Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[The Stig]

Star Grinch wrote:

---

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

TNG and beyond was nothing more than 'shuffling the cards.'

Look, none of the supposed 'continuity' makes any sense whatsoever. Nothing lines up and the progression of technology is virtually static. Sure, the writers gave different bafflegab names to the tech on-screen, but in both TOS and TNG+, we had starships going at ludicrous speeds that used energy weapons and teleportation. The 'world' built up by the sheer aggregation of Trek detritus over the years is not a living, breathing universe but rather the same story, stuck on repeat.

At least Trek '09 had the balls to actually turn back the clock and not pretend that everything in Trek existed in the same universe.

[Shazam!]

The Stig wrote:

---

At least Trek '09 had the balls to actually turn back the clock and not pretend that everything in Trek existed in the same universe.

Trek '09 itself is in the same universe though : /

[Starbreaker]

Did it need one to please the hardcore fans? No

Did it need one to survive at the box office? Yes. Star Trek was taken from a franchise that couldn't compete with Maid in Manhattan to a Top 10 movie of 2009, to something that is going to probably be a top 5 film next year.

[Greg Cox]

Shikarnov wrote:

---

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.

Speaking as one of those novelists, I seriously doubt that the movie people opted for a reboot simply because they were too "lazy" to research the topic. Trust me, you can bring yourself up to speed on almost any TV series in a couple of weeks, especially now that we have DVDs and the internet. I've done it myself, more than once.

(True confession: I had only seen a couple episodes of CSI before I started writing those books. But I knew the series backwards and forwards within a week or two, thanks to on-line episode guides and reruns on Spike!)

Whether you agree or not, there were definite advantages (both commercial and artistic) to rebooting STAR TREK in order to attract a new generation of viewers. You may have have weighed the pros and cons differently, and come to different decision, but there were pros as well as cons to starting over again . . . especially if the idea was to kickstart a fading franchise back to life.

Plus, again, the issue isn't about whether it's possible to tell compelling stories in the old continuity. It was about how to get the general public interested in TREK again. And that public doesn't care what happens after NEMESIS. Heck, most of them have never even heard of NEMESIS . . . .

(In my experience, the average moviegoer remembers Khan, the whales, and the Borg . . . and that's it. Most people are shocked to find out there was more than three or four Trek movies!)

[DalekJim]

I honestly don't think the general public give a crap whether the film is set before or after Nemesis as none of them went to see it and the ones that did probably don't remember it.

Moreover, couldn't they just have uh... made a story that doesn't require knowledge of continuity to understand instead of erasing all the continuity?

I genuinely do not understand at all how anybody could say the reboot was entirely necessary. As if any casual moviegoer seriously sat there not wanting to see JJ-Trek, until they were told that it contained a major timeline alteration, at which point they were suddenly booking their tickets. It just doesn't make sense. Nobody views movies like that, despite what Abrams says in interviews.

The public went to see JJ-Trek because it had a huge marketing push, a good looking cast of traditional action blockbuster heroes, lots of effects and lots of action. They don't give a shit either way whether it's set the generation before or after TNG.

[lurok]

After NEM (which one assumes some non-Trekkers did see), there weren't going to be DS9/VOY/ENT movies. So the only viable commercial option left to Paramount was a TOS reset (I prefer that to reboot) for all the reasons others have mentioned.

DalekJim wrote:

---

They don't give a shit either way whether it's set the generation before or after TNG.

Never a truer word spoken. And precisely the point. They don't. It's a fresh start.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

DalekJim loved Abrams's first Star Trek movie when he saw it. He's posted that.

[Balrog]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

DalekJim loved Abrams's first Star Trek movie when he saw it. He's posted that.

It must have been on an alternate timeline.

I'm one who fully embraces the reboot. Bringing back Kirk and co., and being given a chance to tell new stories with these character unfettered by what came before, was genius. It's the next best thing to The Mirror Universe.

[DalekJim]

jinglebellrok wrote:

---

After NEM (which one assumes some non-Trekkers did see), there weren't going to be DS9/VOY/ENT movies. So the only viable commercial option left to Paramount was a TOS reset (I prefer that to reboot) for all the reasons others have mentioned.

I dunno. I actually think the TOS remake/reboot/whatever angle was kinda counter-productive. They don't want the general public to associate it with continuity or feel alienated so they use old characters, bring back Spock Prime and have the film hinge on a convoluted prime universe/alt universe cross-over that would mean NOTHING to the general audience? I think setting it 100 years after TNG and having Will Smith or whoever as the new captain could have been a big enough success. It'd still have to be an action movie though I admit.

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

DalekJim loved Abrams's first Star Trek movie when he saw it. He's posted that.

Are you even capable of making relevant points in a debate beyond inarticulate mud-slinging?

[BCG]

I don't think this crew's emotional dynamic relies on memories of other people at all. There's a lot more to it than "pretend this is Shatner", "pretend this is Nimoy" etc.

Where do they go? Anywhere. That's the fun of this new timeline. Anything can happen. Anyone can die. This isn't "scenes before TOS" - it's a new beginning.

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.

I'm sorry but I don't buy this. One of the biggest problems was how everything stayed the same. Why shouldn't they just make a new universe with no convoluted plots to tie it with the already known one? They should've just severed all ties with the old one and explain offscreen or something that it was a mirror universe to appease the fanboys that the old one exists, which keeps the new universe consistent with the old one without trying to make awful plots to connect the two. Additionally, the characters suffer the same problem. Regarding the lines, one or two popular lines are okay, but it was overkill and told me they're trying, albeit poorly, to try to make these the same characters. Lastly, they depend too much on "destiny" to make this like the old stuff, but they end up making the movie worse. Spock and Kirk are good friends in the old universe. Spock and Kirk start off hating each other in the new one, which seems natural given their irritable personalities. But they have to become friends immediately because Old Spock told them to do so. So then they become faux-friends instead of any building up of true friendship. Why not build up the relationship over several movies? Would stink of less fakeness. Or why does Kirk have to be promoted (commissioned?) to captain? Kirk was the captain in the old series so apparently he has to be captain in this movie. Why not have the next movie years later when Kirk is further along in his career? He became an admiral offscreen in The Motion Picture so why does he have to become captain onscreen in this movie? In the mirror universe episodes not everyone has the same role as the regular universe so why does everyone have to end up the same in this one? Why does Kirk have to be captain and him and Spock friends? Making these things so made the movie lose organic feel and made it too unbelievable because they didn't move enough away from the previous universe and they poorly forced things things through.

[Dale Sams]

It's been posited before, but I think a Prime Universe Star Trek "Post-civilazation breakdown"/how did we get here mystery show would work. See Revolution/Walking Dead.*

*Keep in mind that particular suggestion was made before those shows came out.

[Greg Cox]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Moreover, couldn't they just have uh... made a story that doesn't require knowledge of continuity to understand instead of erasing all the continuity?.

Think of it as tearing off the bandaid in one fell swoop rather than suffering a dozen little stings and winces. Once you decide you want a fresh start, it's better to dispose of all the old "canon" quickly and efficiently rather than subject your new cycle of TREK movies to years of nitpicking and plot constraints . . . .

("But wait, Kirk can't meet the Borg now. That never happened in the original timeline. Canon violation!")

Now they have a clean slate to work with . . .

[The Keeper]

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.

But you were a big fan, till you figured out it was flawed or beyond your comprehension.

DalekJim wrote:

---

The public went to see JJ-Trek because it had a huge marketing push, a good looking cast of traditional action blockbuster heroes, lots of effects and lots of action.

Including yourself.

DalekJim wrote:

---

Are you even capable of making relevant points in a debate beyond inarticulate mud-slinging?

Understandable you'd want that little bit of info swept under the rug given how it totally destroys your argument.

You, like millions of other people walked out of the theater smiling, feeling good and exchanging agreements on what a good movie it was. THAT is all the TPTB are required to deliver, that is what you paid your $$ to receive and you, based on your own statements, confirmed they fulfilled your expectations for seeing a good film.

What happens next; going to TBBS, after people have had time to think about it, discover plot holes and what ever else it turns out was actually wrong with the film, doesn't count. Doesn't invalidate the happiness you felt after first viewing of the film. You still got your moneys worth.

If you'd been sitting there during the flick, grumbling under your breath at what you were instantly perceiving as flaws, you could get up and go get a refund and be within your right to gripe but that didn't happen, you stayed till credits rolled.

Bottom line; the film did what it was designed to do, it owned your ass to the end and beyond. Deal with it.

DalekJim wrote:

---

Moreover, couldn't they just have uh... made a story that doesn't require knowledge of continuity to understand instead of erasing all the continuity?

Firstly nothing was erased. That's all your mind.

[EM]That may have been considered/rejected. Perhaps someday, after the Nuverse does its thing, Paramount may be willing to try a tent-pole application to the post NEM prime time. I am not holding my breath for it to happen though.

[DalekJim]

I have no time for hecklers and internet white knights, address my points intelligently and maturely or I won't respond. If you want to spend your time spouting inane, blunt, irrational aggression then take your posts to the YouTube comments section where they belong.

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Think of it as tearing off the bandaid in one fell swoop rather than suffering a dozen little stings and winces. Once you decide you want a fresh start, it's better to dispose of all the old "canon" quickly and efficiently rather than subject your new cycle of TREK movies to years of nitpicking and plot constraints . . . .

("But wait, Kirk can't meet the Borg now. That never happened in the original timeline. Canon violation!")

Now they have a clean slate to work with . . .

That's better .

I guess it depends where they go with this. The alt. timeline angle does open up some interesting story possibilities. It's just that despite the destruction of Vulcan, the last film soon rushed the situation to the status quo. I have a similar issue with the last X-Men movie rushing things to the status quo at the end.

Killing Kirk instead of Spock would be a pretty cool move .

[Dale Sams]

I reject the idea that Nuverse is a canon-free Valentine's card for new viewers. The movie ITSELF doesn't even make any sense unless you get on the internet/buy the related comics/read what scenes were cut.