No to either of the definitions of that word. More like lightly frustrated. Hence, "pedantic nitpick."

Magnum PI 2.0 was a remake.

I think BSG was the reboot that really got people’s attention.

IMO, revival is taking the original cast and having them return in their respective roles but obviously a lot of time has passed. Something along those lines. A reboot is using the name of a known property and completely resetting everything with a new cast, plot lines, characters, etc. and maybe only retaining a few concepts or ideas from the original show or film.

Right? Those aren’t even reboots or revivals. The Star Wars sequels are just bad.

I have to admit, sometimes reboots DO work. I think we all get selective about reboots and don’t mind certain ones and hate others. The BSG reboot ended up pretty solid overall and I do own the entire set on disc. I think it and some other reboots work when the original show had a good idea or concept but poor execution. Or, the original was just outright bad or super cheesy. It’s reboots and sequels that just murder everything that was good about the original and/or completely suck that gives the whole idea a bad name. Usually, that’s what happens.

The words "bemused" and "nonplussed" fascinate me. They both have similar definitions (both being synonyms of "confused"), but are often used to mean "became mildly amused" and "unbothered" respectively. So when I'm reading a story or article and encounter one of those words, I'm never quite sure what the author means. And the context makes it difficult.

The English language is a living thing, and if people come up with new words or new meanings for old words, it is what it is. Living languages change, grow, and adapt.

Giving "reboot" a bit more thought, when you "reboot" a computer or application (and I suspect this is where Hollywood appropriated the term from), you don't really change anything. You just shut it down and give it a fresh start, stopping unnecessary processes, dumping caches, etc.

I think that, when the term is applied to entertainment properties, it means something similar, and it may or may not be a complete overhaul. A fresh start and a good jumping on point for new audiences.

Ergo, the 2005 Doctor Who series is a reboot. While it maintained the old 1963-1989/1996 continuity it still offered new and old viewers a fresh start.

Likewise, the Jurassic World movies are also a reboot. Still the same continuity as Jurassic Park I-III, but a fresh angle with new characters.

The 2009 Star Trek was also a reboot -- a complete overhaul that still maintained one tie with the old continuity.

And 2004's Battlestar Galactica and Daniel Craig's James Bond were both reboots that completely ditched the old continuity and rebuilt everything from scratch. (Though if you subscribe to the "James Bond is a code name" Craig adds a bit more fuel to that theory, too.)

Even The Force Awakens would have been a reboot; a fresh start to the franchise that was essentially an in-continuity remake of A New Hope with a new cast.

It can mean either a complete remake or a sequel or something inbetween, but is still considered to be a good jumping on point for new viewers. Also explains why Hollywood tries to avoid putting numbers of sequel movies these days (see, Scream, Predator, Star Wars Sequel Trilogy).

it's probably a bit less apparent nowadays due to quick saves and Windows/Mac reloading programs and re-opening windows for you automatically, but a PC reboot literally wipes out the memory (RAM) and starts new. It used to be that people often lost data with an unscheduled or unexpected need to reboot due to a PC locking up. And on reboot, back when DOS and other simpler OSes ruled, it booted back up to square one: a cursor on a mostly blank screen.

So maybe some of the meaning of reboot for movies/TV has gotten fuzzy due to the meaning for PCs getting fuzzy.

Patrick Willems did a series of videos on what he calls "Legacy Sequels," i.e. movie sequels that come out 10-years or more after the previous film in the series, and he does get into how some of them operate like remakes of the original:

Animated series in development according to Fillion

Makes the most sense and was the most speculated thing it could be.

Yeah, probably the easiest thing to do at this point, it's been 20 years since the movie and that Firefly universe doesn't seem like it would be as open to a soft re-launch as something like Star Trek was (if you'll recall, when TNG was launched, it was sold as a continuation of the original series, but for the first two seasons they tried not to reference too many TOS era concepts to let it be its own thing).

Weren't there comics done for this time period already though? Will they use them as stories or be like Star Wars did when Disney bought it and dump them all?

Instagram post from Fillion and the cast. Yes it's in the works, but it doesn't have a network or streaming service. Pitching the fans to draw parties.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DV6Js...RlODBiNWFlZA==

a lot of hype for nothing.

animated? meh.

not even picked up? double meh.

and if Wash is involved it's likely a prequel thing before Serenity. triple meh.

Flashbacks and animal/robot voices?

I am far less excited about the potential Morena Baccarin nude scene now.

You'll always have Death in Love and Homeland.

Not to me it doesn’t. That’d be a terrible idea. IMO.

This is the problem with trying to rekindle or regurgitate old stuff. Two major characters that helped make the show are gone. Can’t just flick a switch and recast them. Just no.

And yeah, Jewel Staite was a babe and a half back when this show aired. Last time I saw her, she looked like she went to the same guy that butchered Michael Jackson. What the….?????

Nope.

Oh gawd. Prequels shmequel. Animated, bleh.

Oh, now wait….

The animated series is set between season 1 and the movie, so Wash and Book are still alive. Alan Tudyk is confirmed as back.

For Book, he had already left the crew by the time of the movie, so they could just have him already gone, like the way the movie started, with a reference to him having just left, and then they just don't visit him the whole show. Maybe some offhand comments about letters or other communiques they get from him from time to time. However, they also could recast. It happened with Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films, and Slinky Dog in the Toy Story films. It's not ideal, but it's sometimes necessary, and it'd be better than trying to resurrect the actor via CGI/Deepfake/AI like some film franchises have done with actors/characters, even though in this case they'd only need to replicate his voice. Characters have been recast for voice acting for animated series before, like The Real Ghostbusters, or really most animated series based on films.

I have no objection to either, recasting or respectfully leaving the character out.

There will be no quicker way to make me bail than using AI. That is the single most disrespectful way to go about it.

I'm okay with recasting Book if need be, being animated makes that easier to swallow.

But I'm also seeing that Whedon isn't involved, anybody else see that?

Nathan FIllion stated in his Instagram video announcement that he's gotten Whedon's "blessing" to continue, so that, along with the announcement of other showrunners, suggests that no, Whedon will not be directly involved. As far as I know, he's still considered toxic in Hollywood, so no network or streaming service would pick up the show if he was involved.

The new showrunners, Marc Guggenheim (DC’s Legends of Tomorrow, Arrow) and Tara Butters (Agent Carter, Reaper) , both worked on Firefly, and actually met on that show and are now married.

Full Deadline article has more info:
https://deadline.com/2026/03/nathan-...nt-1236754122/

Yep, Fillion said they had his blessing but they have two other showrunners lined up.

Dang, I watched the announce video, and I recognized every cast member but her. I had to look up the original cast list to figure out who she was,

Football is a rough sport and takes its toll on a person's body, cut her some slack.

Are you blind?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVcZsvzD8Qb/

This one even has a picture of her during Firefly and a live video.

https://www.instagram.com/jewelstaite/reel/DV1MKHJkcD-/

Maybe some botox but that's someone aging gracefully.

I watched the show when it originally aired on Fox, bought the complete series dvd on the day it was released, and saw Serenity opening night, and I feel that it's time has passed and they need to let it die. Since its parent company isn't automatically picking it up for Hulu so I cannot imagine another company wanting to try making it happen for a third time after it has already failed for two other studios.

Whedon was "mean" to an employee. Allegedly. Maybe. So they said. And this claim took place during the famous Pound-Me-Too movement time frame where it seemed everyone was harassed or bothered by something or someone. Glad thats over. Really though, Whedon really didnt do anything and wasnt convicted of anything in any court. I dont see why hes a problem and isnt directly involved with this new show. Its his baby.


Maybe some botox? Umm - nothing graceful about it. She looks way off to me. Whatever though. If you think she looks good then fine with me.