'Star Trek' Needed A Reboot

TrekToday · September 1 2008, 11:46 PM

Too much focus on unimportant details is a sign of a need for a franchise revitalization according to Star Trek XI Producer Damon Lindelof.

As reported by Amctv.com, when the show becomes more about the details then the characters, it's time for a change. "I think it's like how with 'Batman,' it got to the point where there was more press about the nipples on the Batsuit than there was about the characters, and the franchise needed a reboot," said Lindelof.

But Lindelof had respect for Star Trek and its lengthy past. "I had a real reverence for the material, but more importantly, for the world and how special that world is, and how long it's persevered," he explained. "I watched a fair amount of the original and I really watched a lot of 'Next Generation.' The first series of meetings we had were along the lines of: What is the 'State of the Union' of Trek, and has it been brought to a place where people will resent our involvement because we're coming from the outside?"

In addition to the franchise, Lindelof has to deal with expectations and concerns from actors who were involved with the original Star Trek. One of them, William Shatner, was disappointed to not be included in Star Trek XI. "Mr. Shatner created Kirk, so I understand and sympathize with his feelings about what his role, or lack of a role, in our movie was," said Lindelof. "That being said, Kirk died. He fell down a cliff face. That made it incredibly challenging for us to tell the story we wanted to tell and figure out a way for William Shatner, who is now several years older than Kirk was when he died, to be in the movie. It's an incredibly ambitious movie on a technical scale. I can say with confidence that we achieved what we set out to achieve, and that's all you can ask for."

To read more, head to the article located here.

Dennis · September 2 2008, 12:38 AM

It certainly did need a reboot, or restart, or whatever imprecise term one wishes to use. Good on Lindelof for just putting that out there.

zenophite · September 2 2008, 01:49 AM

TrekToday wrote:

The first series of meetings we had were along the lines of: What is the 'State of the Union' of Trek, and has it been brought to a place where people will resent our involvement because we're coming from the outside?"

at which point they all looked at a few printed versions of Trek BBS "Bermaga" threads and said

"how much more hate could we really inspire with just one movie?"

Garrovick · September 2 2008, 02:18 AM

I'm sorry Mr. Damon Lindelof

You are mistaken

It did not.

It needed some one with imagination to go forward, to continue the saga.

However, your new movie will make a very nice purchase some day from the DVD bargin bin. Might even make the rainy Saturday afternoon DVD rental list from NetFlix.

zenophite · September 2 2008, 02:23 AM

^wow.

StarMan · September 2 2008, 02:31 AM

Garrovick wrote:

I'm sorry Mr. Damon Lindelof

You are mistaken

It did not.

It needed some one with imagination to go forward, to continue the saga.

Indeed. His name is JJ Abrams and that's precisely what he's doing.

Or are you suggesting the saga can only continue so long as it continues further into the fictional Trek timeline? That to me is a lack of imagination.

Dane_Whitman · September 2 2008, 02:41 AM

*sigh*

After Pegg's "Trek XI is not a reboot", now it's supposed to be a reboot again. Though I think 'reboot' and 'revitalization' are not necessarily the same thing. Guess we'll have to wait to see the picture to be sure, as all involved seem to be contradicting each other.

zenophite · September 2 2008, 02:49 AM

since they've got time travel and Nimoy in it, it seems obvious that it will be a "in-universe" reboot. Sort of like all those reset button episodes except without that final reset button.

Broccoli · September 2 2008, 03:03 AM

TrekToday wrote:

"I think it's like how with 'Batman,' it got to the point where there was more press about the nipples on the Batsuit than there was about the characters, and the franchise needed a reboot," said Lindelof.

So...Batman is in the movie? Awesome!

Dane_Whitman wrote:

*sigh*

After Pegg's "Trek XI is not a reboot", now it's supposed to be a reboot again. Though I think 'reboot' and 'revitalization' are not necessarily the same thing. Guess we'll have to wait to see the picture to be sure, as all involved seem to be contradicting each other.

It's a revitalization of a reboot with repercussions which was initially a rerun, but they rebooted it before revitalizing it which makes the canon rewind until it becomes recanon. Really.

Garrovick · September 2 2008, 03:41 AM

StarMan wrote:

Garrovick wrote:

I'm sorry Mr. Damon Lindelof

You are mistaken

It did not.

It needed some one with imagination to go forward, to continue the saga.

Indeed. His name is JJ Abrams and that's precisely what he's doing.

Or are you suggesting the saga can only continue so long as it continues further into the fictional Trek timeline? That to me is a lack of imagination.

That's fine, things change..

Just don't expect everyone to support this new vision and allow them their opinions.

My opinion, based on Enterprise and this new movie, Star Trek ended with Nemesis.

Dennis · September 2 2008, 03:49 AM

There was nothing left of Trek worth following up on. A restart/reboot/reimagining/whatever you want to call it is a good thing.

Brutal Strudel · September 2 2008, 04:03 AM

Starship Polaris wrote:

There was nothing left of Trek worth following up on. A restart/reboot/reimagining/whatever you want to call it is a good thing.

That's half right.

Tom Servo · September 2 2008, 04:07 AM

Well seeing as how trek became so big, expansive and detailed that it was becoming choked with its own facts and canon, a nice fresh outlook on things will be nice to see.

sidious618 · September 2 2008, 04:34 AM

Lindelof is completely correct.

Nerys Ghemor · September 2 2008, 04:41 AM

zenophite wrote:

since they've got time travel and Nimoy in it, it seems obvious that it will be a "in-universe" reboot. Sort of like all those reset button episodes except without that final reset button.

Now that really begs the question of what'll happen on the Trek lit front--think we'll get two separate continuities, or a whole hell of a lot of retconning to try and bring the two continuities into line with each other?

I kind of fall in the middle on this issue. I think a new continuity could be a very interesting thing and possibly even worthwhile as far as creating a successful movie and a show that will attract new fans.

On the other hand, I think the current continuity works very well as the basis for literature (both official lit AND unofficial fanfic). Not being under the same degree of time and budgetary pressures that a movie is, there's no reason, especially with resources like Memory Alpha and Beta available, that an author cannot do the research to work within the existing continuity. The intricacy is now very well suited to the written format, much like the extreme detail in the Star Wars: Expanded Universe continuity, or Tolkien's Middle Earth.

I personally say it should not have to be an either-or dilemma: why not simply have one "new continuity" for the movie, and officially hand over the old material (ENT, TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and the prior movies) to the writers at Pocket Book? It seems like it's been working its way in that direction already...let's just make it official.

zenophite · September 2 2008, 05:01 AM

^I've never been interested in tie-in literature for entertainment for many reasons so I wouldn't be able to say.

TJinPgh · September 2 2008, 05:57 AM

StarMan wrote:

Garrovick wrote:

I'm sorry Mr. Damon Lindelof

You are mistaken

It did not.

It needed some one with imagination to go forward, to continue the saga.

Indeed. His name is JJ Abrams and that's precisely what he's doing.

Or are you suggesting the saga can only continue so long as it continues further into the fictional Trek timeline? That to me is a lack of imagination.

From what we've bee told about the plot of this movie, there's very little imaginative about it.

Bad guys go back in time to kill our hero before he becomes one.

Sorry, but we've seen that story before. It's called Terminator. Most likely with a bit of Yesterday's Enterprise thrown in.

It's not even new to the Star Trek universe, let alone to movies or Sci-Fi.

Heck, Terminator even managed to find a way to fit Ahnold into the story three times, despite the fact that he dies in every one of them. He also manages to look older each time out, despite the fact that cyborgs don't age.

Yet, a movie with a $150m budget can't manage to do what DirecTV pulled off with Shatner for a fraction of the cost.

In contrast, New Voyages manages to pump out a couple of episodes a year that are far more creative than this, yet does it in a way that pays as much homage to the original as humanly possible without actually having Gene and the original cast there to do it.

Not that I'd likely pay to see that on the big screen either. But, at least their hearts are in the right place.

goldbug · September 2 2008, 06:03 AM

Garrovick wrote:

StarMan wrote:

Garrovick wrote:

I'm sorry Mr. Damon Lindelof

You are mistaken

It did not.

It needed some one with imagination to go forward, to continue the saga.

Indeed. His name is JJ Abrams and that's precisely what he's doing.

Or are you suggesting the saga can only continue so long as it continues further into the fictional Trek timeline? That to me is a lack of imagination.

That's fine, things change..

Just don't expect everyone to support this new vision and allow them their opinions.

My opinion, based on Enterprise and this new movie, Star Trek ended with Nemesis.

and there were those who didn't accept TMP either (THEY CHANGED THE UNIFORMS..DAMN THEM TO HELL!!)...and some who didn't accept WOK.(THEY CHANGED THE UNIFORMS..DAMN THEM TO HELL!)..some who didn't like Meyer Trek or Berman Trek etc...

such are rabid ate up fans...

I want to see Trek get back into the limelight it had from '79 to '96, before it got so tired and worn out. Remember from 74 to 79..there was no Trek of any kind..and the general public wanted to see it...now from '04 to '09 there has been no Trek of any kind...and there are stirrings that Joe Sixpack might just "check out that Star Trek movie"..

As long as the SPIRIT of the original is there, I'm all for a re-birth of the franchise...

TJinPgh · September 2 2008, 06:05 AM

Nerys Ghemor wrote:

On the other hand, I think the current continuity works very well as the basis for literature (both official lit AND unofficial fanfic). Not being under the same degree of time and budgetary pressures that a movie is, there's no reason, especially with resources like Memory Alpha and Beta available, that an author cannot do the research to work within the existing continuity. The intricacy is now very well suited to the written format, much like the extreme detail in the Star Wars: Expanded Universe continuity, or Tolkien's Middle Earth.

This has more or less been my point all along.

We are supposed to believe that these guys are brilliant, creative geniuses who can spin gold out of dental floss. Yet, they can't figure out a way to do for $150m what a bunch of fans have done for a fraction of the cost with New Voyages.

Not to mention all of the other fan fiction out there that's centered around all new crews and ships.

All we really have here is Terminator on a starship with a bunch of teen pin ups playing the leads.

Forgive me if I don't see anything overly original or creative about the whole thing.

TJinPgh · September 2 2008, 06:12 AM

goldbug wrote:

I want to see Trek get back into the limelight it had from '79 to '96, before it got so tired and worn out. Remember from 74 to 79..there was no Trek of any kind..and the general public wanted to see it...now from '04 to '09 there has been no Trek of any kind...and there are stirrings that Joe Sixpack might just "check out that Star Trek movie"..

The "general public" didn't bring Star Trek back. Paramount wanted to try to cash in on the fact that Sci-Fi was sorta big at the end of the 70s, and it seemed like a decent way to shut Roddenberry up who wouldn't stop asking to do a new show.

And, I really hate to break it to ya, but Joe Sixpack may be talking about checking out a lot of things, but Star Trek isn't one of them.

There are more people talking about Spiderman 4 and Batman 3 than this, and it's already in the can.

I love Trek as much as anybody. But, I realized a long time ago that there's nothing mainstream about it.