Is there a difference between "reboot" and "remake" or are they just interchangeable terms?

When someone says "Magnificent Seven the new movie is a reboot" and one says "it's a remake" and the other guy says "same thing", well let me tell you something, they are not the same thing but 2 separate things and time for some education from a highly smart film person like myself.

Sometimes the word "reboot" needs to be retired on film and a few other terms.

DEFINITION*: verb – to restart (a computer) by loading the operating system; boot again. noun – an act or instance of restarting a computer. This word, as the definition indicates, is a computer term and had no meaning prior to the advent of PCs in the home and at work. The term was hijacked by the motion picture industry in 2005 with Batman Begins. With four prior movies produced by Warner Bros., the last of which was an unmitigated disaster, the studio wanted everyone to know that this film was something new and unrelated to the previous series. It’s no secret that a movie series will sometimes ignore a movie that bombed and just move on with the series as if that embarrassing entry never happened, so WB could have done that with Christopher Nolan’s film. That wouldn’t exactly work, though, because Nolan wanted to tell the origins of Batman, something that had not been done successfully with any of the previous movies; his take would then be a prequel except for the fact that he wanted to include the Joker in his own sequel, thereby nullifying Tim Burton’s Batman. This discontinuity would confuse the audience–how could there be two Jokers, especially with completely different origins and behaviors? Simple, this was a new series that had nothing to do with the previous films. But it wasn’t a remake of the 1989 movie because, while based on the same source material, it told a completely different story. They needed a new way of explaining what they were doing–hence the cribbing from the computer world.

Audiences bought it. They understood that the series was being “rebooted,” meaning that the old was being erased and a new “operating system” was being written in its place. The old series still existed, but this was a different take on the Batman mythology. The problem was that since the word “reboot” worked in this case, people began adopting it to refer to every instance of a new version of a known product.

Superman Returns has been dubbed a "reboot", it's not! it's part of the same franchise and ignores 3 and 4, it's a retcon sequel as it's in the same franchise.

Now, every remake and sequel is called a reboot. Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is made by other people because the first one was deemed a bad movie, let’s call it a reboot to distance itself from the original! New versions of old horror movies are made and are dubbed “reboots,” even though they tell the same story as the original movies, though perhaps elaborating the story. Even though Halloween, Friday the 13th, and Nightmare on Elm Street all spawned multiple sequels, their “reboots” retold their origins. Guess what? Those are remakes, plain and simple. You can argue that the recent versions started the series over again, but unlike Batman Begins, they don’t do a completely different take on the material.

Even films like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I Spit on Your Grave, The Hills Have Eyes, Last House on the Left, The Crazies, Maniac, Robocop, Fright Night, Let Me In, the upcoming Overboard, the upcoming Big Trouble in Little China, the upcoming Lion King etc. are remakes, plain and simple.

A not so recent phenomenon is the act of rebooting a franchise. Ever since “Batman Begins” was a success, studios have increasingly been rebooting film franchises to introduce to new audiences. The way we defined a reboot and how often we used the word has also changed. At first it seem to make sense, “Batman Begins” and “The Amazing Spider-Man” all being labeled with the term, reboot. Why does that make sense? Well, because those movies are the restart of a preexisting franchise but also is not classified as a remake (which is a whole different thing entirely). “Batman Begins” is just starting a new franchise with the Batman character (it’s not a remake of the 1989 Tim Burton “Batman” film). Somewhere though we seem to lose our basic understanding of what this word actually means. Soon movies like “Robocop”, “A Nightmare on Elm Street” Started being labeled a reboot by countless film journalists and critics.

Recently I’ve noticed people labeling certain movies that are not reboots with the term, reboot. The latest “Nightmare on Elm Street” for example is simply a remake of the original 1984 Wes Craven film (not a reboot). The new version takes the original film and redoes it. Sure, they may be trying to start another franchise, but it is a remake first and foremost. I would make the same argument with the 2014 “Robocop”. It may have some changes to the story, but it’s the filmmakers are redoing the original 1987 story. The remake is not just taking the character and doing something completely different, it’s the same general story. It seems now the two words are used interchangeably when there is a distinction to be had.

True reboots are:

Casino Royale since it truly started the series from scratch, adapting the first James Bond book Ian Flemming wrote (the only time the book was accurately adapted for the big screen), and ignored everything that came before (though Judi Dench reprising her role as M was confusing in this context).

Spider-Man Homecoming did the Batman Begins route and ignoring 2 established series and being part of the MCU.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes due to the fact that it tells the origins of how the apes took over out world but in a completely different manner than the movie it closely emulates, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.

Star Trek is another example as it reboots the series back to basics in an alternate universe.

Man of Steel is another example that ignores the previous Superman movies even the retcon sequel Superman Returns. It is a new take on the Superman legend.

“Reboot” is a term that is not only incorrectly attributed to the wrong type of movies, but it is overused. It’s now jumped ship to other types of entertainment. Rather than use it as a catch-all for any adaptation, we need to return to using the correct terminologies

Once upon a time, there was a difference. But that was a long time ago.

Reboot is starting over. Remake is copying, a direct ode.

They can be, but that is a misuse of the term imo.

Friday the 13th isn't a remake imo. What is it a remake of? Friday the 13th: Part 2?

That movie is in a category by itself and a great example of how sequels, remakes and reboots have gotten way out of control.

You agree with everything i said?

So it's a remake of 4 movies in one? I have never heard of such a thing and didn't know the term remake could be applied that way, especially when it skips over most of the events in the original 1980 movie. Wikipedia refers to it as a re-imagining of the first 4 films and I am fine with that definition.

The Series of Unfortunate Events is a bad comparison imo, because there is no other definition of what it is besides an adaptation of the books.

This whole thread is about this exact topic and the differences between reboots, remakes, re-imaginings etc. and Friday the 13th (2009) is the perfect example of how these terms have been made almost useless for movies these days. What exactly is the point of combining the 4 best Friday the 13th movies into a movie that kind of acts like the original exists in the same world and sucks out everything that makes the first 4 movies as good as they can possibly be? This is why I am not comfortable calling this a remake. Looking on Google, most people don't consider it a remake.

What I mean is that the "remake" doesn't actually follow 90% of the events of the original fucking movie. It just picks up at the end right before the mother is killed. Thus the viewer may as well just pretend the original exists in the world of the 2009 movie, even if that isn't what the movie wants the audience to do. You certainly have a point in that people wouldn't flock to see Jason's mom in a movie these days but that is the MAIN reason it isn't a remake to me.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't consider remake and re-imagining the same thing, and if they technically are then I don't think they should be. Re-imaginings play fast and loose with the movies they are based on but still keep to the basic premise more or less. Remakes keep relatively close to the movies they are based on.

I don't understand how it can be considered a remake of the first 3 while ignoring most of the original movie. That makes NO sense to me. It's more a remake of just 2, 3 and 4, especially since the ending of the first movie is used in Part II.

I'll settle for accepting it as a remake of Part 2, Part III and Part IV.