The PR jumble that has been Spider-Man 4 is now steadied, as Columbia takes it in a new direction. Whether that direction is a smart choice is not so clear.

A man that in the past year launched one of the most successful reboots in movie history is speaking about the production. JJ Abrams, in a perfectly legit string of reasoning, is wondering how they can reboot a property that didn't actually go dormant. He catches himself before he really takes any shots at his collegues, but his instinctual response is still genuine. Spider-Man came out in 2002, its sequel in 2004, and its third in 2007.

So that calls into question the definition of the term 'reboot.' The Hollywood buzzword was first used to describe a franchise that was made into a contemporary feature after it had remained idle over a select period of time (as in how the last Star Trek film came out in 1996 before the reboot in 2009). Now, with this incantation of the word, it simply means bringing the franchise in a 'new' direction, with no concern for how recently the property had been tapped.

Is it really fair to call this a reboot? (This guy even calls James Bond a rebooted property.) There seems to be another word that would be appropriate. What about something like 'revamp'? Vampires are cool now. It could catch on. Or 'reset'? It's a techie term, and you know how people love their gadgets. Or even 'revision' - it is a visual art.

The point is that you can't compare the emergence of Spider-Man 4 with what Abrams did for the Trek franchise. Another linguistic path is required.

Broke by sdotc • Read more • Permalink