Giving The Boot to the Re-boot

'Ghostbusters' 2016's Worst Re-boot

Hollywood seems to be scrounging to find other names besides 're-boot' and 're-make' to describe cloned films. Re-boots and re-makes are common fare in filmdom.  Every other movie seems to be an up-dated copy of a prior product and, in most cases, turns out to be a degradation from the original.
'True Grit' comes to mind as a very poor re-make that doesn't measure up to the original in script or acting.

The studios have now deemed that the monikers 're-make' and 're-boot' are verboten and don't describe a film's true value - as the terms invoke the idea of copy or clone, the un-new. In contrast, a sequel is a continuation of a story. A prequel, about what happened before. There are many sequels but prequels are used sparingly by studios. The most famous being the 'Star Wars' saga (which can be somewhat confusing after 8 or them). Sequels and prequels must have good continuity. Re-makes, however must provide an improved script, better surroundings and special-effects, and better acting - and why not, they have the original to improve upon.

Some films have been re-booted twice or even three times, ala 'Spider-Man' and 'The Hulk'. Hollywood is quick to point out that re-boots are not copies but fresh and improved versions, like the 'Ben Hur' re-boot currently in release - it was marketed as a "re-work". Semantics? Perhaps 're-hash' is a better term.

Audiences are getting fed-up and really tired with film-makers throwing-up old content and re-packaging it in worse form than the original.  A well constructed and scripted/acted re-boot can make for a great film but simply providing cosmetic changes to an old dog never works.

For now, it appears that Hollywood is intent upon dishing-out a continuous stream of cloned, and in many cases, inferior copies of prior films.  They can call it a 're-work' or a 're-new' but audiences are smart and they are 're-assigning' their entertainment priorities away from the 're-boot'.