Hi,

I agree that they are on the same franchise, but because they are reboots and not a follow up of the original movies they belong in a own collection. You can see it as a different time-line, with the same story but different environment .

So what? Continuity doesn't matter in this case. That's the point of reboots. What a reboot is is basically an installment (or more) in a franchise that breaks and ignores continuity. They still belong in the same franchise because they're reboots and what collections on this site should be is compilations of parts of film franchises. The Friday the 13th Collection has the 2009 reboot in it, so does the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, and RoboCop, Evil Dead etc.

That is the reason, there is no continuity. The movies are a reboot, a new start. So there are two different sets of movies available they belong in two different collections. Tmdb is not reflecting franchises at all, collections suppose to reflect sequels. We can not prevent at the moment that reboots gets mistakenly added to the original series. But the admin is working on that. As long there is no sequel for the reboot, the reboot stays on its own until there is a follow up available.

The fun part that you added the parts to all the collections.

Reboots ARE technically sequels! Reboots are sequels that break continuity. And yeah I read that guide, did you read the line "collections are not intended to be a way of grouping movies of the same "universe". Because that's what you're doing. On Wikipedia, the 2007 Halloween film is referred to as "the ninth installment of the Halloween franchise", and only sequels and reboots (which are also technically sequels) can be franchise installments. Nothing in that editing guide you linked said anything about TMDB not reflecting franchises. "Sequels are generally the only valid criteria" Exactly, that's what a franchise is: sequels, regardless if those sequels are reboots of the series they're a part of. What that guide meant is that if one of the films in the collection got remade or if there's a movie that's related to the films but isn't actually a part of the franchise or if there's a movie that's somehow connected in another way it shouldn't be included. Reboots ARE sequels that ignore the universe already established in previous films, AND AGAIN "collections are not intended to be a way of grouping movies of the same "universe".

I don't agree on that. Reboots are a completely new movies that have just a similar name and are about the same content. You need to understand that there is a difference between a franchise of a movie and the movie itself. A franchise is a brand and has nothing to do with the content of a movie and that is what tmdb is focusing on. Tmdb is not merging movies out of different universes like you are trying to do. There are two different movie collections they falling under the same brand (franchise) and have nothing to do with each other except the similar title. The new Star Trek movies are an good example how it works, even paramount explains it with the same crew but a different universe and that is the reason why two Spocks can co-exist. The better way to put all movies together like you wanna do is under a list. Here you free to put everything together.

You clearly don't know what a reboot is then. Neither do you understand what a franchise is. "In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate a character, timeline, and/or backstory from the beginning" - Wikipedia (you know, the credible source, not based off of opinions). --->in an established series>--- In other words, EN ENTRY in a film series or franchise that breaks continuity and doesn't follow the plot from the previous movie(s). It's still a part of the series whether it's canonical or not.

On another note, a franchise is film series (or game series, regardless) that has spawned it's own merchandise (video game tie-ins, comic books, novelizations). That's what a franchise is (also Wikipedia). For example: there are three installments in the Lord of The Rings franchise, but there are movies based on the same books that came before it. Are those movies a part of that franchise? No. Only those three installments + additional merchandise form a "franchise". A franchise is not a bunch of movies that are related nor is a franchise just "a brand". Halloween 07 is the NINTH Halloween installment, Halloween II 09 is the TENTH Halloween installment REGARDLESS of not following the story. A reboot is the only thing that can be an installment in a series besides sequels, because they technically are sequels. Seriously, just look it up. If those 2 Halloween movies were a start of a new franchise that is inspired by the already existing franchise, then yes, it should get it's own collection. Reboots are a part of a franchise, they are NOT "different movies they under the same brand (franchise) and have nothing to do with each other except the similar title". I don't know how I could possibly make this any clearer. And I don't even know what "franchise of a movie" you mentioned means.

"Tmdb is is not merging movies out of different universes like you are trying to do." Now look what the guide you posted said: "collections are not intended to be a way of grouping movies of the same "universe"." This guide keeps contradicting you even though you posted it. You have a right to have interpretations and opinions on what a reboot is or what a franchise is but you are totally twisting that editing guide you posed and you shouldn't base everything on your own misinterpretations and opinions. I'm not entirely sure why Star Trek franchise is split into 3 parts especially since "Generations" isn't even a reboot or whatnot and it was split. It's a sequel. So bringing that up in this discussion doesn't make any sense and is irrelevant. I guess since the Star Trek films series is divided in 3 eras by the fans so if they wanna make 3 different collections, fine. It's pretty much the only exception on this website from what I've noticed. On the other hand, this is not the case with Halloween and all 10 films should be together. ALL other collections on this site have reboots in them, but I guess they're all wrong and you're right? Seems unlikely. That guide never said anything about collections not forming franchises, you just thought so because you don't really get what a franchise is. A franchise in this case is just a synonym for "film series", and collections are supposed to be parts of film series. It is complicated but when you've spent time studying the media industry like I have it's not really that confusing.

Yeah on one point you are right, I am not sure what you try to achieve here. You are discussion the franchise over and over again and I try to tell you that TMDB doesn't cover franchise at all. You can do it in a List if you want. Even if it is not clearly written for you down, but it is like that believe me. That is the reason why the most collections are as they are, even if there are glitches here and there because we can not monitoring it probably and lock collections to prevent that somebody is adding new parts. In the future we will lock them.

Nobody is arguing here about the franchise, but it seems like that is your only point here. TMDB is summarizing collections by sequels and usually there is a new collection after a reboot. You can interpret the guide how ever you want, there is nothing written about franchise and that has a reason and just because Wikipedia is doing it like that, doesn't mean that tmdb has do to it the same way.

"Usually there is a new collection after a reboot." Not really. From what I've seen that isn't true at all. TMDB collections do cover franchises and It's a double edged sword you know, because for example a third or fourth installment in a franchise doesn't have to be a "sequel" but it's still going to be a part of a collection; There are a lot of films that don't have anything to do with previous films in the franchise yet they're there. Take Halloween III as an example from this collection. Absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the series but it's still here. So no, films don't have to follow continuity or be in the same "universe" to be in the same collection, and that's what I'm trying to prove. I mean, I have OCD, I know a lot about aligning. " Just because Wikipedia is doing like tat, doesn't mean that tmdb has do to it the same way." Okay but Wikipedia has sourced, reliable info and it's not just a matter of opinion what a franchise is because there's an actual definition. Meaning, most TMDB collections do cover franchises (by definition) and I've only seen one example where there's a new collection after a reboot, and it's this, and the collection isn't complete because installments 9 & 10 aren't in it. Reboots SHOULD be parts of collections because they're like that everywhere else. That's all.

Users starting collections and the moderators are checking them if they in accordance with the rules. Probably the moderator who is checking it, has his own opinion how to deal with it. I wrote to the Admin to get some clarification in that matter.

To call Wikipedia a source is also quite dangerous, Wikipedia is also driven by users. I would see it as a source, but for sure not to get a validation against something. There are a lot collections they following the same principal: Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Star Trek, to call just few.

I see on some examples that we are not as consistent as we should be, but I guess that we can fix after the admin gives his comment..

All those new Batman, Superman and Spiderman films are all merely new film series based on the same superhero story and are wrongly billed as reboots by people who don't know what that means so they don't even count. The new Batman or Superman movies weren't installments of any franchises so you can't really argue.

And ugh, what I'm saying is that it's CORRECT that reboots should included in film series collections like they have so far because they are generally parts of said series. And really, editing on Wikipedia isn't really as easy as it seems, you do have to source everything. Several times. And the pages get strictly reviewed constantly. So it's not that simple to make something up there.

Who is deciding it when it is a reboot or not when it belongs into an own collection and when not? I think the main user is not interested in that detail, they just want to see a collection, so that it gets displayed in one of their tools - like xbmc. You raising that to an level where it is difficult to get sources to validate when it is a reboot or not.

I never said I don't understand where you are coming from. The point is that here are regulations and some of them are not under the guide they are just internally. The collections getting handled like that before I even started here and you are not the first person with a request like that.

Very well. I am aware regular users are not interested in details and that they just want to see a collection, but clearly most people think reboots should be parts of collections, since they keep adding them. And the editing guide is really not very coherent. Look at the main rule: "Sequels are generally the only valid criteria". So what about prequels? Should prequels get their own collections as well? They don't. Why? Because they're parts of a franchise and people automatically add them in that collection. Same with reboots. It's this "rule" that's making it very complicated and confusing on this site, and we're being left with hundreds of unnecessary collections when we could merge a lot of them in one film series collection in which they belong.

Hi,

I don't think Mec!as was a moderator when these type of discussions were occurring frequently. Much of the discussion forum was lost so he does not have access to archives that would help him clear up some misunderstandings.

They still belong in the same franchise because they're reboots and what collections on this site should be is compilations of parts of film franchises

Your opinion is noted.

The Friday the 13th Collection has the 2009 reboot in it, so does the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, and RoboCop, Evil Dead etc.

This is a red herring. There too often exists Walt Disney's Classics Collection, Bruce Lee Collection, Alfred Hitchcock Collection, Universal Monsters Collection, etc. Citing collections where users did not follow the guidelines, or collections that contain films who have unclear relationships in a film series paradigm does not do anything to support your argument. It only demonstrates that some people don't read the guidelines; the guidelines may be unclear, or that some people don't care. Many of those collections you cite have removed the reboot, only to be re-added by users who're either ignorant or uncaring of the guidelines. In my experience these users think collections should reflect their own personal preference to display their sets on XBMC. I think the fact that this still happens despite moderation correction is an indicator that the ticket to lock collection adding on controversial collections should be expedited.

Reboots ARE technically sequels! Reboots are sequels that break continuity

It seems like your case rests entirely on the shaky premise that a reboot is a hard fast sequel.

Since you are using Wikipedia as an authority,

"A reboot is a type of sequel which technically is not a sequel. It means that a franchise begins anew, as if the earlier entries in the franchise did not exist.[13]" (emphasis mine).

For all intents and purposes, read the word 'franchise' as 'film series' in that statement only because TMDB collections are a group of sequels within the same film series. A reboot begins a new film series, hence a different collection.

But clearly most people think reboots should be parts of collections, since they keep adding them.

In my experience as a moderator here this isn't clear to me at all. How do you know this? Better yet, why is what most people think relevant. Facts are not dictated by popular opinion.

And yeah I read that guide, did you read the line "collections are not intended to be a way of grouping movies of the same "universe".

I think that guide is almost based verbatim on the guide I wrote in the forum. Unfortunately, a lot of detail was left out for the sake of brevity. IIRC, we had pragmatic definitions of sequel and film series. We had several examples of acceptable and unacceptable collections. When that guide was written, the term "universe" was being thrown around a lot by users, but in discussions it was used interchangeably with franchise. Collections were not intended to be just a set of films in the same universe or franchise, but this does not mean franchise and collections are always mutually exclusive; it all depends on their relation to said film series.

Franchise is not equivalent to a film series.

For instance all DC Comics s Superman films are part of the Superman franchise. These include any animated feature films, live-action films from the 1950s up to the current era, and a Supergirl film. Within that franchise there are distinct film series, such as Superman (1978) to Superman Returns (1996?), and the new Man of Steel film series with the recent announcement of a sequel. This is is the differentiation between a franchise and a film series, and this is how we choose to define our collections. It's not perfect, and admittedly there are a few grey areas where the demarcation of a film series is not so clear cut, but those are always exceptions not the rule.

Look at the main rule: "Sequels are generally the only valid criteria". So what about prequels? Should prequels get their own collections as well? They don't. Why? Because they're parts of a franchise and people automatically add them in that collection.

A prequel is a subset of a sequel. Whether it gets its own collection depends on its relation to said film series. There are collections where prequels are part of a film series, and those where they are not. The first example that comes to mind is The Hobbit Collection. The Hobbit films are a prequel to Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and it is a distinct film series, hence it has its own collection.

I don't have enough time to go through every point, and to be honest most of your points have been addressed in the past several times. Unfortunately, those discussions may or may not exist anymore since the data loss, but it wouldn't hurt to query the forum search form.

The Friday the 13th Collection has the 2009 reboot in it, so does the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, and RoboCop, Evil Dead etc.

I noticed you added those films to their collections on the same day you posted this, as well as modifications to the overview. Please don't do that anymore.

Also, if you're going to modify the overview, please make it a vague description of the film series plot, not a verbal filmography of the collection contents, and do not wipe acceptable overviews with nothing, as you did with this Halloween collection.

Thanks

Okay. You're moderators/admins on this site, you have a right to do what you want with it. It's really just that if collections weren't supposed to reflect franchises or film I don't see what's the point of them. "Franchise is not equivalent to a film series." Yes it is, if it's licensed and has it's own merchandise. A franchise is always ONE film series + additional products. I've been editing Wikipedia for years and I know about franchise articles and the definition of a franchise.

"A reboot begins a new film series, hence a different collection." Not quite. It continues the film series - albeit installment wise and not plot wise. That's the only difference. But technically they still ARE additions to the film series. What a reboot means is a sequel that ignores previous films in a series, it doesn't have to be a start of a new film series or whatnot, since other installments may ignore than film afterwards, but it's still a part of a film series.

And again, technically Spider-man and Batman aren't "franchises" per se, they are licensed characters. If The Dark Knight trilogy got it's own comic book line or video games (which I think it has) and "Dark Knight "became a registered trademark, not just the character but the films itself including the merch, it would be a franchise of it's own. Most people have an entirely false interpretation of a franchise, and give it a too broad meaning. But alright, there's really just no point in discussing this anymore clearly. And to be fair, majority of users do not read the guide and simply edit the collections and add films based on their film series entry position, it would be a lot more convenient if that was made a rule instead of just the "sequel only" policy. But there's no point in arguing. I'll just go back to other websites now then.