I hate these kinds of headlines: technically correct, but (intentionally?) misleading.
I haven’t read this particular article, but I have been following the coverage coming out of CinemaCon. No, this reboot (which is implied to be a straight-up sequel, like Jurassic World) does not involve the same magical board game from the Robin Williams flick. Instead, the heroes (four high school stereotypes) get sucked into a cursed video game, and have to fight their way through the jungle while trapped inside the bodies of the playable characters they selected.
So it’s not just Jack Black dressed like a Safari Man. It’s Jack Black playing a “popular girl” inhabiting the digital avatar of a Safari Man. It’s not the exact same premise as the original, but I think it captures the spirit of it. And it’s not like Jumanji is some cinematic sacred cow (as much as I loved it when it was first released)–at worst, this one’ll be a guilty pleasure.
Tl;dr: Don’t trust super vague headlines. In fact, can glaring omissions be considered libel?