The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

There are a rash of new movies coming out based on old properties.  They aren't reboots, yet they are sequels to earlier films that discount previous sequels to other films.

This is happening with Halloween -- a 2018 version that includes Jamie Lee Curtis only counts the first Halloween as canon.
A new Terminator movie is only counting T1 and 2, while discounting T3, Salvation, & Genesis
And a new Robocop may try to cast Peter Weller again, but to only serve as a direct sequel to the first one.

I don't know how I feel about this.  Of these franchises, I'm not super into the canon.  I do really like the first couple of Terminators, but am weary of just doing whatever in stories because you can undo it later.  ...seems kinda comic-booky in a way....reduces stakes.

I'm not sure how it is any different than a reboot. I mean ... they are choosing to change whatever they do not see as a viable part of the story so they remove it and start back up where they feel necessary.

Personally I dislike the idea of a reboot but I take them on a case by case and some have turned out pretty good.

These terms are all kinda similar, but how I understand them:

A remake is when you do the same story again but start the canon over.  It's generally the same or similar narrative.  Like...they remade Willy Wonka, True Grit, Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

A reboot is for a series when you re-envision the property or you give a fresh start to new fans.  This may happen within current canon or establish new canon.  It's usually new stories/new setting/new tone, but with known characters. Batman Begins, Star Trek, Casino Royale, Rise of the PLanet of the Apes.

A legasequel is when you are essentially creating a new starting point that continues larger canon, but doing so using some of the original actors to pass the torch to new faces: Jurassic World, The Force Awakens, Creed, Terminator Genesis

This new trend is a little bit different.  It's within canon and it's a direct sequel to another story.  But it's one that discounts other elements of that canon.  I suppose it's possible to be more than one of these things.

Given that Abrams' Star Trek used an original actor (in his original role) to pass the torch, wouldn't it be the latter instead of the former?

In a series of movies where time travel is part of the canon, I think we should expect part of other story lines to disappear as part of the time travel interference.

This falls under:

I generally don't have any interest in these type of movies...I did like the Star trek reboots,but I feel like those are more of exceptions...

It depends on the reboot/sequel.  Some of them suck outright, some of them were actually pretty well done.