Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[BillJ]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

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.

TNG had the stink of failure on it. More than that, many people thought the movies were dull.

[BillJ]

Star Grinch wrote:

---

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

But you're judging a two-hour film vs. a series that had seven hundred episodes. I'm sure you could find plenty of episodes that had too much bam in there and I'm sure many people could use examples of single episodes/movies to claim the Prime timeline had too little substance.

[Set Harth]

Star Grinch wrote:

---

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

Fixed.

[Gojira]

Yes! Star Trek was all but dead and they needed to do something different. I am so happy they did what they did and very happy with the results.

[Greg Cox]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

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!.

But that's exactly what was needed at this juncture.

Speaking as someone who has written waaay too much advertising copy, sometimes you really need to go with the "brute force" technique--especially when you need to overcome preconceptions or resistance in the marketplace. Subtlety is not a virtue when you're trying to get a simple, straightforward message across to a mass audience.

In this case the message was: "Not just for Trekkies only!"

Mission accomplished.

As to whether you could do with that with a brand new crew and ship, as opposed to the iconic TOS crew, that's another issue. But you can definitely make the case that Kirk and Spock have a lot more marquee value, even among casual viewers, than Captain Fingal O'Hara of the Starship Intrepid . . . .

[Crazy Eddie]

The Overlord wrote:

---

Star Trek 11 essentially rebooted the franchise, do you think that was the right move?

Of course it was.

Starfleet was right to overhaul the original Enterprise, and Paramount was right to refit the original Star Trek. And they even reactivated Spock to help iron out some of their canon-design difficulties; without his assistance, the script probably would have been hugely unbalanced and the entire film would have vanished into a wormhole, never to be seen again.

[R. Star]

BillJ wrote:

---

But you're judging a two-hour film vs. a series that had seven hundred episodes. I'm sure you could find plenty of episodes that had too much bam in there and I'm sure many people could use examples of single episodes/movies to claim the Prime timeline had too little substance.

So? What else am I supposed to judge it by? Hopes and dreams?

[Lord Garth, FOI]

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:

---

^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.

And golem Craig bond had Judy dench from Remington steel bond and yet that was considered a complete reboot

And your own magnificent Jjverse starship upscaling sizes, a 650 m kelvin before the Narada supposedly changed the time line

It's a reboot brother. I love ya and I will forever be greatful for your starship size upscaling (which is cannon in my personal fantasy land along with a number of the better novels, the animated series, Farragut and Exeter and the great fact that in my personal Trek canon, next gen and voyager never actually happened and were both a bad drunken dream of Scotty's)

[BillJ]

Star Grinch wrote:

---

So? What else am I supposed to judge it by? Hopes and dreams?

I don't think you judge the totality of J.J. Abrams work until we have it all in. It's no different than judging the collection of Modern Trek back in 1987 watching Encounter at Farpoint.

For me, Star Trek 2009 had a ton of missed opportunities and gaffes. But I understand, much like when they were making Encounter at Farpoint, that there would be growing pains in the process.

Did anyone think there'd be another six hundred plus episodes of Trek when they watched that episode in 1987?

[R. Star]

BillJ wrote:

---

I don't think you judge the totality of J.J. Abrams work until we have it all in. It's no different than judging the collection of Modern Trek back in 1987 watching Encounter at Farpoint.

For me, Star Trek 2009 had a ton of missed opportunities and gaffes. But I understand, much like when they were making Encounter at Farpoint, that there would be growing pains in the process.

Did anyone think there'd be another six hundred plus episodes of Trek when they watched that episode in 1987?

So by that definition all discussion and opinions of NuTrek shouldn't happen until JJ is done making movies? That doesn't make any sense.

The 09 movie(that I wish had a name at the very least) had more of a Star Wars feel, graphics and cheap humor over substance, to it. It really didn't feel to me like I was watching Kirk and Spock as opposed to two other people pretending to be them either. That perception could change over time, ut until I've more material to go on, that's my view. The previews for Into Darkness seem like it's going to be action heavy, but maybe it'll have a good story driving it. I hope so at any rate.

[wissaboo]

BillJ wrote:

---

I don't think you judge the totality of J.J. Abrams work until we have it all in. It's no different than judging the collection of Modern Trek back in 1987 watching Encounter at Farpoint.

For me, Star Trek 2009 had a ton of missed opportunities and gaffes. But I understand, much like when they were making Encounter at Farpoint, that there would be growing pains in the process.

Did anyone think there'd be another six hundred plus episodes of Trek when they watched that episode in 1987?

I always find it so amusing for people to complain about the new look and the new ship and omg it isn't star trek.

that's exactly how I felt when I heard about the plans for tng. Worst idea ever. Turned out to be not so bad. I'd even go so far as to say that stylistically this one is about as different from the tng series spinoffs as tng was from tos.

[StarMan]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

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.

QFT.

Star Trek wasn't cool. Being a Trekkie certainly wasn't in vogue. Most people I would know would struggle to distinguish between any of the Next Generation era series. The volume of material and perceived "technicality" made for a product not easily accessible to regular folk.

When your product isn't accessible to the majority, it's not going to reach it's profit potential.

[BillJ]

wissaboo wrote:

---

I always find it so amusing for people to complain about the new look and the new ship and omg it isn't star trek.

The only pure Star Trek is The Cage. Everything after that made changes to the concept/characters/universe. Early TNG is different from TOS, late TNG is different from early TNG, DS9 is different from TOS/TNG, Voyager is different from DS9 and Enterprise is different from what came before. Then you add the movies to the mix and "what is Star Trek?" is always a moving target.

Star Trek 2009 is average for me, there is better Trek and there is worse. But I don't doubt that it's Trek.

[ROBE]

Trek needed to go back to the beginning and they needed a new cast as the originals were either too old or too dead.
Where was there to go Star Trek: The Generation after the Next Generation, Even Deeper Space 9a, Voyaging and Getting Lost Again or The Spaceship called Enterprise that existed before Enterprise?

[Dale Sams]

BillJ wrote:

---

The only pure Star Trek is The Cage. Everything after that made changes to the concept/characters/universe. Early TNG is different from TOS, late TNG is different from early TNG, DS9 is different from TOS/TNG, Voyager is different from DS9 and Enterprise is different from what came before. Then you add the movies to the mix and "what is Star Trek?" is always a moving target.

Star Trek 2009 is average for me, there is better Trek and there is worse. But I don't doubt that it's Trek.

I don't say "It isn't Trek", I say "Where is the Trek?" a movie every 2-3 years? I'll watch the movies. They're fine for what they are. But there's no Trek.

That is not a disparagement on the movies at all, but where do they go? Bond movies are about Bond..and M a little. This is an entire cast and any emotional dynamic is built on our memories of other people, whereas they devoted the first entire two Bond movies making us care about Bond and M.

What we need it a TV series.