DyD
Spinach Chin
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Location
- Votuporanga, Brazil
It was very much a remake... Intended, announced and marketed as such, and completely based on the original's screenplay without ever straying too far from the bounds of the original concept, imo. I mean, it's just as much a remake as Carpenter's The Thing and Cronenberg's The Fly, and I doubt anyone here would argue those aren't remakes. Actually, if we stretch that definition, even RISE could also be considered a remake of the first film – and I've actually said so around here in the past.
As far as I know, reboot just means a fresh start for the franchise unburdened by all that came before and making an active effort to avoid that baggage, so I don't think it would be necessarily dependent on returning characters. The only thing dependent on returning characters by my definition would be good ol' regular sequels. The only reason I say Rise is probably more of a reboot than a remake is that it really seems to be making a conscious effort to leave the original's trappings behind, even if it still relies a bit too much on its narrative beats for my tastes.
But yeah, ultimately, all of those terms are nothing but marketing gobbledygook nowadays... I long for the day we just called everything after the first movie a "sequel" and that was that, no matter if continued the story from previous films or just restarted the whole thing over from scratch... Like Halloween III still being considered a sequel to the first two movies even though it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with them. Happier, more innocent times back then.
Last edited:
