Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[DalekJim]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Would you believe me if I told you that I'm actually a big fan of both "Measure" and First Contact? Indeed, to my mind, "Measure of a Man" was the first really good TNG ep, just as First Contact is far and away the best of the TNG movies.

I really enjoyed First Contact before I became a Trekkie. Now I still think it's a fun action movie but there are too many insane contradictions that get in the way of me enjoying it. Now I'm left wondering why Picard is so obsessive about the Borg when he seemed pretty over his experience the last time he met them.

..and the concept of the Borg Queen is just impossible to wrap my head around. Just a way of dumbing the Borg down to make em more traditional villains.

[UFO]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

People who go to the movies. From a marketing standpoint Kirk and Spock are a safer bet than Picard and Data, Sisko and Kira, Janeway and Seven or Archer and T'Pol.

Not really. Star Wars and Luke were unknown in 1977. Folks went in no knowlege of either one. Star Trek has been around for decades and is part of our culture. Even if people call him Dr. Spock, they have a vague idea who Spock is.

With fans maybe, but the general public might have been put off with all of them to some degree. A new crew could have been just as likely to succeed if everything else was right, in the same way that a new movie will succeed when it gets things right.

Yeah actually they should have, but I doubt the movie folks would have gone for that

Actually I meant instead of making TNG on TV, not the TNG movies.

What would make it a "Trek for our time"? Any show would reflect the time in which it is made. A rebooted TOS made in the 80/90 is not going to be a copy of the 60s version any more the ST09 was.

Exactly my point. Ie. it wouldn't be just a follow on from TNG, Voy etc. So assuming it will be boring or low rating just because it "follows on" is not set in stone if it had modern treatment and stories etc.

Greg Cox wrote:

---

One of the great things about Trek (and TOS in particular) is that the format was big enough to allow for all kinds of different stories: courtroom dramas, murder mysteries, war stories, trippy scifi mind-benders, morality plays, love stories, even the occasional farce.

Sure but in my view, whatever form it takes, Trek should abide by its main tenets or explain why not. Such things as the idea that "we won't kill (or beat up someone) today" etc. When you ignore those types of things you lose the underpinnings of Trek no matter what the style or story type. You also lose the optimism that seemed fairly unique to Trek. TOS and less subtly TNG anyway.

[Nerys Myk]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I really enjoyed First Contact before I became a Trekkie. Now I still think it's a fun action movie but there are too many insane contradictions that get in the way of me enjoying it. Now I'm left wondering why Picard is so obsessive about the Borg when he seemed pretty over his experience the last time he met them.

..and the concept of the Borg Queen is just impossible to wrap my head around. Just a way of dumbing the Borg down to make em more traditional villains.

Did you have a Road to Damascus like conversion or something? Did The Great Bird come to you in a vision and anoint you a Trekkie?

All Trek is full of "insane contradictions". If I let that get in my way there'd be very few Treks I could enjoy. Sounds like you're letting minutia and trivia get in the way.

The Borg are pretty dumb villains to begin with, adding the Queen doesn't make them any dumber. I can't think of a single Trek villain who isn't "traditional" in one way or another. Star Trek isn't exactly groundbreaking in that regard.

[NuFan]

UFO wrote:

---

give it the same styling as ST09, with more (well some) substance and there is no reason to believe you wouldn't be good to go.

Star Grinch wrote:

---

Agreed, that would've been much more interesting than just reshuffling the old deck of cards with some flashy action sequences.

As I said, a Star Trek Universe fan will never be able to understand a Star Trek fan or anybody else that watches a Star Trek movie.

[Nerys Myk]

UFO wrote:

---

With fans maybe, but the general public might have been put off with all of them to some degree. A new crew could have been just as likely to succeed if everything else was right, in the same way that a new movie will succeed when it gets things right.

I'm talking about the general public. My mother who's never watched Star Trek ( or SF of any kind) knows who Kirk and Spock are. Both are still comedy punchlines. Picard and the rest not so much.

A new crew might work, but Kirk and Spock were safer bet. And, IIRC that's what the studio wanted.

Actually I meant instead of making TNG on TV, not the TNG movies.

That's what I meant too. Remaking TOS on TV in 1987 rather than TNG.

[Nerys Myk]

NuFan wrote:

---

As I said, a Star Trek Universe fan will never be able to understand a Star Trek fan or anybody else that watches a Star Trek movie.

What's a "Star Trek Universe fan" as opposed to a "Star Trek fan"?

[DalekJim]

NuFan wrote:

---

As I said, a Star Trek Universe fan will never be able to understand a Star Trek fan or anybody else that watches a Star Trek movie.

I'd imagine most people on this board are fans of the Star Trek universe?

And I'd rather be one of those than a "NuFan".

[-Brett-]

NuFan wrote:

---

As I said, a Star Trek Universe fan will never be able to understand a Star Trek fan or anybody else that watches a Star Trek movie.

You can say it as many times as you'd like, it's still nonsense.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

What's a "Star Trek Universe fan" as opposed to a "Star Trek fan"?

I took it to mean a fan of the setting and continuity of Trek vs. a fan of Kirk, Spock and the rest of the characters that inhabit the Trek universe.

Fans of the universe want to know what happens after Nemesis, not really caring who's involved, and of course despise their continuity being reset. Fans of the characters want more stories with their favourite characters and don't mind the continuity being rewritten in order to do that.

[Lance]

I think a reboot was certainly the right move. That said, I'm still not completely convinced that we actually needed an in-universe explanation of how said reboot exists seperately from Trek Prime, though. I'd have rathered the 2009 film had simply had a "Year Zero" and started completely from scratch, unambiguously severing any and all ties with primary Trek. But I suspect this preference would be in the minority within Trek fandom, and that the vast majority likely appreciated the fact that, in some way, the Abrams-verse still "connects" to the Trek of old (though the presence of Nimoy).

[Shikarnov]

My answer to the original question is: No, a reboot was unnecessary.

Countless novelists have proved that it's absolutely possible to create very compelling stories within the previous canon.

Kurtzman and Orci are simply lazy writers that don't want to be bothered by the task of learning about the setting for which they write. They're the kind of hacks that would agree to write a story that takes place in Beijing, and then complain that Chinese culture, history, and geography are too constraining.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

The big problem with those novels is that NOTHING CHANGES. There is zero risk to the main cast, and we all know their fates. They can't even learn anything especially new that will change their outlook on life.

That's why my favourte part of the novelverse is the post-Nemesis 24th century stuff, where change both personal and to the rest of the galaxy can and does happen.

This reset is really the only way we can do anything truly meaningful with the original characters.

[lurok]

There are places other than this site with a whole new generation of fans from the reboot, who also - shock, horror - watch the TV series too. So I'd say it's done its job.

[Shikarnov]

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:

---

The big problem with those novels is that NOTHING CHANGES. There is zero risk to the main cast, and we all know their fates. They can't even learn anything especially new that will change their outlook on life.

That's why my favourte part of the novelverse is the post-Nemesis 24th century stuff, where change both personal and to the rest of the galaxy can and does happen.

This reset is really the only way we can do anything truly meaningful with the original characters.

Well, I don't see that there needs to be risk to the main cast to tell a compelling story. The fun of Star Trek is in the exploration of strange new worlds / ideas and how the heroes solve various puzzles. Neither of these are diminished at all (in my opinion) just because we know the captain won't die, get trapped in the Mirror Universe, transferred to another ship, etc.

As an example, I don't think anybody seriously thought Kirk was going to remain stuck in the past in City on the Edge of Forever, and yet the story was still considered one of Trek's best - a timeless classic watched over and over again. Or that Scotty wasn't going to get the transporter working just in a nick of time to pluck the captain off the Constellation before destroying the Planet Killer. Etc. Etc. Etc.

[BillJ]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I really enjoyed First Contact before I became a Trekkie. Now I still think it's a fun action movie but there are too many insane contradictions that get in the way of me enjoying it. Now I'm left wondering why Picard is so obsessive about the Borg when he seemed pretty over his experience the last time he met them.

..and the concept of the Borg Queen is just impossible to wrap my head around. Just a way of dumbing the Borg down to make em more traditional villains.

I just don't understand why you're so dismissive of people who like the movie when you use to like it yourself?