I suspect these reboots are to appeal to Gen Ys and Zs - fair enough if that's what the studios think will create a generous audience share. Those who watched the original don't really have to watch this remake - which is my argument for any reboot: you're not compelled to watch it if you think it will be total pants compared to your version (which could in itself be a reboot)
As indeed it was with
Buffy, which was a reboot of the 1992 movie in a new continuity (according to Joss Whedon, he considered his original shooting script for the movie to be canon, not the movie itself which was heavily rewritten and moved away from the tone he wanted for it).
A restart not a reboot. That's the way to go.
In Hollywood terms a "reboot" means to resume production of a franchise, usually after a long wait or a naturally-expected pause (the various Batman and James Bond reboots are usually fairly frequent because it's expected of the character that he will be rebooted every few movies). A reboot can be either a remake in a new canon or continuity (as with
Battlestar Galactica or the upcoming
Charmed) or a continuation of the original story after a long pause (as with
Doctor Who,
X-Files and
Twin Peaks) or some way of combining both (as with the JJ Abrams
Star Trek movies).
The situation with
Buffy currently appears to be unclear: it may be a new canon with a new Slayer character who may or may not be called "Buffy", or it may be a "Next Generation" kind of story. I don't consider the latter very likely, given the practical issues in getting the actors involved (particularly having to explain why Angel and Spike have clearly aged 15 years since the last time we saw them on screen) and also the fact that such a story would distract from the new Slayer character and might turn off potential new fans who see it as something more of interest to their parents.
