I just need to vent about this as I see terms tossed around the interwebs and get annoyed. Maybe I am alone here but I feel these words have pretty firm and distinct definitions and they are misused frequently. I have seen Episode VII referred to a reboot many times now. It is a sequel, not a reboot. Perhaps we can add that it is a revival to distinguish this sequel from others that are released closer to their predecessor. But it is most certainly not a reboot. A sequel is a continuation in an existing universe that acknowledges and builds upon previous work. A reboot tosses out previous work to start over fresh. The Amazing Spiderman would be a reboot since it discarded all the Tobey Macguire movies entirely. A remake is where the story is basically just retold in either a modern setting with some minor tweaks (The Fly, for example) or a modern methodology. A version of Hamlet filmed 60 years ago is telling the same story as one shot last week. But their looks will be of their respective times. And then their is the subset of reboots where things get re-imagined. Battlestar Galactica fits that mold. It was the same basic story hitting many of the same major plot points from the original series. But there was more depth. The tone was much darker. And while they modernized the in-universe technology, the re-imagining inserted iconic pieces from the original into the new show's past. It was a really clever way of acknowledging the past without being saddled with all of it. But Episode VII is not a re-imagining. It is not a remake. It is not a reboot. It is a sequel.