Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[-Brett-]

I would have preferred "prime" Trek to continue, but the last nail was hammered into that coffin long before Abrams became involved. There was no viable alternative to a reboot at that point.

I just wish the inevitable reboot had been done without the headache inducing lense flares and appalling levels of scientific illiteracy (I still have no idea what Abrams thinks a supernova is).

[Lord Garth, FOI]

Yes
Loathed most of next gen and its fleet flag battleship complete with annoying socialworker sitting next to the captain and kindergarten, hated voyager
Liked DS9 and Enterprise was growing on me

And yes I'm glad we are finally admitting this sucker is a reboot and not some convoluted canonical timeline spinoff as to not piss off the diehards in denial

It's a 100% reboot and I'm glad I get to watch Kirk make out with hot chicks and drop kick bad guys again on an Enterprise the size of the Battlestar Galactica

[King Daniel]

^It included a character from the original show, continuing the part he played in a Next Generation episode. By that alone it can't be a 100% clean reboot.

[Donald Draper]

I just finished watching it again. Its been a few years. It was a brilliant way to "Relaunch" the franchise. Having a direct connection to its past but charting a new future. Like digging a channel that connects to an existing river. They are connected but different.

[Shazam!]

From a business perspective, probably. A reboot instantly gives you a USP of the TOS characters back in action.

However, Trek IX with minor tweaks could've used any crew at any point in Star Trek's history. The idea that Trek was bogged down in continuity and that new stories could not be told is actual nonsense.

[BillJ]

Yes.

Would've preferred a reboot that didn't connect itself to the old continuity though.

[R. Star]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

Its always been the "fad" in Hollywood, probably going back to the start of the 20th Century. They like proven properties.

Wouldn't setting a new Star Trek film or series "post-Nemesis" also be "taking an old concept, changing a few details and selling it again"?

There's a large difference between a sequel and just taking all the same players and having them play a slightly different game.

[EyalM]

Star Grinch wrote:

---

There's a large difference between a sequel and just taking all the same players and having them play a slightly different game.

You seem to be confusing setting with plot.

[Nibbz]

Judging by the fact that I had zero interest in Star Trek until I saw the preview for the sequel to the reboot, yes it indeed needed it for my sake. Otherwise I wouldn't have ever watched the old shows and movies. I am thankful for the reboot.

[The Stig]

It sure did. The characters of Kirk and Spock have become durable pop-culture icons. It was a no-brainer for Paramount to revisit them in a movie that was creatively unhindered by the morass of incomprehensible and (mostly) tired 'canon' that came before.

To say that Trek '09 could have played out the same 'with a new crew' misses the point entirely. People care about Kirk and Spock. Star Trek, not so much.

[JarodRussell]

No need for a continuity reboot or a remake of TOS at all.

What they also did was a stylistic change, and a change in the promotional department, and that's what made the difference.

[Nerys Myk]

Star Grinch wrote:

---

There's a large difference between a sequel and just taking all the same players and having them play a slightly different game.

Which is what every Star Trek series after TOS did. Look at each character in TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT and you will see the "DNA" of the TOS characters. Any post-Nemesis series/movie would do the same.

A sequel is just a film set after the events of a previous film. Before some one coined the term "prequel", all it had to be was part of the same series of films, irrelevant of time frame or characters.

[Greg Cox]

Shazam! wrote:

---

From a business perspective, probably. A reboot instantly gives you a USP of the TOS characters back in action.

However, Trek IX with minor tweaks could've used any crew at any point in Star Trek's history. The idea that Trek was bogged down in continuity and that new stories could not be told is actual nonsense.

But, rightly or wrongly, there was a perception out there in the general public that Star Trek was too "complicated" for ordinary people, that you needed to be a hardcore Trekkie with a degree in Klingon linguistics to understand the shows. I used to run into this attitude all the time at family reunions, Fourth of July barbecues, etc.

"I like STAR WARS, but STAR TREK seems too complicated."

Now, I agree that most standalone TREK episodes and movies are actually more accessible than people think they are, but even if people just think that Trek is for Trekkies only, and that you need to have seen all five zillion movies and TV shows to understand the latest movie, you have a marketing problem. A reboot offers newcomers a chance to get in on the ground floor, as it were, which is a lot less intimidating to the average viewer.

Plus, once you decide to recast the iconic TOS crew, with newer, younger actors, you kinda need to reboot the continuity just to give yourselves a clean slate--and not be locked into forty years of "canonical" biographies for these characters. "Well, Kirk is going to be killed by Soran, and Scotty's going to get trapped in a transporter buffer, and Spock and Uhura are never going to get married . . . ."

Why force the new Kirk and Spock to slavishly follow the tracks laid down by decades of old movies and TV shows? Better to mix things up and get off to a fresh start.

[JarodRussell]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Now, I agree that most standalone TREK episodes and movies are actually more accessible than people think they are, but even if people just think that Trek is for Trekkies only, and that you need to have seen all five zillion movies and TV shows to understand the latest movie, you have a marketing problem. A reboot offers newcomers a chance to get in on the ground floor, as it were, which is a lot less intimidating to the average viewer.

It's only a marketing problem. With Star Trek 2009, the audience was bombarded with BAM! THIS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT! BAM! THIS IS NOT YOUR FATHER'S STARTREK! BAM! YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT! BAM! YOU CAN EVEN WATCH IT WHEN YOU HATED STAR TREK!

That is was a reboot and/or a TOS reboot didn't matter. It could have been a TNG film. With that kind of promotion, and the new style, wouldn't have been a problem.

[R. Star]

^
And that's mostly why I don't like the JJverse... too much bam, too little substance.