give you a better understanding of things.  But in the end, you can get away with not watching it if you didn't want to.

WHEN BECOMES A HOT MESS & CONFUSING - On some occasions, you might get a franchise that likes to use a weird combination of both reboots AND remakes in a strange series of events that mess with your mind.  They don't necessarily have confusion in mind when telling the story, but when the following example does it, it kind of gets a little out of control.

In the case of this example, a part of the confusion is due to its heavy emphasis on time travel.  The possibility of various versions of the future based on past/present events, and the fact they've had a LOT of movies so far, it's easy to get lost in all that information and go, "What?  Where and when does this happen, and how is it relevant to this?  I'm so confused!"

"The Terminator" started off in 1984 as a potential throw-away B-grade 80's sci-fi, but it got so popular that it would become a franchise through its 1991 sequel, "Terminator 2: Judgment Day", which was obviously a smash hit.  After its success as one of the greatest sequels of all time, it was unknowingly on its way to becoming a very confusing series of films.

In 2003, people were excited to see that "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" was coming.  Needless to say, it wasn't as great as the first 2 films, but it was entertaining either way.  Also, no Edward Furlong?  There is no other John Connor (apart from the older version in the opening scene to T2).  Then the franchise continued in 2009 with Christian Bale in "Terminator: Salvation".  This one got mixed reviews as it wasn't quite the adaption of the future war we were expecting.  However, it was the release of the next movie that made it all messy...

"Terminator: Genesys" in 2015 came along and started to shake things up by having future versions of the original characters going back in time to as far back as 1984, during the events of the first movie.  This idea alone should be considered a sign that things are about to get out of control when it comes to holding all that information in your head.  What you watched in the first movies was about to get thrown out the window, if not walked upon.  By the end of this reboot within a sequel within an original film (see what I mean?), you're wondering what the heck just happened.  Also, there was a post-credits scene that hinted towards another sequel to follow, but the actual follow-up we got went in a completely different direction...again.

"Terminator: Dark Fate" in 2019 decided to push the reboot button, taking you back to the end of "T2" and basically removing the existence of "T3" and beyond at this point.  Therefore, making this franchise have both remakes and reboots as one big, happy and massively dysfunctional family.

CONCLUSION

So, a summary of what is and what isn't a reboot/remake.

A remake is a retelling of the same story from either a different or the same perspective, but with different cast members.

A reboot is a completely new story altogether as if the originals never happened.

So, next time you discuss movie franchises, look further into whether or not the story of the newer films fit with the older ones.  That way you should be able to tell what's what and how you should watch them if you wish to binge them at any point.  In short, "remake" and "reboot" are NOT the same thing, ladies and gentlemen.  Knowing this will make discussions run a lot smoother and be easier to understand.

FOOTNOTE

If you want my advice on the order in which to binge watch the movies I've mentioned above, here's an overview:

"Ghostbusters" - 1984, 1989, 2021 (you can get away with not watching the 2016 reboot - I hear it was bad anyway).

"The Matrix" - 1999, "Reloaded", "Revolutions", "Resurrections" ("Animatrix" can go anywhere before "Resurrections").

"Terminator" - Timeline #1: 1984, "T2", "T3", "Salvation"; Timeline #2: 1984, "T2", "Dark Fate" (I wouldn't even bother with "Genesys").

As for remakes and original versions, it doesn't matter what order to watch them.  They're the same story anyway.