A spin-off can be considered as a by-product of an established series. In this way, the original version gets interpreted in a different way from the eyes of a different person. Spin-off version mostly runs parallel to the original version. That is why it is also called a sequel. Imagine you have been watching 12 seasons of a particular series and then after some time the makers decide to start again with season 1 with a different storyline and different characters.
When such a thing happens to a series, comic , movie or a video game then it is known as a reboot. It is a kind of restarting the old series once again but with a different background and plotline. In the reboot version, all the unnecessary elements are deleted and only core ones are included. Reboot version is made when the old story becomes stale and boring and fails to attract the audience.
Reboot version is a good way of exploring an old story with a new theme. Rather than any sort of narrative focus which furthers the plot set in motion in the earlier part, what you get is a new film and story with a similar setting and at best, some repeated characters.
These films are aimed to have you relive the experiences and essence of the earlier instalments whilst being packaged in a new story which ignores the events of the previous films.
Thus, they are better defined as reboots rather than sequels. These typically involve using the same beefed-up protagonist from the first instalment and having them face new enemies and obstacles. To their credit, they do offer some sense of continuity as the events of the previous films are still referenced to some extent.
Titles like Don or Dabangg are also examples of the same. Further along the scale, there was Rock On 2 , which fits the more traditional mould of a sequel, offering advancement of the story by examining the main characters lives many years after the events of the first film.
Rock On 2 , which fits the more traditional mould of a sequel, offers advancement of the story by examining the main characters lives many years after the events of the first film. These are but a handful of titles from last year to shed some light on the significant creative liberties being taken by filmmakers in how they define sequels and the subsequent confusion that can be felt by the audience.
To many, this may seem like a trivial issue of semantics which has no real bearing in the wider scheme of things. Most of the discourse surrounding sequels and franchises is focused on the quality of the films, whereas this is entirely an issue of messaging and clarity. By positioning something as a sequel or prequel etc, it is essentially a signal that informs audience expectations of how interrelated two films may be, how much to invest in a particular story and what they might need to know going in.
This Mary Poppins feature will be a new musical, with new songs and a new story, centered on the same character — who appeared in eight different books by Travers between and — but independent of the practically perfect in every way feature.
Because Disney and, really, all of Hollywood has put so much of its energy lately toward rejiggering its old properties, this new Mary Poppins is being confused by some for a reboot or a remake or a sequel , instead of what it actually is: the endangered Hollywood beast known as the Original Movie Musical albeit one based on an existing character. The online reaction to the still very preliminary Poppins news highlights the fact that we've gotten a little confused about how we talk about movies that are repurposing old content in new ways.
The words "reboot," "remake," and "reimagination" have become conflated and in many cases have taken on an inherently negative connotation. Since Hollywood doesn't show any signs of backing off on these types of film any time soon, it behooves moviegoers and people who write about movies to be clear on what these terms mean, how they should be applied, and why they're not inherently bad. The introduction of the term "reboot" into the Hollywood lexicon in recent years has caused a lot of confusion and consternation, because it hews so closely to the idea of a film remake.
And to be fair, there is a lot of conceptual crossover between the two terms, which both center on the idea of taking an old property and reconfiguring it.
But the two are, at root, quite different. The term reboot should be reserved for film properties that have extended beyond a single movie and have thus established a continuity that the subsequent reboot throws out in favor of a new status quo.
We see this most often in superhero films, like the recent big-screen redos of Spider-Man , The Fantastic Four , Batman , and Superman.
But it also applies to something like the James Bond film Casino Royale , which reset the long-running series to the beginning of Bond's tenure as , repositioning both the character and the plot to where neither was beholden to what happened in previous film entries. There was indeed a Casino Royale , but despite sharing a title, two films are nothing alike: The former is a satire starring Peter Sellers as a retired Bond who is pressed back into service, while the latter is a straight-faced action flick starring Daniel Craig as a newly minted The goal of the Casino Royale is to expunge the franchise of the plot and character baggage it had acquired over the years in order to reinvigorate it, not to bring the Casino Royale into the modern day.
In general, the simplest way to remember the difference between a reboot and a remake is to remember that for a film to be a reboot, it should be resetting a chronology that's been established over multiple films. A remake is concerned with updating a single film, sometimes slavishly. An extended filmography that provides a survey of remakes, sequels, and series in film and television from to A very useful source of information, although limited in historical and national coverage and not entirely complete.
Milberg, Doris. New York: Broadway, Like Limbacher , this is essentially an extended filmography providing a survey of Hollywood remakes from the early days of film production up to the end of the s. Nowlan, Robert A. Cinema Sequels and Remakes, — Jefferson, NC: McFarland, Again, a very useful source of information but makes barely any attempt at analysis or theorization.
Silverman, Stephen M. A brief but important early attempt to provide an overview and definition of different forms of Hollywood remaking and seriality. Verevis, Constantine. Film Remakes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, A crucial text for anyone with an interest in the field, and an excellent preliminary introduction.
Zanger, Anat. Film Remakes as Ritual and Disguise.
0コメント