Just because they got a new actor does not mean this is a "reboot". It has the same look and feel and general story as the other Transporter movies. It's a sequel.
You'd feel cocky too if you were full of myself.
It's a reboot because they're ignoring the other 3 movies and starting over... What would you have then call it?
shareIs that you, Mr. Besson? Anyways, from the IMDb trivia section:
"Instead of "The Transporter Legacy" being a fourth sequel which Frank Martin (Jason Statham) passes the role of Transporter onto another. Luc Beeson decided to reboot the franchise with Ed Skrein as Frank Martin and the film ignoring the previous films as if they never had happened."
In short, you're wrong. Next!
Owned
shareFunny they even tried to have the new guy TALK like Statham.
shareAnd how is that NOT overusing the term "reboot"?
Do you consider the James Bond movies to be "reboots" every time a new character takes over the role? How about when a new actor plays Jason in the Friday the 13th movies?
And I'm not finding an interview with Luc Besson where he says such a thing. You got a link for that or do you just believe unreferenced FAQs like they're gospel?
You'd feel cocky too if you were full of myself.
Those are both remarkably bad examples. I can't tell if you're just trying to troll. James Bond has been made for over 50 years. It was being replaced with actors before the term reboot was invented. James Bond is not the standard its the outlier. Nothing else is James Bond. And seriously, you name a movie where the main character wears a mask/and or makeup, hence never really showing the actors faces as a example?
This Transporter is a textbook reboot. I don't get why you're arguing this.
HAHA nice!!
If Refueled is a sequel as you say, then it is a lazy ass one, because almost all action scenes shown in the trailer are rip-offs of scenes from the first three movies.
It'll probably be a completely useless reboot/remake, just like Brick Mansions. At least they didn't re-use a main actor like in that turd.
They could have given him another name, as they did with the Highlander series. There could be more Transporters. Hey could be trained by the old Transporter.
Since they don't and even play funny with the rules of the first three ones, its clearly a "reboot".
Wait until they bring in the Hispanic-Black Spiderman Miles Morales into the franchise. I can already see how people will discuss "this isn't a reboot!"
Let the games begin.
I'm pretty tired of the term "reboot" being overused and misused. I do however think in this case it is being used correctly.
In my opinion a reboot is when a franchise is given a new film and is discarding all continuity to any other film in that franchise before it. An example would be Christopher Nolan's Batman films.
A sequel is a film that acknowledges the continuity of previous films in the franchise and is held to whatever back story has already been created.
Recasting a role does not make a sequel a reboot, many sequels have recast the lead roles or supporting roles and still adhere to the back story created in previous films in their franchise.
Lately there have been many films labelled "reboot" that are actually just sequels. I've heard Jurassic World, Transformers: Age of Extinction & Terminator Genysis all called reboots but all still hold continuity to previous films.
If this film does as it suggests it will, and ignore all previous Jason Statham installments, then it is a reboot.
[deleted]
The term 'reboot' shouldn't be used at all. It's an extremely stupid term that came out of embarrassment of the term 'remake'.In some instances, yes. In the case of, say, James Bond, when Daniel Craig took over, they did, in fact, Reboot the franchise.
[deleted]
The whole 'reboot' bull$#!t Hollywood term came about because they were embarrassed by the word 'remake'. Remakes have been happening since the beginning of storytelling.While true, it's also important to differentiate the meanings, as I did above.
[deleted]
Reboot only exists as means of differentiating. Reboot is the term used for a film series, while remakes are used for films that are not series.
HI-F___ING-YA
Nicholas Cage Deadfall
Films 2015: www.imdb.com/list/ls073224289/
[deleted]
At least with the recent Hitman movie, it is based on a source material which is free for readaption. It is like calling the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings movies remakes of the three animated versions (The Hobbit (1977), Lord of the Rings (1978), and Return of the King (1980). I have heard the term remake used for the recent Carrie and Total Recall movies, so it is not a completely dead term.
HI-F___ING-YA
Nicholas Cage Deadfall
Films 2015: www.imdb.com/list/ls073224289/
[deleted]
OP is correct. It is not a reboot. It's a prequel, thus why it does not acknowledge the previous films, since they haven't happened yet.
Transporter chronology goes like this:
The Transporter Refueled
Transporter 5
Transporter 6
The Transporter
Transporter 2
Transporter 3
Transporter: The Series
Cameron Diaz says marriage is dead. Marries a guy after 7 months. Drop it like it's legal precedent!
The director said it's a reboot...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
No he didn't...
Cameron Diaz says marriage is dead. Marries a guy after 7 months. Drop it like it's legal precedent!
I agree. Sick of it being used for almost everything.
TV Tropes
A Continuity Reboot is the partial or complete elimination of continuity from any and all previous works in a series. You could say it's the creation of an Alternate Universe that shares virtually little to no canon with the preceding works in a franchise. It's not a Reset Button or Snap Back: while those revert the continuity to a previous state, a Continuity Reboot starts over, providing the authors with a new clean slate to work on. In one form, as far as later works are concerned everything before it is in Canon Discontinuity (to which it sometimes overlaps).
Don't like the terminology, create a new word then.
When theres no more room in Hollywood, remakes shall walk the Earth.share