I don't wanna sound brash but isn't a re-imagining/retelling ISN'T THAT WHAT A REBOOT IS.
And no don't come here with any BS saying they're different....a reboot is when the creators redo a series redo it differently like a re-imagining or retelling and as for the alternate universe....that is something that is brought up when making a reboot...like each Batman/Marvel/DC Comic movie/comic reboot the author usually refer to the new story/reboot as a separate universe from the previous series/reboots.
Why the other day I was ACTUALLY talking to my friend about the Christopher Nolan Batman/Dark Knight trilogy and he described it taking place in alternate universe....that term is a way so the creators can isolate the reboot from the rest of the series/other reboots granted its fiction. Same goes for the Amazing Spider-Man and the original Spider-Man some say they take place in an alternate universe.
If you don't believe go ahead define what a reboot is and see how it is different from a re-imagining/retelling.
"These are a few terms that get thrown around a lot but what are the specific connotative meanings behind them? Here's how I would basically break it down:
A
"remake" is taking basically the exact same story and doing it again with changes. Such examples of this would include Rob Zombie's
Halloween, Gus Van Sant's
Psycho, and the 1995 version of
Sabrina with Harrison Ford & Julia Ormond.
A
"reimagining" is looser. It takes a similar premise as the original but does it in a very different way. Examples of this would include Tim Burton's
Planet of the Apes, Death Race with Jason Statham, and Ronald D. Moore's
Battlestar Galactica. (I'm also tempted to put the new
Conan the Barbarian movie here but it doesn't quite feel the same. It's almost not a "re-" anything because it feels so unconcerned with any previous
Conan productions.)
A
"reboot" only comes into play when you're dealing with an ongoing series that doesn't want to acknowledge any of its previous incarnations for whatever reason.
The Amazing Spider-Man, Batman Begins, &
Casino Royale are the best examples I can think of for this.
There are also other, lesser levels of reboots where a movie will have some newness but also some attachment to the previous continuity, like
Superman Returns. There are occasionally
"agnostic" movies like
TMNT (which even strategically places a crack in the ooze cannister so that we can't tell whether it's from "TCRI" or "TGRI") and
Terminator Salvation (which is presumably a follow-up to
Terminator 3 but might also be in some way a successor to
The Sarah Connor Chronicles). People will argue about how exactly
X-Men: First Class fits into the continuity of the previous
X-Men movies. And then there's the very rare animal of the 2009
Star Trek movie, which is set in a new timeline but it is a new timeline specifically created from some of the characters time travelling and changing history.
Then there's the
"revival," which is just a straight up continuation of the old thing but done in a way that is specifically designed to appeal to new people that never saw the old thing. The new
Doctor Who falls into this category, as do the new versions of
90210, Knight Rider, &
Melrose Place. (I would also count the 2002 version of
The Twilight Zone, although
The Twilight Zone is an anthology series so it doesn't really have a continuity to adhere to anyway. They did do a direct sequel to the old episode "It's a Good Life" called "It's Still a Good Life." But they also did remakes of the classic episodes "Eye of the Beholder" & "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street.")
How would you define these sometimes nebulous terms"~
The Borgified Corpse
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?s=f3053500de0d98b701d6c7759c27c4c8&t=146941
