Should it have been a straight reboot? - Page 3

Crazy Eddie · September 7 2009, 10:31 PM

urbandk wrote:

I disagree. I think Star Trek has had enough "reboots"...

I'm glad you used the quotes, because Star Trek has never done a reboot before. RESET BUTTON, yes, but never a reboot for the entire franchise a la Batman or Jack Ryan.

Mr. Laser Beam · September 7 2009, 10:36 PM

Temis the Vorta wrote:

A straight reboot would have had no emotional connection to TOS.

It would have the same characters. That's all the connection we need.

urbandk · September 7 2009, 10:41 PM

newtype_alpha wrote:

urbandk wrote:

I disagree. I think Star Trek has had enough "reboots"...

I'm glad you used the quotes, because Star Trek has never done a reboot before. RESET BUTTON, yes, but never a reboot for the entire franchise a la Batman or Jack Ryan.

Notwithstanding in-universe explanations, I don't know what else you'd call TMP or TNG except "reboots." Just like the new movie is a "reboot." They've all been radical reimaginings of the Star Trek concept. They're all "Based on Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry." They all have tenuous links to what came before. The fact that some fans have more ease reconciling the wildly different movies and TV series than they do reconciling the new movie is just the same old broken record as before. Some fans cried bloody murder when TMP came out for messing with TOS. Some of these same fans were irate with TNG. And now these same fans are rending their hair and clothes over yet another reimagining of Star Trek.

Crazy Eddie · September 7 2009, 10:47 PM

urbandk wrote:

newtype_alpha wrote:

urbandk wrote:

I disagree. I think Star Trek has had enough "reboots"...

I'm glad you used the quotes, because Star Trek has never done a reboot before. RESET BUTTON, yes, but never a reboot for the entire franchise a la Batman or Jack Ryan.

Notwithstanding in-universe explanations, I don't know what else you'd call TMP or TNG except "reboots."

Sequels.

Or in the case of TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT, spinoffs.

Yug · September 7 2009, 10:47 PM

JarodRussell wrote:

Temis the Vorta wrote:

A straight reboot would have had no emotional connection to TOS.

As if that new target audience of current teens had any emotional connection to TOS.

The trailers were cool. And Sylar was in it. And Abrams directed it. That's why it was successful.

That the characters were called Kirk and Spock is totally irrelevant.

But that's just it, they didn't want to abandon classic Star Trek. They hoped to bring 40 years of fans with them and expand interest to the younger demographic as well. I don't believe the "target" audience was teens. But had it been a true reboot, Trek fandom would have rejected it just like you seem to, and without giving it a chance.

Fuck Sylar.

JarodRussell · September 7 2009, 10:48 PM

newtype_alpha wrote:

urbandk wrote:

newtype_alpha wrote:

I'm glad you used the quotes, because Star Trek has never done a reboot before. RESET BUTTON, yes, but never a reboot for the entire franchise a la Batman or Jack Ryan.

Notwithstanding in-universe explanations, I don't know what else you'd call TMP or TNG except "reboots."

Sequels.

WIN!

Shazam! · September 7 2009, 10:49 PM

urbandk wrote:

Notwithstanding in-universe explanations, I don't know what else you'd call TMP or TNG except "reboots." Just like the new movie is a "reboot."

Spin-off? Continuation? Sequel? Basically anything other than reboot.

Reboot, in serial fiction, means a discarding of much or even all previous continuity in the series, to start anew. Effectively, all previously-known fictive history is declared by the writer(s) to be null and void, or at least irrelevant to the current storyline, and the series starts over.

urbandk · September 7 2009, 11:00 PM

Shazam! wrote:

urbandk wrote:

Notwithstanding in-universe explanations, I don't know what else you'd call TMP or TNG except "reboots." Just like the new movie is a "reboot."

Spin-off? Continuation? Sequel? Basically anything other than reboot.

Reboot, in serial fiction, means a discarding of much or even all previous continuity in the series, to start anew. Effectively, all previously-known fictive history is declared by the writer(s) to be null and void, or at least irrelevant to the current storyline, and the series starts over.

What is that, Wikipedia?

A reboot as far as I'm concerned is a wholesale re-imagining of a series. Feel free to disagree with me over semantics, but that's what TNG, TMP, TWOK, DS9, and Enterprise were. They took all kinds of liberties with Star Trek's values, aesthetics, and internal coherence while paying lip service to what preceded them. As far as I am concerned, they are all reboots, timeline or no timeline.

Crazy Eddie · September 7 2009, 11:05 PM

urbandk wrote:

Shazam! wrote:

urbandk wrote:

Notwithstanding in-universe explanations, I don't know what else you'd call TMP or TNG except "reboots." Just like the new movie is a "reboot."

Spin-off? Continuation? Sequel? Basically anything other than reboot.

Reboot, in serial fiction, means a discarding of much or even all previous continuity in the series, to start anew. Effectively, all previously-known fictive history is declared by the writer(s) to be null and void, or at least irrelevant to the current storyline, and the series starts over.

What is that, Wikipedia?

A reboot as far as I'm concerned is a wholesale re-imagining of a series. Feel free to disagree with me over semantics, but that's what TNG, TMP, TWOK, DS9, and Enterprise were. They took all kinds of liberties with Star Trek's values, aesthetics, and internal coherence while paying lip service to what preceded them. As far as I am concerned, they are all reboots, timeline or no timeline.

Well as far as the rest of the English speaking world is concerned, they were sequels and spinoffs. Mainly this is because sequels can and do tinker with the "aesthetics and values" of a series without being reboots. This is why the Mission Impossible movies are not considered reboots, despite the fact that Jim Phelps turned into a bad guy for some reason.

It occurs to me that the only reason Trekkies have problems with the idea of a reboot is that Trek has never actually tried it before; it's never really needed to. Other series have, with varying degrees of success, and the ones that did not stopped coming out with new material. We (or rather, those of us too deep in the Trekset) just aren't used to thinking of it as a line of fiction capable of having alternate versions/incarnations that may or may not have anything in common.

Although it will be F*cking hilarious, thirty years from now, when somebody decides to do a remake of Star Wars.

Shazam! · September 7 2009, 11:07 PM

urbandk wrote:

A reboot as far as I'm concerned is a wholesale re-imagining of a series.

The rest of the world disagrees with you

Feel free to disagree with me over semantics

Thanks.

Yug · September 7 2009, 11:08 PM

newtype_alpha wrote:

Although it will be F*cking hilarious, thirty years from now, when somebody decides to do a remake of Star Wars.

And it WILL happen, I give it twenty years.

JarodRussell · September 7 2009, 11:16 PM

So I guess First Contact was a reboot, since they changed the ship, the uniforms, redesigned the Borg, and recast Zephram Cochrane, right?

M'Sharak · September 7 2009, 11:35 PM

How about we just get rid of the word "reboot" altogether? No one can even agree on what it means, making it worse than useless.

Should it have been a straight reboot? No, I don't think so, and I have yet to be convinced otherwise by any argument or assertion I've seen presented (most of which have tended toward the "Admit it's a reboot! I demand that you admit this was a reboot!" end of the spectrum, with much invective and frothing at the mouth.)

EnsignRicky · September 7 2009, 11:49 PM

Time for reboot to get re imagined.

Disillusioned · September 8 2009, 01:47 AM

Eh. Some people want it to be a reboot, others don't. It really isn't any more complicated than that, despite some variation in the reasons why.

September 7 2009, 11:16 PM	#42
JarodRussell Vice Admiral	Re: Should it have been a straight reboot? So I guess First Contact was a reboot, since they changed the ship, the uniforms, redesigned the Borg, and recast Zephram Cochrane, right?

September 7 2009, 11:35 PM	#43
M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Location: Terra Inlandia	Re: Should it have been a straight reboot? How about we just get rid of the word "reboot" altogether? No one can even agree on what it means, making it worse than useless. Should it have been a straight reboot? No, I don't think so, and I have yet to be convinced otherwise by any argument or assertion I've seen presented (most of which have tended toward the "Admit it's a reboot! I demand that you admit this was a reboot!" end of the spectrum, with much invective and frothing at the mouth.) __________________ I have long felt that any reviewer who expresses rage and loathing for a novel or a play or a poem is preposterous. He or she is like a person who has put on full armor and attacked a hot fudge sundae or a banana split. — Kurt Vonnegut

September 7 2009, 11:49 PM	#44
EnsignRicky Commodore Location: Somewhere Far Beyond	Re: Should it have been a straight reboot? Time for reboot to get re imagined. __________________ Use Only As Directed

September 8 2009, 01:47 AM	#45
Disillusioned Commander	Re: Should it have been a straight reboot? Eh. Some people want it to be a reboot, others don't. It really isn't any more complicated than that, despite some variation in the reasons why.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US