Talk:Reboot (fiction)

Force Awakens is a bad example of a soft reboot.

I'd like to contest the example of The Force Awakens as a soft reboot as, while the films are left in the continuity, everything else that previously was in continuity was ignored and removed and yes the other materiel was in fact in continuity contrary to what some may say Tnu1138 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the lists of examples

I have removed most of the lists of reboots in various media. At first I wanted to remove some obvious nonsense, for instance the Need for Speed franchise which never had any continuity to discard, and the various series of remakes (Aren't a remake and a reboot supposed to be different? Even if so, I think we should limit the examples to things which are reboots and only reboots to decrease the vagueness that pervades the article). Then I realized that nearly all of this was guaranteed to be either wholly WP:OR, or sourcable at best to an industry tidbit issued decades post festum. The one and only reference in the whole section was James Bond's Casino Royale, which begs the question of what makes it a reboot, and not On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Live and Let Die, etc. I'm sure there is a case here for both sides of the argument, and that just proves that without sources any list such as this is arbitrary, and therefore I have removed it. I have left in comic books as that's where the term "reboot" came from, and thus instances of comic book reboots are more likely to have concrete sources. Daß Wölf 16:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jamster93: I'm aware this was a really major change, so I understand if you disagree with me, but I'd like to know for what reason. Daß Wölf 00:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as there have been no arguments in favor of keeping the list, I'm reinstating my edit. Daß Wölf 22:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. A 'see also' link to Category:Reboot (fiction) seems like a more suitable approach for now. If there were reliable sources for all/most entries, this could be spun-off to its own list article, but not before that. Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't delete lists of reboot films, television series and video games. It's better to put all of the known reboots back in the page, not removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Antony (talk • contribs) 00:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Marcus Antony: Hello. Did you see this discussion above? It explains some of the problems. Grayfell (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please put all of the known reboots back in the page, STOP REMOVING!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Antony (talk • contribs) 03:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please remember to be civil. What about all the problems listed above? Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Stop removing stuff from the list! Jamster93 (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jamster93: try engaging in discussion with Grayfell and Daß Wölf EvergreenFir (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Page protection

I've fully protected the page for a week, (requiring admin access to edit the article) since both IPs and established editors were edit warring on this. Contact me if a resolution on this comes sooner, and I can unprotect before then. Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Added the list back, as I may have come up with a solution. I'll need to check on a few things before I finish things up. Also, would the Sonic Comics really count for a reboot? Because it feels more like a soft reboot rather than a full one. Gameman18 (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort, Gameman18, but please don't make such edits without proposing them on talk page first. As you can see, it has led to an edit war earlier. Also, keep in mind that all such tables need to be thoroughly sourced to reliable sources and contain no original research. As the reinstated tables consist pretty much exclusively of original research and material sourceable at best to Buzzfeed and the like, I'm really anxious to see your proposed solution. Daß Wölf 22:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Basically, in the case of films, any remakes of single films are out, but if said film started a franchise and a new film is made that starts it over (like the Ghostbusters, Smurfs and the upcoming Tomb Raider reboot), then it can be added to the list. In the case of video games, that's usually obvious via change in artsyle/setting, lack of connection to the previous games, the publishers/developers saying so themselves (kinda like in this Need for Speed article: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/need-for-speed-open-world-full-reboot-hitting-ps4-/1100-6427492/), etc. Comics usually start over at Issue 1 (which is why I'm debating on if I should remove Sonic from the list because it was more of a soft reboot that started on issue 252). Gameman18 (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a reasonable standard, but it still needs reliable sources. Otherwise it really sounds like WP:OR. For Wikipedia lists like this it's common to be relaxed about sources by having the sources be at the target article. This is just a convenience, though, it's not really good practice. The messy history and bloat of this list means that's not going to work anymore. If a reliable source doesn't directly support that a work is a reboot, it doesn't belong. If it says it's a reboot at the work's article, it should be fairly simple to use that source for the list. I would suggest a user sandbox or similar before adding this. Grayfell (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 May 2017

For the "Soft reboot" section, change the nonsensical, poorly worded, and unsourced description to:

Unlike a reboot, which discards all continuity in a franchise, a "soft reboot" relaunches and introduces a film, television, or video game series to a new generation of consumers while still maintaining continuity with previous installments in a franchise. Examples of soft reboots include the 2015 films Jurassic World, with the Jurassic Park franchise; Mad Max: Fury Road with the Mad Max franchise; and Star Wars: The Force Awakens, with the Star Wars franchise.

I looked back through the edit history and a random IP removed this, claiming that this was an "improper" definition with "poor" examples. JDC808 ♫ 11:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize a "request" required consensus, and you'd rather keep the poor and unsourced description that's currently on the article? That makes perfect sense. As noted above, this was already on the article for a good bit of time (since at least June of last year) and then some random IP removed it. --JDC808 ♫ 03:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

By that criteria, it seems to me that a soft reboot is just a regular sequel. If it maintains continuity, where is the "reboot" part? I'm in favor of describing a soft reboot if that's something definable and different from a normal reboot, a remake or a sequel, not if it's just a marketing buzzword for one of these things. Daß Wölf 15:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

A soft reboot essentially changes the formula, but maintains continuity. For example, the God of War video game series. It has a distinct style of gameplay that spanned 7 games. However, they're developing an eighth game that completely changes the gameplay and narrative structure, but is still maintaining the continuity of the story. --JDC808 ♫ 03:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The proposed change is a very WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of the Screen Rant article, but that would be easy to fix if that were the only problem. The definition seems too hard to pin-down. For games, using gameplay as a factor seems reasonable, but what about movies or other media? Doesn't the narrative structure change with most sequels? There are exceptions, but in most cases "normal" sequels have structural differences inherited from having returning characters or settings contrast with new ones. That's the point, right? An approach that could work would be to use the sources to explain why they are soft reboots instead of sequels, but the three sources suggested are all over the place and don't seem to have a common thread. Listing examples is more confusing than helpful if it's not clear what they have in common. Grayfell (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Nearly all sequels end up introducing some degree of retconning, and while it may be possible to draw a line somewhere and declare that some films are soft reboots, the 3 sources above are not doing a good job describing it, or keeping up with each other's definitions (e.g. Star Trek (2009) did away with nearly all of the previous continuity). Until the sources start agreeing on what "soft reboot" means, I'd avoid giving any definitions of it in the article.

Original research here: Personally, I think this was intended as a catch-all term. Rightsholders want to monetise old franchises. Remakes are out of fashion, films marketed as "reboots" have attracted some ire recently (Total Recall, Ghostbusters, etc.), and making a plain old "sequel" after a 10-20 year lull just doesn't attract headlines. Hence, "soft reboot". Daß Wölf 19:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I don't even think that's original research. Maybe "soft original research". The sources highlight that it's popular specifically because reboots have a mixed reputation, but studios still want to use the concept. The extreme fuzziness of the term is a feature, not a bug. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the soft-reboot content after its bold removal; a consensus is not one where a discussion was held between three editors without any outside opinions our outside advertising. A proper discussion needs to unfold, and if there is further disagreement on it, perhaps an RFC would solve any issues. -- Alex^TW 03:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: This is the talk page for the article about reboots, and it appears you might be confused about what this specific discussion is about. Talk:Sequel is that-a-way. If you are talking about these changes to this article, there are serious problems with that content that need to be discussed before it could be restored. A massive table list of almost entirely unsourced trivia is extremely unlikely to survive an RFC. Grayfell (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about those edits. At the Sequel article, the section regarding soft reboots was removed by an editor from this discussion, who, in their edit summary, pointed to this very discussion for their reasoning. That's what I'm talking about. -- Alex^TW 04:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't at all clear. I have posted a comment on that article's talk page: Talk:Sequel#Reboot and soft reboot. It would be better to discuss each edit on it's own article's talk page to preserve a readable record of these discussions and to avoid future confusion. Grayfell (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Carl Barks etc

Some writers have completely ignored continuity, in a special way that essentially reboots for every story arc or even for every story.

A notable example is the Carl Barks universe for which Scrooge McDuck, Huey, Dewey and Louie, Gyro Gearloose and his helper, April, May and June, Gladstone Gander, and probably others I've forgotten were created by him, as was the fictional city of Duckburg.

This technique is similar to floating timeline and reset button technique, but isn't really covered by either of those articles. But surely others have noticed its use? If so, it should have a name somewhere in reliable secondary sources.

The Donald Duck Universe is particularly interesting because Barks' successor Don Rosa abandoned this technique, and instead introduced massive retcons to give his fictional universe a timeline. Again, this should surely be documented in RSS. Andrewa (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Soft reboots

I don't understand the bizarre drive by a few editors to make sure that the term "soft reboot" does not enter this article. I understand that this is a new term, and that it's never 100% clear what is a soft reboot and what is just a sequel; but there are now at least two notable sources that provide a definition of sorts for "soft reboot", plus at least another two (I would say more) that tie the concept to specific films. That surely seems like enough to justify a few sentences about soft reboots in this article.

You may think that the term "soft reboot" is meaningless - it's a valid opinion. But at this point, using that to justify removal of content starts to seem like original research, unless someone can find some notable sources similarly discounting the concept of a soft reboot. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Forbes - no definitions here. Are we seeing the same page? Bloomberg has a weak and confusing definition. "...they maintain the storyline continuity from previous films, either as a prequel or sequel often set many years away from the original" - this would imply that soft reboot is just a new term for prequels and sequels. There is no doubt that the term "soft reboot" is in heavy use nowadays, but nobody can seem to produce a workable definition, so we're left playing the game of blind men and the elephant. And instead of taking Den of Geek or whoever's word that something is indeed a soft reboot (and their word likely goes back to some press release), I'd rather build on the Bloomberg article and reason that the term is a simple marketing product. Daß Wölf 01:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we're seeing the same page. The Forbes article says that Mission: Impossible III was a "soft, continuity-centric reboot", which is an implicit definition; it's saying that a "soft reboot" is a continuity-centric reboot; or, to put it more plainly, it's a reboot that's also a sequel (or prequel). And the Bloomberg article you quote says pretty much the same thing. These are two workable definitions that match each other, so I don't know what the issue is.

Of course, you can ask what exactly "reboot" means in that context, given that it can imply just dropping continuity - that's how this article currently describes a reboot, anyway. But that's clearly not all that "reboot" implies. The term almost always additionally implies a change in characters, actors, behind-the-scenes crew and/or tone - and that's the stuff that applies in a soft reboot as well. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that sentence the first time around. I gather Forbes is implying here that Casino Royale is also a soft reboot. Yet other sources call it a "hard" reboot [1] [2], even a "total reboot". In fact, here's (archived) the same Forbes writer now calling it a hard reboot. See the problem? Daß Wölf 02:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right that he was saying that Casino Royale was a soft reboot, although it's hard to be sure. Reading through the piece again, now I think he was talking about Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol (the 4th one) as the soft reboot in the series, not M:I III, but I'm not sure about that one either. And he did indeed seem to call Casino Royale a hard reboot two years earlier. Anyway, yes, categorizing such movies can be hard, but that's true of reboots in general. Outside of comic books, I think nobody used the word "reboot" until maybe 10 years ago, and the whole concept of continuity and "canon" wasn't a big deal for most people until fairly recently either. The James Bond films are a perfect example: nobody seemed to care that, every time Bond was re-cast with a younger actor, it implicitly broke the previous continuity, and it wasn't until Casino Royale in 2006 that the filmmakers even bothered to create an "origin story" for him. So these are new concepts for both filmmakers and audiences. Still, muddiness of labeling shouldn't prevent us from mentioning these concepts; if ambiguity were a deal-breaker, there would be no article called Fifth Beatle, for instance. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Erm I was gone for 24 hours, how does that presuppose that I agreed with you here? Stop the reverting, please.

Now, regarding Casino Royale, I've been too successful in showing that it's a hard reboot, e.g. here are two sources calling it a soft reboot. The point I'm making is, there are very few, if any, films even in the "reboot era", so to speak, that the RS agree which type of reboot they are -- which begs the question of whether we should attempt a definition. Even our definition of reboot itself is already pretty vague and iffy and has been called out in RS, FWIW, so I imagine "continuity-centric reboot" or "a “reboot” that is still chugging along" (from my second source -- this would imply that a reboot becomes "soft" when it gets a sequel??) won't go down well with the readers any better than the "I know it when I see it" approach has gone down with the RS.

But what does "continuity-centric" actually mean? Certainly every reboot retains some continuity, otherwise it would just be an unrelated movie. If we're taking this at face value, the question would be, how much retconning makes a soft/hard reboot. The phrasings we find in definition aren't of much help in that department. That's one of the reasons I doubt there's an actual meaning to the term. In fact, I'll say I've seen no evidence so far that it wasn't just an epithet invented by the studios to appease the fans who grew to dislike the word "reboot". When I find sources that disprove or corroborate this WP:SYN of mine, I'll support adding something about it to the article. Daß Wölf 19:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

24 hours is more than enough time... you don't own the page, and you don't have any more (or less) right to a revert than I do. Anyway, we agree that what constitutes a "soft reboot" is ambiguous, as does what constitutes a reboot. And maybe all these terms were invented by studios. So what? These are terms that have been used, and defined, in reliable sources, and that's all that matters for including them in Wikipedia. Whether it will "go down well with the readers" (whatever that means) is not part of the criteria for inclusion. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

They haven't been defined, not in a way where we would be able to apply that definition to various films on our own, and not even in a way where we can quote the sources to establish that something definitely is or isn't a soft reboot (e.g. here they call Jurassic World 3, which you chose as an example, a plain sequel). Your last proposed version is based on essentially, cherrypicked sources, and contains much that is unsourced. For example, "functions as both a reboot and a sequel" -- you should establish that a soft reboot is indeed a reboot in the first place, I'm not convinced of that; "like a reboot it can have a different cast, characters and/or tone from previous works in the series" -- it may sound obvious to you, but it's nowhere to be found in the refs. And lastly, consider [3] which directly contradicts your sentence ("a reboot that is chugging along" makes no mention of continuity), [4] ("the "soft" reboot: a movie that introduces a particular brand to a new generation of moviegoers, while still keeping the canon of previous films intact" -- sounds like just an ordinary belated sequel to me), or [5] ("[the term "reboot" is] beginning to lose all meaning. It’s slowly becoming a catch-all term to describe any and all attempts to restart a franchise."). Daß Wölf 22:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the "chugging along" comment (they weren't defining "soft reboot", they were just pointing out that Daniel Craig is still playing James Bond) - but more importantly, are websites like Mandatory, Screen Rant and The Agony Booth now reliable sources? If so, it would actually make writing this article a lot easier. If not, there's no point discussing what they say. And if "soft reboot" is an ambiguous term, the correct solution is to describe that ambiguity in this article, and mention the mixed perspectives on which films if any are soft reboots, not to keep it out. There are plenty of ambiguous terms covered in Wikipedia. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, what do you propose? And please do it on the talk page this time. Daß Wölf 23:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I propose... the text I put on the page. And if there's something about it you want to change, you can change it. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I said already, parts are not covered in the sources, other parts are true only when you ignore most of RS. Agony Booth, Mandatory, etc. aren't exactly top-notch RS, but a Bloomberg journalist and the Forbes resident critic who can't make up his mind aren't either when it comes to film industry. The sources don't agree on what the term is, and they don't agree on which films are soft reboots. The text you've put on the page implies otherwise. Daß Wölf 01:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what "top-notch" reliable source means - either a publication can be cited or it can't. Anyway, the definition of "soft reboot" is clear: it's a reboot that maintains continuity. All the sources that have been brought up here, top-notch and otherwise, agree on that. Now, as we both agree, what exactly a "reboot" means, and what exactly "maintains continuity" means, are both up for debate. So, if anything, it's the rest of this article, which is just about reboots and not about soft reboots, that should be up for greater scrutiny. Yet somehow it's a few sentences about soft reboots that are being checked with a fine-tooth comb, which I don't understand. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The definition is not clear. Sure, at face value, it makes sense that it would be a reboot, after all, the term contains the word "reboot". But to me, I don't see what's being rebooted. Take SW:TFA for instance, a film that seems to gather the most agreement that it's a soft reboot -- yet nothing was retconned, and IMO if nothing was retconned, it's an ordinary sequel (or prequel). Hence on the basis of common sense I oppose quoting a RS that claims, despite their own examples, that soft reboot is a type of reboot. (And not all RS are equal for all purposes. You don't cite Shell's oil drilling experts on global warming over climatologists, but you will cite them on an article about oil prospecting.) Daß Wölf 17:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

If an oil drilling expert wrote in a notable publication about global warming, their thoughts would definitely belong in an article about global warming. It shouldn't be the only opinion/perspective presented, but it should be presented. Similarly, if there's a contrarian, published view about soft reboots that says "a film can't both be a reboot and preserve continuity because that's a contradiction in terms", that should go in this article too. (Personally, I don't think it's a contradiction because I think the article's current definition of "reboot" is incomplete - "reboot" also implies change of actors, tone, etc.) But the answer is never to just delete the information - especially if it's a consensus view shared by multiple reliable sources. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: oil drilling, their thoughts are absolutely not be mentioned there, let alone unqualified. They might be mentioned in the article on climate change denial. See WP:RS. Back to reboots: yes, reboot is a fuzzy and ill-defined term just like soft reboot, which makes writing about soft reboots even more challenging, as the definitions we can find generally revolve around "reboot that is also X..." Without defining "reboot", we're just parroting a sentence that looks like it means something, but will leave readers just as much in the dark as they were beforehand. Soft reboot is a meaningless studio buzzword to which we can attribute meanings that are logical extensions of our conceptions of "reboot", but the flurry of different definitions (which are always short and off-hand) and disagreements for just about every film on whether it's a soft reboot, hard reboot, remake, etc. show that this would be only our own WP:OR and WP:SYN.

I very much agree that the article as it is is a mess. Your attempted definition of soft reboot is no worse and no more one-sided than the current standing definition of reboot, but that doesn't mean we should lower our standards to whatever's in the article. The latter definition is what I'm hoping to tackle, anyway. Daß Wölf 19:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Given that the definition of "soft reboot" is clear and (to some extent) unanimous among reliable sources, and your objection (though I agree it's valid) is not to be found in any reliable sources, I think you'd have to agree that, at this point, it would be your viewpoint, i.e. keeping out "soft reboots", that would be OR. Pick your battles, as they say. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article lead to better reflect the ambiguity of "reboot". Hopefully this will better illuminate the fact how any of multiple and conflicting definitions of "soft reboot" as a type of reboot rests on shaky legs. Daß Wölf 01:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Very good - I think this is an improvement. So, how do you feel about adding in the soft reboot stuff now? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

How about this? Daß Wölf 18:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Sequels which are released many years after previous films in the series, and are set in a different time period, e.g. Jurassic World and Star Wars: The Force Awakens, are sometimes called soft reboots. This term has also been applied to films such as Casino Royale (2006) and Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol.

References

Needs some work, I would say. Under this definition, The Color of Money (speaking of Tom Cruise movies) would be considered a soft reboot, but I doubt anyone would call it that, even if it were released today. The big thing missing in this definition is the idea that it has to be part of a series/franchise - in other words, it's a type of reboot. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

No, a film that's part of an established series/franchise is not necessarily a reboot, but is a sequel (in the wider sense). For example, Star Wars VII is not a reboot in my book because it retcons nothing (nothing of importance, at least). Of course, you can go the positivist way and conclude that SW:VII is a reboot because some call it a reboot, but then the word becomes so vague that it's useless to the reader.

Anyway, the key words here are "sometimes called". There's not enough info to make a conclusion without OR and SYN as to what a soft reboot is. We can only try to categorise which films are called so in RS. The Color of Money isn't because nobody's been talking about it in Hollywood since reboot became a word, but I'm sure if it were released today it'd come with some moniker or other (which sequel doesn't?). We can only speculate. Besides, the fact that I've used your sources to come to such a different conclusion speaks to how hard these offhand statements (and those in other RS) are to interpret, and how easy it can be to read too much into them, when there's probably no more meaningful pattern to it beyond "that which they called so". Daß Wölf 02:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I wasn't that clear before - "franchise" doesn't imply "reboot", but "reboot" always (I think) implies "franchise". Also, I don't think you're really using the sources all that closely - they all state that a soft reboot is "a reboot that preserves continuity" (or something similar to that), but your current proposed explanation doesn't include the words "reboot" or "continuity". Korny O'Near (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

"Reboot" is a buzzword and "preserving continuity" is vague and meaningless. Some continuity is always preserved: the names and roles of characters, for example. And that's without going into what "franchise" means. Such vague definitions just muddy the waters and are the main reason why there are so many disagreements on which movie is what (and of course play nicely into the hands of Hollywood advertisers looking for a new stylish label to slap on the next sequel in production). Besides, I think we've spent far too much time on this for a neologism that surfaced 3 years ago and will probably be forgotten 3 years from now. Daß Wölf 01:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we've covered all this before - we've already established that you think "soft reboot" is meaningless, ambiguous, a marketing term, etc. We've also established that the term is defined in reliable sources, that the definitions all agree with another and are internally consistent, and that your view of the term, while reasonable, is not yet found in any reliable source. Given all that - perhaps you should not be the one to define this term in this article? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Korny O'Near claimed above that the definition of "soft reboot" is clear: it's a reboot that maintains continuity. Given that is the same as a sequel, it is a meaningless term that only serves as a marketing buzzword that some online writers inconsistently use as click bait. It is worthless to readers looking for accurate information. If you're looking for a word for a followup that maintains continuity but comes years later, try revival. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Yup. I don't think this term has been particularly well-defined, and it doesn't seem to me that sources agree with each other beyond a very superficial level. The Forbes article (which is unreliable "contributor" content with has almost no editorial oversight) doesn't define the term, merely uses it in passing. The Washington Post and Yahoo articles are probably more generally reliable, but they likewise only use the term in passing without providing a usable definition. The Bloomberg article does define the term, but in the context of marketing ("...often sold as soft reboots."). Using reviews or opinion articles which use a term in passing to suggest a concrete definition is WP:SYNTH, at best. Stripping the context about marketing and PR from the Bloomberg article would also be inappropriate for similar reasons. Grayfell (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence

@Gothicfilm: Yeah, I agree that the term "sequel" will probably be misunderstood unless the reader clicks on the wikilink (although lots of reboots are also thought of as sequels, e.g. Casino Royale). I'm not sure what to put there ("installment of an established series"? -- it sounds a bit complicated).

However, I don't think your new definition is accurate. Reboots don't discard all continuity (e.g. character names and backstories are typically preserved). Similarly the backstories are not recreated completely, e.g. Batman's parents are certainly long dead in every series, although IIRC the circumstances of their death change. This is not mentioned in your sources either. Daß Wölf 19:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

First, let me say I appreciate you taking the time to protect and improve this article. I could not go along with the word sequel in the lead, however. As you can see, the opening sentence of that article says "continues the story of". Best just to leave the word sequel out of the lead here entirely. It seems to me very few true reboots would be considered sequels. Possible exceptions might be described in a small section farther down in the article. As for the use of all, I see your point. The reason it could stand is even if the same character name is used, in a reboot it's a new character starting from scratch. The deaths of Batman's parents are given a new version/backstory in most reboots, as seen three times since 1989. However I am not adverse to removing all if readers might take it in a way not intended, as long as the point is maintained that all characters are being seen as if for the first time in a reboot even if they have a previously established name and presence in earlier versions. Gothicfilm (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

List inclusion/exclusion

I don't believe we should have a list of only comic book reboots on this article. It is WP:UNDUE without films, TV series and novels, etc. Particularly as only two of the 12 entries on the list has a source. We have

Main pages: Category:Reboot comics, Category:Reboot films, Category:Television series reboots, and Category:Video game reboots

and it seems to me best to just leave it to those categories. Otherwise there will always be people who want to restore the other lists and edit war over them. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

"Similarity to other terms" section.

Rather than have an edit war, let's discuss the relative pros and cons of removing this section. Maybe we can take bits of it and place them under a different section? What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawMuldoon (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)