Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[Awesome Possum]

Shazam! wrote:

---

That post does not provide any evidence that you actually saw TOS

So less of a new direction and more of a new editor then.

Given that 99% of the scenes were the crew standing and talking or sitting and talking, I doubt that would work. The fight scenes could work, but the stunt guy looking nothing like Shatner might come up.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Some of us find sci-fi ideas more interesting than "FIRE EVERYTHING!" lens flare shenanigans.

If you're looking for "science fiction ideas" worth thinking about then you're looking for them in the wrong place by watching Star Trek. Even Doctor Who - of all things - presents more novelty, despite being pretty vapid with regard to that kind of content.

Try reading.

Anyway, you posted that you loved Abrams's first Star Trek movie; the lens flare didn't bother you at the time, so it's impossible to take that seriously as a criticism of the movie.

[Awesome Possum]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

No its plodding and slow and tries to wow with SFX to make up for a weak storyline.

What SF ideas were explored in TMP?

I've discovered that it is impossible to watch sober. I'm convinced that if you removed all the spaceship porn it would be roughly 20 minutes of people looking at things.

Shazam! wrote:

---

Well I'm not necessarily averse to starting things off with a bang. It just came off as hollow due to its lax narrative, and even more so when we are TOLD IN THE MOVIE that we're literally watching some alternate universe characters. May as well have been a feature-length mirror universe episode.

You'd hate Fringe then. It deals a lot with alternate universes and differences in the characters. It isn't like they're the evil universe, just different. So they are just as developed as the version you've been following so far. They just went through slightly different experiences. With Fringe you get to see the cast may multiple versions of what is supposed to be the same person, displaying their range and making the storyline interesting because you don't always know how some characters will actually behave.

SeerSGB wrote:

---

You know how the movie felt, a little--anyone that's into anime will know what I mean, one of those anime movies that condenses down and retells the story of the series but in a 2 or 3 hours movie instead of multiple episodes. It was Do You Remember Love (not as good mind you), the same concept: Condense and retell the series in a movie format.

Not really, it was a self contained and original story. Something that was nice in comparison to all TNG movies which were stretched out episodes that should have been resolved 30 minutes in.

[Greg Cox]

Shazam! wrote:

---

The difference is though, we'd had season after season of different types of stories and ideas. The creative teams had 'earned' the right to let their hair down when it came to the movies.

JJ's Trek does not have that luxury and as such feels superficial.

Huh? I don't get this at all. Why do you have to "earn" the right to make a fun, entertaining movie? Either the movie works or it doesn't work. Whether the filmmakers had "earned" enough Star Trek street cred doesn't make a bit of difference with regards to the finished product. All that matters is what's up on the screen.

And, just to belabor the point, did Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer have to "earn" the right to make THE WRATH OF KHAN? Or maybe they just knew how to make what is still the best Trek movie to date . . . .

[SeerSGB]

A Very Jewel Christmas wrote:

---

I've discovered that it is impossible to watch sober. I'm convinced that if you removed all the spaceship porn it would be roughly 20 minutes of people looking at things.


You'd hate Fringe then. It deals a lot with alternate universes and differences in the characters. It isn't like they're the evil universe, just different. So they are just as developed as the version you've been following so far. They just went through slightly different experiences. With Fringe you get to see the cast may multiple versions of what is supposed to be the same person, displaying their range and making the storyline interesting because you don't always know how some characters will actually behave.

Not really, it was a self contained and original story. Something that was nice in comparison to all TNG movies which were stretched out episodes that should have been resolved 30 minutes in.

I got the feeling we got the condense version of Kirk's life. As if in the original timeline--minus Vulcan getting sucked into a intergalactic hoover--the same events would have played out on a longer scale. This wasn't retelling TOS, so much as hitting the important background notes, and then moving on.

[Awesome Possum]

SeerSGB wrote:

---

I got the feeling we got the condense version of Kirk's life. As if in the original timeline--minus Vulcan getting sucked into a intergalactic hoover--the same events would have played out on a longer scale. This wasn't retelling TOS, so much as hitting the important background notes, and then moving on.

I can see that. To me it was a little like the beginning of Star Wars. We meet Luke before he discovers his destiny and get a glimpse of his life. The movie actually follows some of those beats. There is even that shot of Luke watching the setting suns imagining his future which is similar to Kirk seeing the Enterprise being constructed while imagining a future in Starfleet. I can forgive them skipping nearly all of his time at the Academy because it would have turned in space Harry Potter without the interesting bits. So we get to see him cheat on the Kobayashi Maru test, which provides conflict between him and Spock. If they had decided to make them BFFs from the start, they probably would have never shown it all.

[DalekJim]

A Very Jewel Christmas wrote:

---

To me it was a little like the beginning of Star Wars.

I'd say it was a lot like Star Wars.

[SeerSGB]

A Very Jewel Christmas wrote:

---

I can see that. To me it was a little like the beginning of Star Wars. We meet Luke before he discovers his destiny and get a glimpse of his life. The movie actually follows some of those beats. There is even that shot of Luke watching the setting suns imagining his future which is similar to Kirk seeing the Enterprise being constructed while imagining a future in Starfleet. I can forgive them skipping nearly all of his time at the Academy because it would have turned in space Harry Potter without the interesting bits. So we get to see him cheat on the Kobayashi Maru test, which provides conflict between him and Spock. If they had decided to make them BFFs from the start, they probably would have never shown it all.

I think you hit on something: The reason it feels--for me at least--like TOS condensed is that we already have a history with these characters. With Star Wars, it was an all new character and franchise and part of the story was the audience going along with him on his adventure. I think '09 balance both aspects well enough.

[los2188]

Did Star Trek need a reboot? This is the same question I posed many months ago. The answer? Truthfully, no. I also don't believe that anyone can justly argue against the answer of no. Here's why...I'm sure that there are writers out there that could come up with many, many new and exciting stories set in the prime timeline. I'm sure there are also producers and directors that could have taken Trek into new and exciting eras, all the while staying in the prime timeline, be it before Star Trek Enterprise, after Star Trek Nemesis and everything else in between. With all that said, the reboot did work in resurrecting a stale franchise. It gives Trek the ability to do new and different things that they might not have been able to do in the prime timeline. I'm not against a reboot at all, but I know, and I think everyone else could admit that given the right circumstances, writers, ideas, etc...there could have been many, many great stories and such told in the prime timeline that would have pumped new and exciting life into the Trek franchise. I also don't buy the argument that sticking to continuity would be a bad thing in making Trek exciting again. Let's be honest, the current Trek movies are sticking to certain continuities even now and that's not at all a bad thing. I think that if they had made more Trek in the prime timeline, the best idea would have been to move forward past the TNG era. Even in a timeline past the TNG era, certain continuities didn't necessarily have to be mentioned or written about. For example....let's say a version of Trek set 80 years after the TNG era was made and the story was about future Klingons who have denounced their warrior ways and embraced something like...let's say kindness and helping others. With that said, do we really need to mention anything about how many centuries ago, Klingons at one point had no ridges due to an attempt at genetic engineering? I just believe that given all the correct circumstances, Star Trek has a lot of life left in it, without having a reboot, but as I've said before, I'm not against it, and the reboot has worked and I enjoy the re-imagined Trek just as much.

[Awesome Possum]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I'd say it was a lot like Star Wars.

You say it like it's a bad thing, the first film is the hero's journey with lightsabers. Star Trek just applied the hero's journey to Kirk and it worked extremely well.

[Greg Cox]

los2188 wrote:

---

Did Star Trek need a reboot? This is the same question I posed many months ago. The answer? Truthfully, no. I also don't believe that anyone can justly argue against the answer of no.

You are by no means speaking for everyone . . . as the five zillion threads arguing this point suggest. Lots of us think a reboot was the right way to go, as we've "justly" argued until we're blue in the face. (Insert Andorian joke here.)

Do we know that sticking to the same continuity would work just as well? Not necessarily. Are there definite advantages to starting over again? So it would seem.

Besides, you seem to be working on the assumption that reboots are a bad thing to be avoided at all costs. That's also not necessarily the case. Reboots worked for BSG, for Batman, for Planet of the Apes, for The Addams Family, for Sherlock Holmes (three times recently!) . . . .

Granted, not all reboots works (Dark Shadows and The Night Stalker come to mind), but there's nothing wrong with the theory in practice. The Night Stalker reboot failed because it was done badly, not because it was trampling on the sacred memory of Dan Curtis or Darren McGavin or whatever. Or because it "violated" the continuity of the earlier version.

Preserving the "canon" of previous decades is not the be-all and end-all of storytelling. It makes for fun trivia contests, but not necessarily better movies . . . .

Trek was arguably overdue for a reboot . . . and where's the harm in that?

[los2188]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

You are by no means speaking for everyone . . . as the five zillion threads arguing this point suggest. Lots of us think a reboot was the right way to go, as we've "justly" argued until we're blue in the face. (Insert Andorian joke here.)

Do we know that sticking to the same continuity would work just as well? Not necessarily. Are there definite advantages to starting over again? So it would seem.

Besides, you seem to be working on the assumption that reboots are a bad thing to be avoided at all costs. That's also not necessarily the case. Reboots worked for BSG, for Batman, for Planet of the Apes, for The Addams Family, for Sherlock Holmes (three times recently!) . . . .

Granted, not all reboots works (Dark Shadows and The Night Stalker come to mind), but there's nothing wrong with the theory in practice. The Night Stalker reboot failed because it was done badly, not because it was trampling on the sacred memory of Dan Curtis or Darren McGavin or whatever. Or because it "violated" the continuity of the earlier version.

Preserving the "canon" of previous decades is not the be-all and end-all of storytelling. It makes for fun trivia contests, but not necessarily better movies . . . .

Trek was arguably overdue for a reboot . . . and where's the harm in that?

Well obviously I'm speaking for myself, but I'm not saying that a reboot is a bad thing at all. I have no problem with a reboot. It worked. But was it NEEDED? Meaning nothing else would have worked to put some energy back into this franchise? Again, please understand and remember what I'm saying...I have no problem with the reboot. I enjoy it. I like it. IT WORKED and I'm all for that, but I think given the right people, right place, right time, right circumstances, a prime timeline story, saga, series, or what ever could have worked as well. That's all I'm saying. I mean can you or anyone else say that no matter what, a prime timeline movie, series, etc...couldn't have worked at all?? But again, I love the reboot and I have no problem with it and most of all... it was the right move and IT WORKED.

[Nerys Myk]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

You are by no means speaking for everyone . . . as the five zillion threads arguing this point suggest. Lots of us think a reboot was the right way to go, as we've "justly" argued until we're blue in the face. (Insert Andorian joke here.)

Do we know that sticking to the same continuity would work just as well? Not necessarily. Are there definite advantages to starting over again? So it would seem.

Besides, you seem to be working on the assumption that reboots are a bad thing to be avoided at all costs. That's also not necessarily the case. Reboots worked for BSG, for Batman, for Planet of the Apes, for The Addams Family, for Sherlock Holmes (three times recently!) . . . .

Granted, not all reboots works (Dark Shadows and The Night Stalker come to mind), but there's nothing wrong with the theory in practice. The Night Stalker reboot failed because it was done badly, not because it was trampling on the sacred memory of Dan Curtis or Darren McGavin or whatever. Or because it "violated" the continuity of the earlier version.

Preserving the "canon" of previous decades is not the be-all and end-all of storytelling. It makes for fun trivia contests, but not necessarily better movies . . . .

Trek was arguably overdue for a reboot . . . and where's the harm in that?

Well for starters, there might be two correct answers to a trivia question now!!!!!!!

[Awesome Possum]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Trek was arguably overdue for a reboot . . . and where's the harm in that?

It was the only way to even make it interesting. As far as I know, no other franchise has to hire people to research its own fictional history so they don't contradict anything. It's a rich history and full of detail, but at a certain point it becomes a prison and the number of interesting stories become limited.

A part of me thinks that a series set in the prime universe's future could work. Maybe have the Federation collapse or focus more on alien races, but it really wouldn't be Star Trek anymore. The series was at it's best when it was humanity dealing with something, but never letting our worst aspects control us.

[Noname Given]

As someone who saw TOS first run (I was 6); and grew up with it in syndication, my reply:

Yes.

Why:

1) TNG and the 24th century era Star Trek was too reconned from the original series; and the creative staff for that era ran out of steam. I also think that TNG era Star Trek was missing MANY elements that made the original series so good.

2) The original TOS actors were just too old to continue; and there was in fact A LOT of baggage with Trek's 'Prime Universe.'

Thus, I had no issues with and was happy to embrace a reboot with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy (and the original Star trek era) effectively revitalized.

YMMV.