Originally Posted by joeblow
A reboot is possible in film whether there is a series of movies or not. It is a singular act that either continues or it doesn't. So with your franchise/serial requirement to label something a reboot, I can't buy it.
Reboot implies there a continuation of the film beyond the first one, and then they went back to remake the first one with the intent of making more sequels to the second one. Reboot of the continuity.
Standalone films don't do this, so they're remakes. Again, it can be a "hard" remake where it films very closely, or a "soft" remake where it's very different. And all shades in between. Remakes can cover a lot of ground.
Reboot, on the other hand, refers to a specific phenomenon in film franchises. It's not meant to apply to standalone films.
Words have definitions for a reason. You can call a lion a housecat, but that "housecat" is still going to eat you, because it is a lion.
To look at it that way means that Edward Norton's Hulk movie wasn't a reboot of Eric Bana's Hulk movie during the last decade because there will never be any Norton sequels (he was even booted from playing the character in The Avengers). That was 100% reboot in large part because Ang Lee's flick was so poorly received by fans. No one would try to claim it was a remake.
They intended to make sequels (in both Hulk films) but neither did. But the intent was there. It's fuzzy, but since the intent was serial, reboot can be applied. But it has to have that continuity caveat. The filmmakers didn't keep it a secret that sequels were in the ballpark.
The Scarface films were NEVER intended to be a franchise. Louis Costillo from the 1932 version was never supposed to have anything to do with Tony Montana.
That continuity with the first film (or the discarding there of) what is needed to qualify for a reboot. DePalma never kept nor discarded the continuity, because there was none. That's what makes Scarface (1983 and the new one) remakes. Until someone comes out with Scarface 2, there's no continuity, no reboot.
And that's not just me. Any film studio also goes by it. Filmmakers go by it (look at their interviews, you can google them.) Critics go by it. Fans go by it. And most importantly, *I* go by it.
To me, remakes happen when you mostly cut 'n paste the elements of a previous release. Most of it is very familiar, mostly predictable, not much is radically changed. Depp's Wonka movie was a remake of Wilder's Wonka movie. Key adjective phrase: a lot is the same.
A reboot keeps some of the primary, broad concepts specifc to an earlier picture as a foundation and then builds an all new experience from it. Key adjective phrase: a lot is different.
So with Scarface releases, you have something much more radically different each time between the movies than the two Hulk movies had with each other. At least in that reboot the three (four?) primary characters are kept the same.... Bruce/Hulk, Betsy and General Ross. I'd only call this new film a remake if they take one of the first two stories and actually remake it. Going in a new direction, as is expected, is closer to a reboot.
But that's too narrow a definition in my opinion. And would apply the reboot definition to films that have NEVER had that moniker applied.
Again, Carpenter's film was a remake. Not just Carpenter, but filmmakers, critics, and fans refer to it as a remake. It's still an alien presence in an isolated icebound community, and both drew from "Who Goes There?" written by John Campbell. Remake.
Both Scarfaces drew from Al Capone's life. Sure, DePalma's went in a very different direction, but the comparisons of Al Capone and Tony Montana are still there. Remake.
Reboot implies that there is continuity. The Scarface films never implied that they were going to be any further than the individual films.
That makes them remakes. And it's not just me. This is the accepted definition of almost every filmmaker, critic, and the vast majority of fans. Not to mention dictionaries and reference materials. I even provided links (Yes, from Wikipedia, but those articles weren't written by someone with an axe to grind, they were using the same definitions everyone else was.)
Honestly, I see where you're coming from and can see your position. It's just not what the majority define as reboot. And I'm not alone, not even in this thread. I mean, you are using the phrase, "to me
, a remake is" and "to me
, a reboot is."