We have several rebooted franchises now - Batman, Superman, Star Trek, etc. But would this terminology be used in 1997? I was a teenager then, and I don't recall it being used. I don't even recall it being used for the new Battlestar Galactica series, and that was years later. But I didn't follow that one, really, at all. So, does anyone know when the expression became popular? And is there an equivalent expression in 1997?

Ooops. Sorry, did I just make you dizzy with all that rapid topic jumping?

I moved this into SR because I couldn't see a connection to fanfic. Then immediately afterwards the 1997 jumped out at me.

Moved it back now and going to go lie down in a quiet, darkened room for a spell...

LabRat :-)

Yes, if the term was in use in 1997, I'd like to use it. It's something any reader would immediately understand. But I just don't really think it's that old. At least, not as a widespread term. So, if it's not that old, I have to come up with different terminology. I suppose I could just say "different continuity" but I just don't think that's the way your average person would convey the idea.

My initial thoughts are that the phrase 'rebooting the franchise' is quite recent, but the word 'reboot' has been used for much longer. I'm pretty sure it was used in reference to the Crisis on Infinite Earths/John Byrne Man of Steel DC shakeup in 1985.

It's the 'franchise' part of it that just doesn't seem quite right to me.

Well, "reboot" on its own is fine enough. I really only included the "franchise" bit for clarity. And because I was thinking of an episode of Leverage at the time. I wasn't aware "reboot" had been used the CoIE at the time.

"Reboot" definitely has been around for a while. It was used for ST:NG when it started up back in 1987. It's been used for other 'verses as well, possibly Dr. Who. Maybe even far enough back to 1978 "Superman" with Chris Reeve (which was a reboot for a different generation, who didn't know about the George Reeves AoS or the Superman Serials with Kirk Alyn). I believe they used the term for the 2000 X-Men movie (even though there hadn't been a previous "movie" -- maybe it was even the start of "reboot the franchise" because it drew in a new audience unfamiliar with the comic books). I agree that "franchise" would be a more of modern term. There's even a page in Wikipedia dedicated to the term, which I can't link to because of the parenthesis. (Go to Wikipedia and do a search for 'Reboot (fiction)' to pull it up - and even IT has "Superman" has the original Superman movie :rolleyes: WRONG!).

Even in it's own way LnC:NAoS is a "reboot" of the Superman canon and a good one at that, because nothing much happened live-action wise between Superman:IV (1987) and LnC:NAoS (1993). The franchise really needed the shot of adrenaline Dean Cain brought to the role (especially after mullet Superman/Clark Kent of the 80s and the DOA SM:IV). LnC really was the shot in the arm of the Superman franchise which kick-started the Superman animated boon of the 90s and beyond, which led to Smallville, Superman Returns, and Man of Steel.

But it's not a reboot...at least, not in today's terminology.

Sure. I knew reboots were older, I just didn't know when the term came in.

Do you mean, because it has a new set of characters? It's a reboot of the "Star Trek Franchise" or universe, if not the original crew of the Enterprise.

I disagree. At least, as I've always heard the term, "reboot" means new continuity. TNG did not have a new continuity. It built on the existing continuity. At least for me, "reboot" only applies if the old continuity is erased (and still counts as a reboot if the new continuity is strikingly similar, as with the vast majority of the repeat origin stories). The old continuity cannot still be part of continuity and the new story be a reboot, IMO. TNG is like a sequel series. Like The Phantom Menace is a prequel series. One leads to to the other - they are both in the same continuity/universe (they even had McCoy and Scotty in episodes). I'd call TNG "reviving" the franchise, but not "rebooting."

Perhaps we should call it "updating" the old software, instead of "rebooting".