BronsonLee
Member
I'd take a break too, dude was just cranking that shit out ASAP since like 4
They should probably stop doing that. Inception it ain't. They did the same with Guy Ritchie/Man from UNCLE, ya?
Wkd Box Office 1225-2715 - Star Wars never changes. 1B+ global BO for new record
- Thread starter LiK
- Start date
- Status
I'd take a break too, dude was just cranking that shit out ASAP since like 4
They should probably stop doing that. Inception it ain't. They did the same with Guy Ritchie/Man from UNCLE, ya?
Losing $400M+ on Pan, Jupiter Ascending, and In the Heart of the Sea wasn't enough.
twinturbo2
butthurt Heat fan
I wanted another Tron movie. 😥
Cars sequels. Cars sequels everywhere.
vinnygambini
Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
Thank god they co-financed these films, it could've been much worse on their financials.
Calm waterfall
Banned
SW keeps impressing.
These 2 films are impressive as well.
These 2 films are impressive as well.
Shitty year for WB, probably the worst in a long time.
hodayathink
Member
Middle of the day tomorrow, I think.
It is in line with every Daniel Craig James Bond. Pierce Brosnan was a bit closer, but that might be easily explainable with the growth of some international countries like China.
excelsiorlef
Member
How? It's literally a sequel to what happened before, nothing is being rebooted.
Depends on definition of reboot. This is a soft reboot according to Hollywood. You can reboot something by making a sequel decades later.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Hollywood
Who is Hollywood?
Hulk Hogan
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Private practice doctor from Grady, California.
Goldeneye wasn't a reboot of any kind (the term didn't even really exist as film jargon back then) and Casino Royale was 100% a full-on reboot.
Hollywood hivemind strikes again.
The Force Awakens is basically a reskin of A New Hope with a few other greatest hits of the original trilogy thrown in for good measure (this isn't a criticism, by the way). Yes, in terms of narrative it is a direct sequel, but as a functioning film it is also a reset for the movie franchise, basically turning the dial back to 1983 and actively re-establishing what "Star Wars" means on the big screen in 2015. Which is radically different from what it meant from 1999-2014.
Nobody ever said you had to literally go back to square one in order to reboot something.
You could probably argue that the Empire Strikes Back/Return of the Jedi are a soft reboot for Star Wars using the unclear definitions for stuff like soft reboot. We'll change the introduction style and naming for the franchises. Oh, that Darth Vader guy is now your dad instead of the guy that killed him. You can't bone Leia because she is your sister. The Death Star is back. Darth Vader is now the leader of those bad guys instead of a lackey.
Goldeneye is definitely a soft reboot by today's definition, regardless of whether the jargon existed back then. It introduced a lady M for the first time, and returns Bond to action after an absence, with a self-contained back story and no references to the previous continuity. Like, I don't think it really matters much in the long run since this is Bond, and I don't want to spend two pages arguing about stupid canon stuff, but I'm sure you can agree with the overall picture here.
Casino Royale was a full on reboot EXCEPT for the fact that they kept M. Which put it in a strange sort of fan pandering position, but yeah, much harder than Goldeneye.
Either way, the point is, TFA is like neither of these.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Reboot was adopted as filmmaking terminology as a means to sort of refresh the word "remake" which had a some negative connotations attached to it. The words are, for that purpose, synonyms. The only real delineation at this point is that "remake" is for a single film, and "reboot" is for when you're planning on remaking an entire series of pre-existing films.
So yeah, you have to go back to square one to reboot something. The whole point of lifting that terminology from computers is because it's literally hitting reset.
Nah. It's a sequel. Roger Moore's intro wasn't a soft reboot, and neither was Timothy Dalton's. They were just sequels in a series that often did that sort of stylistic refreshing in the middle of their actor's run.
And Casino Royale was a full on reboot, period, because it completely reset the character's entire history. None of the previous versions of Bond (or M) ever happened - even if they cast Judi Dench to play M again. She's not the same M, it's not the same Bond, it's not the same continuity. (reggie.jpg)
I mean, I get where you're going (and your'e right that The Force Awakens isn't a reboot in any mutation/misuse of the term), but you picked bad examples.
yeesh... wonder how much more terrifying the DC movies are now... "So... we sure we wanna make all of these?"
WB is on a quest for another MM Fury Road quality movie. I'd say let them
Caution, link has spoilers.
http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/star...e-awakens-can-a-film-be-a-sequel-and-a-reboot
"Reboot vs. Sequel.
The Force Awakens exists at the intersection of two categorizations: the sequel and the soft reboot. This is a pop culture intersection that has been getting some serious play lately. (Think Jurassic World or Mad Max: Fury Road.)
The term "reboot" is generally applied to the relaunch of a franchise, especially one that is being reset in some way. A good example is the recent Star Trek films, which includes many of our favorite characters from the original series, but with new actors in the role and a very literal reboot of the entire fictional universe with some alternate universe shenanigans.
Most film franchise reboots don't go to such lengths to set their stories apart from their original context. And Star Wars is a somewhat unique case in that, in most ways, it is a continutation of the story undertaken in the original trilogy, complete with many of the same actors i.e. a sequel. However, its ambitions to relaunch the franchise with new (often younger) actors at the forefront are more commonly attributed to a reboot especially a "soft reboot.""
This is my understanding of a soft reboot. It can be a sequel.
http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/star...e-awakens-can-a-film-be-a-sequel-and-a-reboot
"Reboot vs. Sequel.
The Force Awakens exists at the intersection of two categorizations: the sequel and the soft reboot. This is a pop culture intersection that has been getting some serious play lately. (Think Jurassic World or Mad Max: Fury Road.)
The term "reboot" is generally applied to the relaunch of a franchise, especially one that is being reset in some way. A good example is the recent Star Trek films, which includes many of our favorite characters from the original series, but with new actors in the role and a very literal reboot of the entire fictional universe with some alternate universe shenanigans.
Most film franchise reboots don't go to such lengths to set their stories apart from their original context. And Star Wars is a somewhat unique case in that, in most ways, it is a continutation of the story undertaken in the original trilogy, complete with many of the same actors i.e. a sequel. However, its ambitions to relaunch the franchise with new (often younger) actors at the forefront are more commonly attributed to a reboot especially a "soft reboot.""
This is my understanding of a soft reboot. It can be a sequel.
Now we're going to hear that word to describe movies left and right.
Calm waterfall
Banned
More like a remake than a reboot.
It's really weird to try to classify Fury Road as a soft reboot when Mad Max always was vague aside from the first movie, which strangely is like if a later day origin story came out as the first installment. The Road Warrior can be seen without ever watching the first one, same for the awful Beyond Thunderdome, and same for Fury Road. So is the series just all soft reboots? Nah, It just never was a series that focused on continuity, instead following a samurai/western film like progression with the wanderer and his adventures.
I'm with you on this. As revival maybe an umbrella term but it makes sense if you're going to lump sequels, remakes, prequels, any sort of new installment into one. And it's also not annoying as hell, being straight to the point.
I'm with you on this. As revival maybe an umbrella term but it makes sense if you're going to lump sequels, remakes, prequels, any sort of new installment into one. And it's also not annoying as hell, being straight to the point.
Trigonometrize.
Member
Star Wars TFA is a sequel, and not just in the sense that it takes place after the previous movie. The events of the previous movie are super important to what happens now. Stories about old heroes inform the new ones. Old heroes interact with the new ones. Villains... well, spoiler territory I guess. Anyway, 100% sequel.
In that sense, it is disqualified from being a reboot. Reboots start fresh, more often than not from square one. Just because TFA has a new cast that'll drive the story doesn't make it a reboot. Guess how many sequels there are that bring in new characters? Infinitely close to the number of sequels there are. Star Wars is really not that unique of a scenario.
In that sense, it is disqualified from being a reboot. Reboots start fresh, more often than not from square one. Just because TFA has a new cast that'll drive the story doesn't make it a reboot. Guess how many sequels there are that bring in new characters? Infinitely close to the number of sequels there are. Star Wars is really not that unique of a scenario.
excelsiorlef
Member
Yeah, no, it's a sequel wherein everything that happened before happened as is important and included the returning of all 3 core actors, plus a certain fire burned skull from Jedi.
Words have meaning and calling Episode VII a soft reboot is throwing out that meaning entirely.
Did you high five yourself after this because you thought you were being super witty. Watch the damn thing, a remake of ANH it ain't.
excelsiorlef
Member
So someone else who doesn't understand that words have meaning and you can't just start throwing them around without care?
Reboot has a specific meaning and two forms: Hard and soft. Reboots are when you discard pre-existing continuity and start a new. Hard reboots like Ghostbusters 2016 (and it is a reboot not a remake as there is no attempt being done in GB 16 to retell GB 84) are done completely outside the narrative, the creative team goes this is a new universe and we move on. Soft reboots are sometimes done within the narrative and can be as drastic as Star Trek 09 where they made the idiotic decision to have their young crew universe created by actions in the prime universe and thus having their cake and shitting on it too. Or it can be as simple as just cutting out certain continuity while keeping other stuff. Superman Returns throws out parts III and IV, Jurassic World might count if (haven't seen it) if it ignores Lost world and III, and that Neill Blomkamp Alien sequel would have been an example as well but that's never happening.
The key to a fucking reboot of any kind is that continuity changes (and don't you dare tell me that it counts because they dropped much of the EU), TFA does none of that and in fact excitedly references events from both trilogies.
That it has at it's bare bones a similar plot structure to ANH does not make it a reboot of any kind. I mean hell by that logic Mission Impossible reboots itself almost every time because each one is by in large a similar plot structure with different set and action pieces and doesn't really rely on previous films, but that's stupid because they are sequels.
What TFA is, and I borrow this from comics (well I'm sure not just comics), is a jumping on point, it's designed in such a way that it can be the first Star Wars movie for people, but that does not make it a reboot, it makes JJ and co smart fucking creators to have designed a movie that gives old fans what is good for them while allowing new fans to jump on board and be inspired to watch the OT.
So yeah not Star Wars Part 7 (incidentally the first movie whose order of release number and Episode number are the same) is not a soft reboot of anything, nor is it a remake, anymore than Into Darkness was a remake of Wrath of Khan (and it fucking wasn't)
Too late, I'm too far gone
So someone else who doesn't understand that words have meaning and you can't just start throwing them around without care?
Reboot has a specific meaning and two forms: Hard and soft. Reboots are when you discard pre-existing continuity and start a new. Hard reboots like Ghostbusters 2016 (and it is a reboot not a remake as there is no attempt being done in GB 16 to retell GB 84) are done completely outside the narrative, the creative team goes this is a new universe and we move on. Soft reboots are sometimes done within the narrative and can be as drastic as Star Trek 09 where they made the idiotic decision to have their young crew universe created by actions in the prime universe and thus having their cake and shitting on it too. Or it can be as simple as just cutting out certain continuity while keeping other stuff. Superman Returns throws out parts III and IV, Jurassic World might count if (haven't seen it) if it ignores Lost world and III, and that Neill Blomkamp Alien sequel would have been an example as well but that's never happening.
The key to a fucking reboot of any kind is that continuity changes (and don't you dare tell me that it counts because they dropped much of the EU), TFA does none of that and in fact excitedly references events from both trilogies.
That it has at it's bare bones a similar plot structure to ANH does not make it a reboot of any kind. I mean hell by that logic Mission Impossible reboots itself almost every time because each one is by in large a similar plot structure with different set and action pieces and doesn't really rely on previous films, but that's stupid because they are sequels.
What TFA is, and I borrow this from comics (well I'm sure not just comics), is a jumping on point, it's designed in such a way that it can be the first Star Wars movie for people, but that does not make it a reboot, it makes JJ and co smart fucking creators to have designed a movie that gives old fans what is good for them while allowing new fans to jump on board and be inspired to watch the OT.
So yeah not Star Wars Part 7 (incidentally the first movie whose order of release number and Episode number are the same) is not a soft reboot of anything, nor is it a remake, anymore than Into Darkness was a remake of Wrath of Khan (and it fucking wasn't)
Too late, I'm too far gone
This counts because they dropped much of the EU
Is it rebooted every weekend, or is it a sequel? Soft revival?These threads need a reboot
It's so episodic that gaming side would cry and whine over it.
I'm buying a season pass
I like where this is headed.
"Yeah dude, we filmed this bad boy on 7000 mm, and screened it to 90,000,00 people at the Kodak theater, brother. Cinema died a few weeks later.
...Borther."
excelsiorlef
Member
And we're done here.
Because no. The EU was barely canon in the first place (ie the movies always took priority anyway), and as far as the movies are concerned ... shock and surprise no continuity has been changed,
If youv'e decided that a 7th movie in a movie series featuring all 3 main characters of said previous series doing stuff based off what happened in said previous series whilst meeting new characters who will carry on the series is a soft reboot because Dash Rendar is no longer real and Chewie gets to not have a fucking moon dropped on him and whatever other million ridiculous things that never happened... congratulations you're still wrong.
FTFY
excelsiorlef
Member
Ha ha ha touche.
Anyway that got off track, have the final weekend totals come out yet?
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
From the creative side of things is more of a sequel but it's definitely a reboot from the business side. New owners, new direction, they're soft-ignoring prequels etc etc
RumblingRosco
Member
What we're seeing here is people trying to put a label ("soft reboot") on TFA when they really mean "this entry in the Star Wars series is easily accessible to a new audience." That's not the definition of a reboot. It's the definition of a film that wants to maintain previous film continuity without sacrificing an audience of people that haven't seen those previous films.
To stay on topic: damn that's a lot of ticket sales.
To stay on topic: damn that's a lot of ticket sales.
Perhaps the pent up demand from all the sold out showings was satisfied Friday/Sat and starting to drop back to normal amounts starting Sunday? It will be interesting to see how Monday goes.
- Status