“reboot” does not equal “remake”
I opted to not post Harold Ramis’ MTV interview for two reasons;
1) It didn’t say anything new, just reaffirmed everything we already had confirmed. New script writers from The Office, the principle original cast is back, etc.
2) MTV blocks their video to everyone outside the US, so the link wouldn’t even have interesting video for most visitors to PC.
However, judging by recent blog and Twitter posting, it appears that stupid wording on the part of MTV is causing a bit of madness. They’re referring to it as a “Reboot”, and of course that’s been parroted by a flurry of sites, reporting the MTV interview, which tends to appear as confirmation to readers instead of echo – combine that with Ramis discussing that there would be a new, young cast of busters, and a large chunk of people seem to forget he also says the main characters are back. It’s not entirely their fault, seeing as this word has been kicked around all the way back to 2008, when there was some, vague rumour that the third movie could be a remake, something nobody could even fathom as possible.
This is not a reboot in the barely coined sense of a Star Trek reboot, meaning something between a remake and a reimagining. Why Hollywood got bored of “reimagining” after barely three years, I’ll never know, but now MTV can’t even use it right. In fact, the nearly constant use of Reboot, in relation to the upcoming Star Trek film, seems to be why this confusion exists at all. The high profile and controversial project really put the new, marketing definition of the word “reboot” on the tip of every tongue.
Simply put – if it’s NOT the original story and the ORIGINAL characters put in an appearance, it’s NOT a reboot, it’s a sequel.
If the press badly want a “re” word, they should maybe use, oh, I dunno…