People vs. Reboots Part 2: Clarification

In my Article "People vs. Reboots" I said things along the lines of not comparing reboots to the original. This was taken the wrong way by many, and I'm sorry for the confusion. Yes, comparing reboots to the original is inevitable, but in a review, there should be no place for it unless you do it right.

If you use comparisons between the original film and the reboot within your review of the reboot, then your comparison should NEVER be the deciding factor of if the reboot is good or bad. The comparison can be the deciding factor of which is better, but the how you score the quality of the film, should be of how well the film itself is, not how better or worse it is compared the original. To simplify, you should never do this in a review of a reboot: Original > Reboot, so Reboot = Pile of sh*t.

If you do compare the reboot to the original in the review of the reboot, it should be done fairly, like this: Original >or< Reboot, but my score of the film = how well of a film it is.

Also, keep in mind that your love for the original films, should not be a reason to hate the reboot of it. As I said in my original article, nothing, absolutely nothing will happen to the original film, just because a good or bad reboot exist. There is not a film that exist that is "too perfect" that someone else cannot show there vision of the comicbook character(or whatever they are rebooting). I can understand you being mad, that an ongoing franchise is getting rebooted, but you should not hate the rebooted films for that fact. For example, if the Marvel Cinematic Universe was going to get rebooted after the Avengers, I'd be mad, because I wanted to see how everything ended in it's continuity; I would not be mad at the rebooted films themselves though. If I hate the films, it's because I actually thought the quality of the films were sh*t, not because I'm mad the MCU got rebooted.