That’s not a reboot (a term that’s lost almost all meaning thanks to overuse in circumstances where it doesn’t even apply), but otherwise makes sense. If that is what they mean though, why use “requel” to describe something when “legacy sequel” is both more meaningful and already fairly well understood?

Well, yeah, I know. I’m whining about them doing that, not you quoting them.

So, a sequel must bring back every character from earlier entries otherwise it’s a requel? In the case of Ghostbusters, apparently despite Reitman coming out immediately after Afterlife to announce that he wants Afterlife 2 to bring back Vigo (because god forbid there be a third ghost that needs busting).

Ah, I’ve not seen Scream 5 (and it’s still a terrible term). But I was under the impression that it doesn’t ignore 2 through 4 — it may not specifically refer to them, but they all still happened. I mean, isn’t the same creative team bringing back Hayden Panettiere’s character from 4 in the new one?

You don’t have to stop at the three words I suggested. You can use more to explain what subcategory of remake/reimagining/sequel you’re talking about.

“Requel”? Fuck right off.

In the game, there’s a significant time jump between Joel getting injured and when we next see him in the basement, so he’s had some time to start to heal — at least a few weeks, I’d say, although it doesn’t present a firm timeline. There’s even a bonus chapter set in the gap, where they spend some time in an…

That’s more than a little harsh. Obstacles are gameplay. It’s not lazy (or “lazy”), and The Last of Us games have relatively little violence, with long stretches of no action at all, although it’s notably ugly and brutal when it does happen.

(played by Troy Baker, who voiced Joel in The Last of Us video games)

If Guggenheim attempted to proactively get a meeting or a job interview and Gunn/Safran refused to even sit down with him then yeah, that’s pretty shitty of them.

The problem is, it’s really, really hard to do that, especially in real time.

I guess, but the extra words aren’t really making up for the lack of visual cues. His dialogue rarely has a great deal of personality to it, it’s just consistently wordier than it needs to be considering the type of character he’s being sold as.

Mainly it showed that Star Wars is still Star Wars when it isn’t full of the clunkiest dialogue you’ve ever heard.

“not everybody is knowledgeable about basic Star Wars mythology”

“Realistic” is the wrong word. The problem is it doesn’t have flow and rhythm, it has awkward and clumsy phrasing, and far too much repetition (we know this conversation is about Mandalore, Jon, they don’t have to name it in every single sentence). It’s not miles away, it just feels like it’s missing a final polish to…

That’s not it. I can see what they’re going for with Mando’s dialogue, I just think Favreau’s not particularly good at it.

relaying expository information as brusquely and barely as possible.

You mean the timetable they announced.

Neither Lovecraft nor Poe had any children to form estates, and virtually all of their work is in the public domain anyway.

Just to set expectations, this is a standalone thing. Given Alvarez is in the director’s chair, it’s likely a mid-budget back-to-basics horror flick. It’s separate from the continuation of Prometheus and Covenant that Scott wants to do.