Home Forums Ganymede & Titan Forum Would you watch a Red Dwarf "reboot" with an all female cast?

Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 202 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #236302
    Jawscvmcdia
    Blocked

    Like the successful Ghostbusters reboot of 2016 and similarly with the latest incarnation of Doctor Who, would you ever watch a reboot with an all-female cast? If so, who could play what character?

    #236303

    #236305
    GlenTokyo
    Participant

    I’d get Pauline Quirke in as The Cat and go from there.

    #236307
    bloodteller
    Blocked

    They already did, it’s called Parallel Universe. Series 2, Episode 6

    #236308

    Neither Ghostbusters 2016 nor Doctor Who (in any form let alone the next series) are reboots.

    #236309
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    “Reboot” is a fairly broad term that just means a series is being started up again after either a length of time on the shelf or a significant enough change in direction/continuity. Both Ghostbusters 2016 and Doctor Who 2005 definitely qualify as reboots (albeit of different types), as does Red Dwarf 2009/2012, arguably.

    Doctor Who 2018 definitely isn’t one, though.

    Then again, Jawscvmcdia didn’t actually say that Doctor Who was a reboot, they just used it as an example of a main character changing gender, so I think we can let them off.

    My answer to the original question is obviously “yes”. Hard to say how different it would be given how traditionally male a lot of the character quirks are (like Rimmer’s superiority-inferiority complex about his brothers and the military), but hey, anything Red Dwarf is worth a watch! Even Timewave.

    #236310
    Toxteth O-Grady
    Participant

    “Reboot” does seemed to be used a lot these days when “remake” would be more appropriate.

    I’d use “reboot” specifically for things that span multiple entries and media. “Remake” for anything which tells the same story as the previous version, and “re-adaptation” for any new version of something which originally exsited in a different media/format.

    But there’s a lot of overlaps.

    Ghostbusters (2016) is a reboot of the Ghostbusters franchise, and perhaps could be argued to be a remake of the 1984 film.

    King Kong (1977), and King Kong (2005) are remakes of the 1933 film.

    True Grit (2010) is a re-adaptaion of the 1968 novel, and not a remake of the 1969 film.

    Batman Begins is a reboot of the Batman movie series and a re-adaptation of (some of) the comic books, but not a remake of any previous film.

    Total Recall (2012) seems to be a remake of the 1990 film, and not a re-adaptation of the Philip K. Dick source material. It’s not a reboot of anything.

    Overboard (2018) is a remake of the 1987 film, with genders reversed. It’s not a reboot either.

    Casino Royale (2006) is a reboot of the 007 film series, a re-adaptaion of the novel, and not a remake of the 1967 film.

    The Red Dwarf movie seemed to have been planned as a reboot AND remake of the TV series, but with the same cast.

    #236311
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    Star Trek (2009) is a remake, a sequel, a reboot and a prequel.

    #236312
    Toxteth O-Grady
    Participant

    What’s it a remake of?

    #236313
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    Billy’s Magic Rocket

    #236314
    bloodteller
    Blocked

    Robbie Rocketpants

    #236329

    I’ve always viewed a reboot as starting a franchise over from scratch and telling a largely different story. The core concept remaining the same but the stories being different. i.e. all the different Spiderman trilogies or BSG

    Where as a remake is simply taking a single film (usually) and re-telling the same story but with just different actors and updated cinematography, as with a lot of Toxteth examples above.

    Doctor Who, albeit with a long gap between 1989, the movie, and 2005, is all a straight continuation of the same story, same characters, with a history and a canon (well … hmm) that isn’t broken. It might be said to rebooted because it has started up again, but from where it left off. It hasn’t started over from scratch so it doesn’t really seem like a reboot in the sense I view the term as. Otherwise every new Doctor and or show runner would have to be defined as a reboot surely?

    Ghostbusters 2016 (like Star Trek 2009) is a weird one because they exist in a universe where the events of their namesakes took place (albeit in different dimensions). So it sort of reboots the franchise by starting from scratch, but also acknowledging that the events of the other films did also take place and are connected to these ones in some way, so makes them both a continuation of the franchise, more than it does remakes or reboots.

    I think Toxteth has it right, reboot seems to get used in place where remake (or something else) would make more sense. I think, just because a franchise has started up again, doesn’t necessarily mean its been rebooted, its a little more complicated then that.

    #236331
    Toxteth O-Grady
    Participant

    >Ghostbusters 2016 […] exist[s] in a universe where the events of their namesakes took place […] acknowledging that the events of the other films did also take place and are connected to these ones in some way.

    Did it? I only saw it once, but from what I remember the existence of ghosts is widely considered to be fanciful in the 2016 universe (although, bizarrely, this is the case at the beginning of Ghostbusters 2 as well). Was there ever acknowledgement that they weren’t the first Ghostbusting business?

    That’s why GB 2016 feels more like a remake to me (though it is also a reboot, considering the cartoon series and video game). It essentially tells the exact same story:
    – Ghostly mayhem begins in NYC
    – University scientists set up a ghost-busting service
    – They create specialised equipment, hire an extra ghostbuster, and respond to various callouts
    – They discover a world-threatening event is coming, and get ignored by the government
    – They eventually battle the big bad, and save the world.

    Mind you, Ghostbusters 2 also follows this same template almost exactly.

    #236333

    Reboot is a very commonly used word these days, to the extent that people are just throwing it in anywhere to mean “new series related to previous ones”. A bit like the way “canned laughter” is regularly used by people for anything comedy with laughter, studio or otherwise.

    The Dwarf film would have been a reboot (one reason I’m glad it never happened). Superhero franchises had a huge number of reboots throughout the ’90s and ’00s, which eventually got a bit confusing (something the ‘cinematic universe’ concept should hopefully stop from happening again any time soon).

    #236334

    The Force Awakens is for all intents and purposes a remake, little to no story differences unless the universe is just experiences a deja vu

    #236335
    clem
    Participant

    There’s also things like Halloween H20 and indeed the new Halloween film out in October, both sequels which disregard previous sequels and establish alternate timelines. And The Force Awakens, which I believe renders the Star Wars expanded universe no longer canon? Is it fair to call these “semi-reboots”?

    #236336
    clem
    Participant

    Didn’t Rob and Doug briefly consider female main characters for Red Dwarf right at the beginning? Feel like I’ve read that somewhere, possibly the Programme Guide which I don’t have to hand.

    #236338

    > Did it? I only saw it once, but from what I remember the existence of ghosts is widely considered to be fanciful in the 2016 universe (although, bizarrely, this is the case at the beginning of Ghostbusters 2 as well). Was there ever acknowledgement that they weren’t the first Ghostbusting business?

    If I’m remembering correctly (I’ve only seen it once too) but I think it’s the case that they are in a different universe/dimension to the original films, but that ultimately makes them part of the same movie universe as there is a bit of portal cross over at the end or something, on of the ghosts is from the universe the original film is in or something like that.

    So it remakes the original story, but within the same movie universe, just a different dimension of it.

    #236339
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    I’ve always viewed a reboot as starting a franchise over from scratch and telling a largely different story. The core concept remaining the same but the stories being different. i.e. all the different Spiderman trilogies or BSG

    Not an unreasonable definition! But it’s just not the one used by industry folks, the press etc. The evolution of language is all about usage, and the usage of “reboot” is just a lot more broad than that. After all, if that was all that it meant (in a film/TV context), then “hard reboot” and “soft reboot” would be redundant; no-one would ever use them.

    Think about it this way: when you reboot your computer, do you expect the hard drive to be wiped and the operating system to be upgraded?

    Doctor Who, albeit with a long gap between 1989, the movie, and 2005, is all a straight continuation of the same story, same characters, with a history and a canon (well … hmm) that isn’t broken. It might be said to rebooted because it has started up again, but from where it left off. It hasn’t started over from scratch so it doesn’t really seem like a reboot in the sense I view the term as. Otherwise every new Doctor and or show runner would have to be defined as a reboot surely?

    You can’t just say “albeit with a long gap”, when the 16 year gap is exactly what makes it a reboot! (Well, that, and the 0% crossover between the 1989 cast/crew and the 2005 cast/crew.) The Doctor being recast isn’t the same as the show being cancelled and then brought back. You can’t reboot something which never went away.

    Of course, there are shades of grey in calling something a reboot, but Doctor Who 2005 is pretty ironclad. They literally called it “Series 1”! And they didn’t even make it explicit that it was in continuity with the classic series until “Human Nature” in Series 3.

    The Force Awakens is for all intents and purposes a remake, little to no story differences unless the universe is just experiences a deja vu

    Aww, come on, don’t fall into this trap. A film isn’t a remake just because it has similar structure or similar scenes in places. The villain of The Force Awakens is the son of 2 of the characters from the original trilogy. Its story literally depends on the films before it. You couldn’t do that in a remake.

    The Force Awakens is a reboot as well as a sequel though, naturally.

    If I’m remembering correctly (I’ve only seen it once too) but I think it’s the case that they are in a different universe/dimension to the original films, but that ultimately makes them part of the same movie universe as there is a bit of portal cross over at the end or something, on of the ghosts is from the universe the original film is in or something like that.

    Hey, I’ve seen Ghostbusters 2016 twice, and I can confirm that nothing like that happens in it. There’s a portal at the end, yes, but that was a portal to the ghost/demon realm, not a parallel universe. The only grain of truth is that Slimer appears in both 1984 and 2016 films.

    I’m sure that the 2 universes do cross over in the spin-off comics, but regardless, this wouldn’t stop it from being a reboot.

    Ghostbusters 2016 is actually an interesting case now I think about it, because the thing about “reboot” in the context of movies is: you don’t reboot films, you reboot series. So by calling a film remake (or different and long-awaited enough sequel) a “reboot” you create the inference that the film exists to spawn further sequels. GB 2016 isn’t getting any sequels for the time being, so is it still a reboot?

    Yes, probably.

    Another film I’d cite as an example of “reboot, but still in continuity with the original” is the recent Jumanji film.

    #236340
    Toxteth O-Grady
    Participant

    Ah yes, at the end they mention Zuul; one who was a trans-dimentional antagonists of the original film. I guess that arguably puts the 2016 film in a parallel dimension to the the 1984 one.

    Regarding the new Halloween and the next Termintaor films which disregard previous sequels, The Simpsons coined a term which sums it up perfectly:

    Homer: “You guys saw the new Radioactive Man sequel?”
    Carl: “Uh, it’s not a sequel, it’s a reboot.”
    Lenny: “Actually this one undoes the stuff from the last one, so it’s a de-boot.”

    #236341
    Toxteth O-Grady
    Participant

    >Ghostbusters 2016 is actually an interesting case now I think about it, because the thing about “reboot” in the context of movies is: you don’t reboot films, you reboot series. So by calling a film remake (or different and long-awaited enough sequel) a “reboot” you create the inference that the film exists to spawn further sequels. GB 2016 isn’t getting any sequels for the time being, so is it still a reboot?

    Well the original GB continuity was a series (the two films and the 2009 video game [and maybe the cartoon?]).
    GB 2016 was planned as the start of series wasn’t it? (everything is these days). But it was a flop, losing the studio tens of millions of dollars. Had it been a success a sequel would’ve been inevitable.

    #236342
    clem
    Participant

    > “Actually this one undoes the stuff from the last one, so it’s a de-boot.”

    Ha, I like that. The new Halloween ignores everything after the very first one, but apparently they’ve even retconned the ending of the first one somehow, and they’re just calling it ‘Halloween’, so it’s Halloween -> Halloween.

    #236343

    The Force Awakens is beat-for-beat A New Hope tho,

    1. Ally to the protagonist escapes Empire-controlled ship
    2. Crash lands on desert planet where the protagonist lives
    3. The protagonist encounters a wise old man who aides them in their journey
    4, The protagonist gets involved with the Resistance and helps carry out their missions
    5. The Empire has possession of a Death Star(s) and blows up one/several planet(s)
    6. Our main antagonist takes orders from a higher power (Grand Moff Tarkin/Snuke)
    7. The wise old man is killed by the main villain clad in black during the escape from the Death Star
    8. The protagonists are able to escape the explosion of the Death Star as well as our main antagonist

    Its a remake in my book

    #236344
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Largely agree with your points, Toxteth! The use of Zuul or Slimer doesn’t really confirm parallel dimensions though (at least, not within the story). It just adds to the remake-y elements of the film.

    #236346
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    1. Ally to the protagonist escapes Empire-controlled ship
    2. Crash lands on desert planet where the protagonist lives
    3. The protagonist encounters a wise old man who aides them in their journey
    4, The protagonist gets involved with the Resistance and helps carry out their missions
    5. The Empire has possession of a Death Star(s) and blows up one/several planet(s)
    6. Our main antagonist takes orders from a higher power (Grand Moff Tarkin/Snuke)
    7. The wise old man is killed by the main villain clad in black during the escape from the Death Star
    8. The protagonists are able to escape the explosion of the Death Star as well as our main antagonist

    Its a remake in my book

    Ah, yes, Star Wars and Star Wars: The Force Awakens, 2 films which each have exactly 8 beats.

    Seriously, this is such a bad argument I’m still trying to work out if you’re just trolling us, Timewave.

    Because even those 8 points only seem like exact copies because you’ve chosen to describe them in such specifc ways. Let’s go through this, shall we? FOR FUN.

    1. The characters you’re comparing here – other than being in a similar situation – are completely different. Finn is a stormtrooper who turned traitor after seeing the horror of battle, and is escaping mostly to save himself. C-3PO and R2-D2 are droids who happened to be working on a rebel ship, and are escaping specifically to enact rebel plans. You can’t say one is just a straight up remake of the other, because movies are more than just dryly described plot points – they’re about the characters and their emotional journeys.
    2. OK, this is indeed similar. But it’s just there as a means to get the plot together. “Crash lands on desert planet” is not the plot of the movie.
    3. Wait… did you seriously just describe Han Solo as a “wise old man”?! The story of TFA is all about how Han is a washed up loser who failed to save his son from the dark side, failed to save his marriage, has fallen back into all his bad habits, and is desperately trying to make up for his mistakes, but still fails. “Wise old man”? Come on. You might as well say that TFA is a remake of The Phantom Menace, and Han is Jar Jar.
    4. Only similar by the broadest of strokes. Luke tries to help the rebellion deliver the Death Star plans, but gets sidetracked by a rescue mission of his own making, and doesn’t help the rebellion with an actual mission until the very end of the film; Rey is just trying to find the Resistance, but gets captured, and all she does in the end is try to escape and beat on Kylo Ren for personal reasons, not as part of a Resistance mission.
    5. Sure, that detail is very similar, but by that logic Return of the Jedi is a remake of A New Hope as well.
    6. Grand Moff Tarkin is not Darth Vader’s superior, at least not explicitly. I think at this point in your list you must have realised that the direct comparison to Snoke you were thinking of was The Emperor, but that’s from a different film so you couldn’t use it.
    7. OK, there are SO many differences between these two things. Obi-Wan becomes at peace with himself and dies on his own terms before Vader can strike him, and achieves his goal of distracting Vader so the others can escape; Han gets stabbed through the chest by surprise by his son while he’s trying to hug him and bring him back to his side, and so fails to achieve his goal. One happens halfway through the film; the other happens near the end of the film.
    8. Yeah, “people escape a death star explosion” is a similarity, but other than that, ANH focuses squarely on ship-based fighting by Luke, while TFA ends in a lightsaber duel in a snowy forest area., while an actual living planet falls apart around them. How did you come out of that thinking “these things are exactly the same, totally”.

    Right, I’ve already written way too much on the subject of Star Wars on a Red Dwarf forum, but I’ll just echo something Andrew Ellard once said: structurally, TFA is like all 3 of the original Star Wars trilogy rolled into one, not just the first. But for me, its characters’ stories are a whole new thing.

    It is not a remake in any conceivable sense of the word.

    #236347
    bloodteller
    Blocked

    >Grand Moff Tarkin is not Darth Vader’s superior, at least not explicitly. I think at this point in your list you must have realised that the direct comparison to Snoke you were thinking of was The Emperor, but that’s from a different film so you couldn’t use it.

    Isn’t he? I thought Moff Tarkin was sort of the CEO of the Death Star, and Darth Vader was like a representative from the Emperor who had to swing by and check the plans were all going smoothly. Maybe not explicitly stated in the film, but I was sure that Moff was in charge of the operation and Vader was just sort of there for some reason or another

    #236348
    bloodteller
    Blocked

    We all know Mr. Stevens is the boss anyway. He’s Head Of Catering

    #236349
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    The film is never clear about who is higher ranking out of Tarkin and Vader, but if Tarkin was just straight up Vader’s boss, then it would be made clear.

    The extra context of Empire/Return shows that Vader is the Emperor’s right hand man, so the chance of a Grand Moff having “appear as a giant face hologram and order Vader around while he kneels and says “yes, my master”” privileges is quite slim.

    #236350
    Taiwan Tony
    Participant

    Probably Sarah Pascoe, Katherine Ryan, Gina Yashere and Luisa Omielan.
    You’d definitely need Romesh Ranganathan in it if you wanted to get it made though.

    #236352
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    >The extra context of Empire/Return shows that Vader is the Emperor’s right hand man

    To be fair, there’s a bit of backpedallig with The Emperor and Vader’s role in the sequels. Pretty sure that it wasn’t the original intention that the Emperor would be a Sith (and thus woudn’t have a close Master/Apprentice relationship with Vader). Admiral Motti’s dismissal of the Force doesn’t ring true if it’s something the Emperor is all over.

    #236353
    bloodteller
    Blocked

    Wasn’t the Emperor originally supposed to be a regular old politician-type character?

    #236355

    You can’t just say “albeit with a long gap”, when the 16 year gap is exactly what makes it a reboot! (Well, that, and the 0% crossover between the 1989 cast/crew and the 2005 cast/crew.) The Doctor being recast isn’t the same as the show being cancelled and then brought back. You can’t reboot something which never went away.
    Of course, there are shades of grey in calling something a reboot, but Doctor Who 2005 is pretty ironclad. They literally called it “Series 1”! And they didn’t even make it explicit that it was in continuity with the classic series until “Human Nature” in Series 3.

    I get most of what you’re saying in the rest of the post this excerpt comes from, but wanted to address this specifically.

    I don’t think a gap, no matter how long, should matter. Whether its 1 year or 16 years, its still a continuation. They start back calling it series 1 really just to simplify things, especially for new viewers … you don’t have to have seen the previous 40 years of the show to understand whats happening (RTD specifically wrote it in such a way too) but for fans that had seen the show previously, there would be stuff in there for them too. Otherwise why not make a point of having Eccleston on his first regeneration rather than the 9th? RTD knew he was continuing where the previous show had left off, he just created back story for the years it had been off the screen.

    The movie the comes in-between made a point of having 7 regenerate into 8 … The Doctor then confirms at some point he is on he 9th or 10th regeneration. It takes a while but Moffat then fills in the gaps with 8 and 9.

    If it isn’t mentioned before hand then School Reunion in the second series certain cements that the history of the show is relevant as they bring back Sarah Jane Smith.

    All that aside, I like the analogy of rebooting a computer. But I think the phrase is being used very differently, it certainly has different roots. Booting/Rebooting in computer terms refers to computers starting themselves up, coming from “pulling yourself up on your own boot straps” … its the computers ability to load itself rather then being fed programming and command.

    Rebooting in film/tv probably has borrowed the phrase and adapted it, and you’re right language does evolve etc … but I guess my pedanticism comes from how ambiguous the using of the term is, and why despite what the media and joe public say and mean, its necessary to have clearly defined terms used correctly (reboot, remake and so forth) to clearly understand what is meant because, as we have discovered with this conversation, it’s a complex minefield and reboot especially is being used liberally to describe very different things.

    <block quote> Another film I’d cite as an example of “reboot, but still in continuity with the original” is the recent Jumanji film.

    I really don’t think a sequel to a film, just because it’s 20 years after the original, can be called a reboot. If its set in the same universe and acknowledges the events of the first film (which I believe it does I haven’t actually seen it) then its just a sequel.

    Otherwise would we call Terminator 2 a reboot because it took 6 years to make? How long a gap does there need to be? What about Blade Runner? That is very specifically a sequel too but over 30 years later. Is that a reboot or just another film in the series?

    I think if we met half way we’d say a reboot is starting a fresh with something new. We could agree that Jumanji is a reboot, new characters, new story etc … but I think we’d then have to agree Blade Runner isn’t, even though by your definition just because it has been started up again several years later it is.

    Hope my points make sense, realise I’m rambling a bit.

    #236356
    Ridley
    Participant

    Force Awakens is a redo of IV-VI as one film.

    It’s all in the tweetnotes: https://medium.com/@ellardent/tweetnotes-star-wars-the-force-awakens-ed8c7cd353d

    #236361
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    I do totally get what you mean, quinn_drummer. While I still maintain that a reboot can be in continuity with the old version, it’s definitely a thing that “reboot” makes people think “oh, new continuity?”.

    Just to clarify my position on Doctor Who ’05 being a reboot a bit more, it’s not so much the gap of time ITSELF which makes it a reboot, it’s the way the writing reacts to the fact that it’s the first new series in 16 years. Because Series 1 actually isn’t a direct continuation of Series 26 – or the TV movie – at all. It’s set an ambiguous amount of time afterwards, and the only returning main character is The Doctor himself, and he’s changed face off-screen.

    If the revived Doctor Who were a hard, new continuity type of reboot, you wouldn’t need to change anything about it until School Reunion (uh… yeah, I screwed up in crediting Human Nature as being the episode which confirmed the classic series as canon; it actually just confirmed the 8th Doctor as canon. MY BAD.)

    Essentially, if ‘Rose’ had opened with Paul McGann exiting the TARDIS talking about San Francisco and the Master, then I’d agree with you that it’s not a reboot. It’s why the TV Movie probably isn’t one.

    So, a big gap doesn’t guarantee a revival will be a reboot, but it makes it more likely, as the writers won’t want to rely on their audience understanding the full context of the most recent series.

    This is also why I consider Back to Earth an incredibly soft reboot, too. Although it’s far more debatable there, because of how many specific back references it has, it still sets up a new, approachable status quo for the crew that absolutely refuses to be a direct continuation of Series VIII, or even offer any resolution to it.

    Films are a different beast because it’s easier to get caught up on a few films than several seasons of a TV show, so a big gap between releases doesn’t always make the difference. The key question for me is “Is this film selling itself as Film 1 in a new series, or as the long-awaited sequel to the last film?”.

    Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is definitely the former, because it’s only in continuity with the original via small references, not by being about any of the same characters.

    Terminator 2 is definitely the latter, because every aspect of its plot and characters are directly continuing on from Terminator 1.

    Blade Runner 2049 is also the latter, because despite the time skip its story is specifically following up on the resolution to the original AND it wasn’t created to spawn further sequels, but just to be a standalone sequel.

    Star Wars 7 is actually both a long-awaited sequel to a film and Film 1 in a new series, which is why it’s a serious edge case here, but for me it’s still narrowly a reboot.

    I think if we met half way we’d say a reboot is starting a fresh with something new. We could agree that Jumanji is a reboot, new characters, new story etc … but I think we’d then have to agree Blade Runner isn’t, even though by your definition just because it has been started up again several years later it is.

    Ha, I realise I’ve more or less come around to agreeing with you on most of this anyway. Good stuff. It helped for me to interrogate my own reasoning on this.

    #236364

    Now we’ve cleared that up rather amicable (round of applause to us) who thinks series VIII has a few flaws?

    “Flaws?”

    *pause*

    *laughter*

    #236365
    Hamish
    Participant

    But is Series VIII a reboot?

    #236367
    Toxteth O-Grady
    Participant

    Series III-V is a soft-reboot of the show of series 1 and 2

    Series VII-VIII is a full reboot

    Back to Earth is a stand-alone remake of Back to Reality

    Series X-XII is a de-boot of series VII and VIII, and a sequel to series V.

    #236378

    Howard Burden confirmed Robert still wears the same boots for Kryten he had in Series III, so nothing has been rebooted.

    #236382
    Toxteth O-Grady
    Participant

    Howard Burden’s talking rubbish then, as I distinctly remember Kryten having very pointy boots in earlier series, whereas in later ones he’s essentially wearing DMs.

    #236384

    Those point boots always looked really stupid, like Kryten nicked them from a wizard. You can see them in Camille when he’s hanging off the ledge

    #236385
    Ben Saunders
    Participant

    >Well, that, and the 0% crossover between the 1989 cast/crew and the 2005 cast/crew.
    Graeme Harper, who directed Caves of Androzani amongst other things, also directed episodes for New Who right from the get-go.

    Also The Force Awakens being a remake of A New Hope (with elements from the other films) is surely common knowledge by this point. I don’t care if you like the film but I feel not accepting that fact is a bit out there.

    Vader is very much written as an enforcer, subservient to Tarkin in IV, but its’s left ambiguous -enough- that the entire rest of the saga with Vader as the main character can still work with very little mental gymnastics. In the same way that Obi-Wan’s speech about him killing Vader really IS true, from a certain point of view.

    #236387

    And several writers for the RTD era Who wrote for the New Adventures series of novels, which are as close to an ‘official’ continuation of series 26 as anything. I don’t think it’s a reboot at all, it’s just a continuation.

    #236389
    Ben Saunders
    Participant

    RTD was a very smart man who presented the show as both a continuation and a reboot to appease different fans/markets etc, it was all a bit vague intentionally I think

    He also saved Big Finish by loudly stating that he would “take care of it” during one of the preliminary meetings

    #236392
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    Graeme Harper, who directed Caves of Androzani amongst other things, also directed episodes for New Who right from the get-go.

    Given that Graeme Harper’s last classic series story was in 1985 and his first new series episode was in 2006, I’m going to class this as “uhhh… kind of, but not really.”

    But even if Graeme was in both 1989 and 2005 crews, that wouldn’t prove that the 2005 series is not a reboot. The lack of returning crewmembers is just something which adds to the argument that something is a reboot, not the key determining factor.

    Also The Force Awakens being a remake of A New Hope (with elements from the other films) is surely common knowledge by this point.

    No, “The Force Awakens is noticably similar to A New Hope in a lot of ways” is common knowledge. “The Force Awakens is a literal remake of A New Hope” is a nonsensical assertion that I’ve not seen anyone earnestly argue for until now.

    #236412
    Taiwan Tony
    Participant

    Marooned is a Das Boot of series three.

    #236416
    Seb Patrick
    Keymaster

    In any sense that would give the term any kind of meaning, Doctor Who 2005 is not a reboot.

    We have a word for what it is, and that word is “revival”. Why ruin the meaning of “reboot” by using it to mean that?

    #236418
    Dave
    Participant

    Restarting a series with a brand new “series one” that introduces a significantly different take on the show with a new cast and crew and minimal ties to old continuity is a perfectly reasonable description of a reboot, I think.

    A revival feels more like the kind of thing they’ve done in recent years with old sitcoms like Goodnight Sweetheart, Porridge and Open All Hours – bringing something back in a similar form to the way it used to be, playing on nostalgia and playing up ties to the past. All the kind of things the new Doctor Who initially avoided when it first came back.

    It’s easy to forget now how cagey the show was about even acknowledging the idea of previous Doctors or past history. What RTD did was clever, because he established the show as a new entity that you could come to fresh as a newcomer to Doctor Who, but without doing anything that contradicted the show’s history (which, of course, got gradually reincorporated into the new series more explicitly). So he gave us the best of both worlds.

    #236419
    Dave
    Participant

    Or to put it another way, Dave Dwarf is a revival.

    If they had produced a brand new series called Red Dwarf Series One with new writers, a cast of new young comedians in the roles and a completely different look and feel and hour-long episodes, I think you’d be hard pushed to call it a revival – it would be a reboot.

    (Although obviously Doctor Who is kind of a special case in some respects because the show has a built-in mechanism that lets it change its cast regularly while still maintaining the ‘same’ lead character.)

    #236420
    GlenTokyo
    Participant

    Doctor Who isn’t a reboot.

    It restarted with the 9th Doctor, it’s just written to make sense for people who haven’t seen all the others, like most sequels/things that follow on from other things that have had a bit of time between, and has featured from what I’ve seen K9, Sarah Jane, Tom Baker’s scarf, Peter Davison in a special I think, loads of other crap from the continuity that I can’t remember or be bothered to list.

    Also the series 1 stuff, did they even have series when it started? They had Stories. A few episodes in a story, which you then referred to, like Back to Earth.

    #236421
    Dave
    Participant

    How about the Netflix reboot of Reboot? It’s a similar example to Doctor Who 2005 in that it’s a completely fresh take on the same material that gradually, over time, reincorporates elements of the old Reboot continuity to make it clear that the Reboot reboot and the original Reboot are linked in a similar way to old Who and new Who.

    I’d still call the rebooted Reboot a reboot even given the ties to the original Reboot.

    #236422
    Warbodog
    Participant

    It’s easy to forget now how cagey the show was about even acknowledging the idea of previous Doctors or past history.

    The sketches of past Doctors half way through series three felt like a massive acknowledgement at the time, especially with dubious McGann being so prominent. Come series 10’s opener, you’ve got things like a random Susan photo, casual background Movellans and literal throwaway vintage screwdrivers and it’s just trivia.

    #236423
    Warbodog
    Participant

    That came across like I was disagreeing, but I was supporting the really delayed watershed moment.

    #236424
    Dave
    Participant

    Yep, I remember the sketchbook (and the montage in The Next Doctor) being massive deals at the time.

    Then you get the montage towards the end of The Eleventh Hour which I think really opened the floodgates.

    It will be interesting to see if Chibnall dials that stuff back.

    #236425

    I’m hoping Chibnall doesn’t do so much of that, though. The classic series rarely did, and it makes little callbacks feel special when they happen. Moffat threw in so many little bits in his run (four episodes in which we see every past Doctor) that it began to get a bit weighed down by its past.

    #236426

    To be fair to Moffat, a lot of his writing of the Doctor (both Matt and Capaldi) is an exploration of who the Doctor is. 11 coming to terms with the Time War, then realising he didn’t actually slaughter two races, and Capaldi trying to figure out if he really is good etc, that it makes sense to look back and see those that came before them.

    Granted he was really only doing it to be able to get fanboy and make loads of references more than casual fans would get, but then when you’re writing on a show 50 years old, celebrating that history feels right too.

    I’d like to see Chibnall step away from it a little, but not ignore it completely and use it when its right to use it. Push forward but not forget the past completely.

    #236427
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    In any sense that would give the term any kind of meaning, Doctor Who 2005 is not a reboot.
    We have a word for what it is, and that word is “revival”. Why ruin the meaning of “reboot” by using it to mean that?

    Doctor Who absolutely is a revival, but a revival is just a more specific type of reboot. You might as well say “Doctor Who is not a TV Show, it’s a Sci-Fi Drama”.

    You can fairly point out that this definition robs the term “reboot” of some inherent specificity that would make it more useful… and yeah, of course it does. It’s an overused media buzzword, so it just is used in a very broad way, and therefore has a very broad definition. Nothing really we can do about that…

    To put it another way, if the Doctor Who revival had occurred in 2015 rather than 2005 – and all of its content was otherwise exactly the same – then you can bet that every single major entertainment news outlet would call it a reboot. Guaranteed.

    I’d also disagree that this makes the term useless. A “reboot” can just mean any TV/Film series which comes back after a significant absence, to be outright remade or just majorly retooled, and that’s OK. It’s good to have umbrella terms for things.

    #236428
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    There, you see; you all groaned when Jawscvmcdia posted another stupid hypothetical question with a trolling statement, but it sparked an interesting discussion.

    #236430
    Moonlight
    Participant

    But is Series VIII a reboot?

    No, because a continuation of the same show with the same cast cannot by definition be a reboot. The internet loves to misuse the word “reboot”, because it can’t fucking process the idea that The X-Files or Mystery Science Theater or Red Dwarf could be simply be coming back to do their respective 11th season/series a decade plus after the original run ended.

    I mean the word _literally_ means to start over. You’d think it wouldn’t be too hard for fuckhead journalists to realize they’re constantly using it in situations that are quite literally the opposite of rebooting a show.

    #236431
    Moonlight
    Participant

    I mean Mystery Science Theater is probably not the best example because the rotating cast means the show is effectively if not literally on its third reboot, but it fit in with the “11th season” pattern.

    #236433
    GlenTokyo
    Participant

    It’s just a boot. You’ve turned it back on after it was off.

    #236434
    Hamish
    Participant

    I do hope you realize I was being flippant Katydid.

    #236435
    Moonlight
    Participant

    I do. I just had two cents about reboots.

    #236443
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    I’m not sure if the people on the “it can’t be a reboot if it’s in continuity with the old version” side of things are certain that’s the definition, or would just prefer it to be that.

    Like, “that’s not what it means – it’s just that the media keeps misusing it all the time!” is not a great counter-argument, because as I said, language is defined by usage. If enough people keep using the word “selfie” to describe photos that also include people other than the person taking it, for example, then the definition will broaden to accommodate that.

    It’s not like “reboot” is a word the entertainment news media are appropriating either. That word – just in this context, obviously – pretty much only exists so that the media can use it to describe the phenomenon of shelved TV/film series making unexpected returns. It’s THEIR term, more or less.

    I think if the definition of a reboot were genuinely as strict as some folk here are saying, then when people see a headline like “There’s a Buffy Reboot in the Works!”, they wouldn’t feel the need to get clarification about whether it was going to be in continuity or not, just as they wouldn’t need to if the headline read “There’s a Buffy Remake in the works!” or “Buffy’s Coming Back For Season 8!”.

    #236450
    Moonlight
    Participant

    If I read a headline that said a show was rebooting, I would assume it was rebooting. I would not expect them to mean a revival with the same cast and crew, because that’s not what a reboot is. The media conflating “reboot” and “revival” just makes things more confusing, because they’re two entirely separate kinds of bringing back a show.

    They’re basically polar opposites – one a brand new fresh start and the other a continuation – and I don’t think it’s pedantic to expect people to differentiate between the two.

    #236459
    Dave
    Participant

    Which is why Doctor Who 2005 is such a problematic example, because it manages to do both.

    #236460
    Lily
    Participant

    I’ve never watched Buffy, but if there was a reboot I’d expect; different cast, same characters, story going back to the beginning and retelling of origins etc.

    If on the other hand there was a revival it’d be same cast or handing down to new generation, previous canon to be maintained, new stories going forward.

    But I’m not a film/tv buff, so I don’t know anything.

    #236461
    Pete Part Three
    Participant

    >I’ve never watched Buffy

    You really should.

    #236472
    Ben Paddon
    Participant

    I used to be quite anal about the way people used the word “reboot,” until I realized it didn’t actually bloody matter – a reboot can be a revival, a remake, a ground-up reimagining of a premise. I’ve no qualms referring to modern Doctor Who or Dave era Dwarf as reboots.

    Language is fluid and words change depending upon usage. We lost the battle when the definition of “literally” got amended in the dictionary to incorporate its frequent figurative use in modern parlance. It’s over. Let it go.

    #236482
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    I do agree that when people here “reboot” they probably do think of the “completely fresh start” type before they think of the “direct continuation after a significant amount of time has passed” type, but there’s still a level of uncertainty, and the definition still absolutely covers both.

    You just need to google a phrase like “x files reboot” to make that clear.

    Even if you’re sure that a reboot can’t be a direct continuation, Doctor Who (as Dave said) is a clear example of how “revival” and “reboot” are in no way mutually exclusive, and there’s always going to be edge cases.

    #236483
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    *clears throat* uh, I meant “hear”, naturally.

    #236490
    Ben Saunders
    Participant

    Language is fluid but I would much prefer if words meant what they actually fucking meant, tbh.

    #236494
    Dave
    Participant

    They do, by definition.

    #236496
    GlenTokyo
    Participant

    I’m going to start saying Red Dwarf is a period drama because language is fluid.

    #236497
    Dave
    Participant

    It’s not a period drama, it’s a period sitcom. It would be a period drama if it didn’t have any laughs.

    (So maybe Series VIII etc. etc.)

    #236499
    Lily
    Participant

    The thing is that reboot is a pretty modern term with regards to entertainment. It’s only come into use the last few years when the film industry kept rehashing the same super-hero films over and over.

    If you look at at reporting in 2005 they all speak of Doctor Who’s ‘return’, which seems a more accurate term to me. Other terms used at the time were revival and resurrection.

    I guess it boils down to ‘reboot’ sounding all sexy and new, while ‘return’ or ‘revival’ lingers on the death of the original run of a show. Semantics aren’t sexy though.

    #236501
    Flap Jack
    Participant

    “Language is fluid” doesn’t mean “Words have no consistent meaning at all, then???”. I don’t need to explain this, because it’s obvious.

    The evolution of “reboot” is interesting, though. It reminds of how originally “binge-watching” only described quickly watching all of a TV show which was meant to be watched one episode a week, in the era where DVD box sets where the big thing. But then Netflix Instant came along, and their shows were actually designed to be watched immediately one episode after the other. So now “binge-watching” means whenever you watch a whole TV series/season in one go, regardless of whether this is actually excessive behaviour.

    Just as with “reboot”, you may not like the way its definition has broadened through common usage, but them’s the breaks. :-P

    #236502
    bloodteller
    Blocked

    Binge-watching is awful, I think. I once spontaneously decided to binge-watch all of the Pink Panther films. By the end of the second one I was already getting a bit tired.By the time Joanna Lumley showed up I was feeling physically sick from boredom. I don’t get how anyone can watch all of anything at once-even if you like it a lot, isn’t it better to take a break every one in a while?

    #236503
    bloodteller
    Blocked

    The one saving grace was that in the last few films, William Hootkins (!) showed up and I briefly had a pretty good time as he’s a very funny actor. Still not worth watching the entire film series all at once

    #236504
    Dave
    Participant

    I can’t binge-watch anything, it gets too boring and samey, even the really good stuff. The most I ever managed was getting through four or five episodes of ’24’ a night with the old DVD boxsets, and that’s largely due to the cliffhanger nature of the show’s episode transitions.

    I find with Netflix shows that are all dumped at once, I tend to naturally watch them around one or two episodes a week. It becomes overkill otherwise.

    #236506
    GlenTokyo
    Participant

    I don’t think binge watching means watching it all in one go. I think it just means watching a lot of something in one, or fewer than however many episodes there are, sittings as it always has. That could be all of something but I don’t think the meaning has changed to mean that exclusively.

    #236507
    Dave
    Participant

    Yeah, as with many terms I think it can be used in different ways – sometimes it’s used to mean watching an entire series that’s dumped all at once, and sometimes to mean watching a bunch of episodes in quick succession (but not necessarily a whole series).

    I think the latter meaning was maybe more common when that kind of behaviour was more unusual – when people didn’t tend to watch lots of episodes of a show in quick succession. Now that that’s a pretty standard viewer habit (thanks to DVD boxsets and streaming services) I think that meaning has maybe become a bit less common.

    #236509

    I can be quite a binger when it comes to serialised drama, can easily watch nine or ten in a row without a hint of fatigue. Comedy doesn’t work as well – I’ve often done a full six part series upon getting a DVD, but unless it’s a brand new show to me, I’m usually out of laughs by the final episode, whether it’s funny or not.

    My dad and I once watched all four series of Blackadder in a day, sort of by accident.

    #236512

    I just rewatched all of the first series of Dexter yesterday out of sheer boredom. I did stop a couple of times, to eat and shower etc, but I went straight back to it. Even though I’ve seen it 3 times before, I just wanted to get to the end.

    I’ve always been like that with shows. Ever since I got a DVD player and boxsets. My first was X Files, then Stargate, then TNG, DS9 amd Voyager (though they were VHS I bought ridiculously cheap from a listing in the local paper). Once I start on a series I won’t stop until I’m at the end. So now I’ll likely watch all 8 series of Dexter even though the last few are rubbish.

    I quite often watch the entirety of a new Netflix show the day, or the day after release. Though I did struggle through the new series of OITNB because it was a bit dull. Only finished that on Saturday.

    I actually find it weird watching more than 1 show at a time now. I tried juggling a rewatch of House, with watching Handmaids Tale and the latest OITNB just couldn’t really do it. So finished off House, finished off first series of Handmaids then finished Orange.

    I’ll watch something else if I’m watching it weekly, or I just want a quick 30mins of something before bed, but otherwise I tend to stick to the one thing.

    #236538
    Ben Saunders
    Participant

    I used to binge watch stuff a hell of a lot, but nowadays three episodes of Star Trek in one day feels excessive

    #236539
    Ben Saunders
    Participant

    All i know of William Hootkins is he played Dingodile in Crash Bandicoot 3, so he’s alright in my books

    #236542
    bloodteller
    Blocked

    He was also Porkins in Star Wars- A New Hope

    #236543
    GlenTokyo
    Participant

    I can binge TNG, VOY and ENT easily (skipping a few terrible episodes, like when Janeway turns into a lizard and fucks Tom Paris who is also a lizard etc) but Discovery is a bit hard going.

    #236545
    Dave
    Participant

    I’m not much of a Star Trek fan in general but I liked Discovery – I enjoyed the fast pace and willingness to blaze through plots that would have taken up a whole season of some other shows.

    #236562
    GlenTokyo
    Participant

    I watched Discovery despite the first episode being terrible, and was somewhat rewarded in the middle, but overall I feel like there’s more to not like than like.

    It’s written like they think they’re Aaron Sorkin, and are so clever and it’s so deep and layered but really it’s not very clever, obvious, and shallow. Also Michael Burnham, she’s like a Vulcan who’s repressed every emotion but ‘slightly pissed off’. She just seems horrible to know, whereas with Spock, Tuvoc, T’Pol it was believable that people would befriend them.

    Good points, Saru or whatever his name is, and Jason Isaacs, and it might mean other Star Trek series get made.

    #236565
    Dave
    Participant

    Yeah, I can’t really disagree with you on any of that. The shallowness is part of the appeal to me though, it feels like a silly romp a lot of the time. Which is maybe part of why it doesn’t feel like good Star Trek to longtime fans.

    #236567
    Ben Saunders
    Participant

    Whatever happens in Discovery, it cannot be anywhere near as bad as The Omega Glory from the original series.

    #236569
    Warbodog
    Participant

    I’m glad you didn’t go for Spock’s Brain, that hilarious B-movie that makes the world better.

    #236574
    Ben Saunders
    Participant

    Spock’s Brain is excellent, in that it’s pretty shit, but the B-Movie feel to it is groovy. I think the ending is actually shit, though. Controversial opinion but Spock’s Brain is better than The Trouble With Tribbles

    #236600
    Plastic Percy
    Participant

    I’m glad that Discovery is doing it’s own thing. Like Doctor Who, the argument should never be they should do something just ‘because that’s how they did it (thirty) years ago’.

    Also, Clem Fandango!

    #236602
    Ben Paddon
    Participant

    Controversial and objectively wrong opinion from Ben Saunders, there.

    #236605
    Hamish
    Participant

    > the argument should never be they should do something just ‘because that’s how they did it (thirty) years ago’.

    Which does beg the question about why they still felt the need to stand on the legacy of a show from thirty years ago rather than starting fresh though. There is still plenty of room for original science fiction television today.

    I am not going to comment specifically on Discovery as I have not seen it, but your argument does seem a bit like having one’s cake and eating it too.

    #236610
    Dave
    Participant

    The ending of the first season of Discovery makes that point particularly well.

    #236613
    Ridley
    Participant

    >Which does beg the question about why they still felt the need to stand on the legacy of a show from thirty years ago rather than starting fresh though. There is still plenty of room for original science fiction television today.

    Yeah but getting people to sign up to CBS All Access for a brand new show is a harder sell.

    Bring back Quantum Leap, Highlander, and do The Princess Bride as a TV series. *bangs drum*

    #236629
    Ben Saunders
    Participant

    1) They like the idea of Star Trek and want to do something with that universe
    2) Marketing purposes/brand recognition

    Obviously when Star Trek fans tune into a new Star Trek show they expect to see something that at least feels a bit like what came before, with similar aesthetics, feelings and morality, etc. Otherwise there would be no point calling it Star Trek, other than to sell it. The same way that when somebody buys a Metallica album they don’t want to be hit with Queen, even if they might like Queen. All of the other Star Trek shows have managed to broadly feel like Star Trek, but I’ve yet to make my way to Discovery, so can’t really judge.

    #236632

    Which does beg the question about why they still felt the need to stand on the legacy of a show from thirty years ago rather than starting fresh though.

    They like the existing universe and feel new, interesting stories could be told within that framework?

Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 202 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.