Markup View

Author: Rjinswand

Aug 15th 2015 at 3:35:19 AM

If the work happens in an alternate dimension/timeline/whatever, it's not a reboot, since it's not, well, rebooting anything. The word "reboot" is popular at the moment, but not everything the marketing teams call a "reboot" actually constitutes a reboot. A reboot is supposed to be a total reset of the canon continuity.

As for the examples:
* StarTrek is just an AlternateTimeline tale. No one stops future creators from creating works set in the original timeline, or even have both timelines crossover.
* {{Superman}} movie continuity has always been a murky one, so no one knows for sure what's canon and what is not.
* MassEffect Andromeda is just a spin-off set in another part of the same world. Like CSIMiami.
* {{Highlander}} is just an example of a convoluted and contradictory continuity resulting from various retcons and reboots.
* {{Prometheus}} is a {{Retcon}}.
* {{Predator}} is a {{Retcon}}/CanonDiscontinuity.
* {{JurassicWorld}} is either a partial {{Reboot}} (if it completely ignores the sequels) or a {{Retcon}}/CanonDiscontinuity (if it just ignores some weird parts).

I suppose a SoftReboot could be something like ''TerminatorGenisys'' or ''MortalKombat2011'', where the timeline is rewritten ''in-universe''. So it acknowledges the original timeline as canon, and then explains in-universe why the timeline is changed. So it reboots the timeline without dismissing the original canon.

UPD: And also, "fan drama" isn't really the main thing they're worried about in such cases. It's more about the money. Reboots are done in an attempt to attract both old fans' and new viewers' money. The real danger here is in alienating the old fans, who might just ignore the reboot and not give them their $$$. So, the problem is not in internet rants and flame wars, but in potentially alienating an important part of the intended customerbase.