Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[Dale Sams]

To answer the question. Did it need a reboot? No. Did it work? Yes.

They could make a new TV series post Nemesis if they wanted. They could make a damn good one. Bring in real Sci-Fi writers, do whatever you want. You wouldn't need a gimmick. Shit...have season one be the voyages of The Enterprise-E commanded by Picard, and then kill him. WHAM!

Get real writers (and a producer) GD so the show hits the ground running and we don't have to mess with anymore of this 'finding their feet nonsense'.

Edit: By gimmick (rereading i see killing Picard after one season could be called a gimmick) I mean the premise is to boldly go where no man has gone before. Not, "Cadet years" or "Delta Quadrant"..no bloody a,b,c,d or nil. Just E.

[UFO]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

...
How about the new direction of all the characters not standing around chattering superficially but at length about alleged Big Ideas while boring the audience to tears?

That's certainly been an improvement.

Well, I guess you only watch Star Trek for the pictures.

SeerSGB wrote:

---

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.

Yes, with all those Easter eggs and whatnot, it is a kind of Reader's Digest Trek, but excluding the most important bit: A sense of optimism based on a better, though not overly idealist view of the future.

Greg Cox wrote:

---

...
Besides, you seem to be working on the assumption that reboots are a bad thing to be avoided at all costs.
...
Trek was arguably overdue for a reboot . . . and where's the harm in that?

A good question. A reboot, by it very nature, emphasises that what we are looking at is just a commodity, like an updated version of brand X washing powder. It takes away the alot of the idea that this is something of value with it's own internal history. Indeed something pretty rare, given it's longevity. From that point of view, what they actually did was one of the writer’s better choices IMO, with no real down-side (if you believe it is worthy of the name). Of course to take advantage of that we would have to stop pretending that it is a reboot. It isn’t, even though it accomplishes many of the same goals. The causal connection (in universe) prevents it from being one, of course.

Yes, I know people will keep calling it a reboot. That's just too convenient a word, and I doubt there's another one.

A Very Jewel Christmas wrote:

---

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.

And yet I have read people claim TNG didn't make enough references to TOS. Without computers a little fact checking could have been a pain, but it should be pretty easy nowadays, especially if your future is 100 years along from TNG.

Oh and maybe we could compare notes on why something might not be Star Trek any more (see above).

[Balrog]

DalekJim wrote:

---

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

Good Trek movies have never been about sci-fi ideas.

[Awesome Possum]

Jingle Balrog wrote:

---

Good Trek movies have never been about sci-fi ideas.

Revenge is such a scifi concept. Also whatever Voyage Home was about, saving whales and trying to seduce the mom from 7th Heaven.

[Enterprise is Great]

If people want an exploration of sci-fi ideas don't look for it in a Star Trek movie or in just about any mainstream sci-fi movie but instead pick up a novel by Alastair Reynolds, Iain Banks or Asimov and other writers. And maybe some Star Trek novels as well. It's easier to explore these ideas in print. Film is too much of a visual medium to do it effectively (though I'm sure some of you can come up with movies that do). Star Trek especially TOS was about telling cool action adventure (and the occasional comedy) storylines with some superficial ideas thrown in to the mix to give it some substance.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

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. 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.

But again, Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock are pop culture icons and as much as I love it, the truth is the generic Star Trek universe setting was a proven failure both on television and in movies. With Enterprise they revamped the show twice. They went darker and edgier with the third season's Xindi war, then got new writers and a new showrunner to take the fourth season in another new (direct-prequel-tastic) direction. Neither idea worked. Nemesis was a major flop, despite having the biggest budget and marketing push (at the time) since The Motion Picture and starring the cast that were at the helm during Trek's most financially successful period.

J.M. Straczynski and Bryce Zabel put it best, I think, in their 2004 pitch for a rebooted TOS:
"Over the decades, Star Trek has become so insular, so strictly defined, and placed so many layers upon itself that the essence of what made us love it in the first place has been lost. The all-too-reasonable desire to protect the franchise may now be the cause of it's stagnation.

Imagine buying a new Porsche and leaving it in the garage all the time, because if you take it on the road, it might get scratched. But that's exactly what's happened to Star Trek. The Porsche is still clean and polished, but we're driving around in a nice, reasonable family car.

It's time to throw caution to the wind and go out for a drive... a real drive..."

[Admiral Buzzkill]

los2188 wrote:

---

The answer? Truthfully, no. I also don't believe that anyone can justly argue against the answer of no.

Yes, it did.

The only sensible alternative for Paramount would have been to spend their money on non-Trek movies and TV shows instead.

[Chronius Fawkes]

Not by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, it seems as if "fans" can rationalize anything, even if its just a faint resemblance to what its supposed to be. The only thing that keeps me happy about the whole thing is quantum mechanics, and the idea that the original timeline still exists in another universe. If you don't know what verterium cortenide is, then your opinion of the matter is moot IMNTHO.

[BillJ]

Chronius Fawkes wrote:

---

Not by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, it seems as if "fans" can rationalize anything, even if its just a faint resemblance to what its supposed to be. The only thing that keeps me happy about the whole thing is quantum mechanics, and the idea that the original timeline still exists in another universe. If you don't know what verterium cortenide is, then your opinion of the matter is moot IMNTHO.

This is just non-sense. The movie wasn't made for the fans but for the general ticket buyer.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Chronius Fawkes wrote:

---

If you don't know what verterium cortenide is, then your opinion of the matter is moot IMNTHO.

[Greg Cox]

A Very Jewel Christmas wrote:

---

Revenge is such a scifi concept. Also whatever Voyage Home was about, saving whales and trying to seduce the mom from 7th Heaven.

Hah! We're obviously coming at this from completely opposite directions. The Voyage Home is a marvelously entertaining, feel-good movie that appeals to everyone, fans and non-fans alike. I get sucked into it every time I stumble onto it on TV.

It's easily my second-favorite Trek film after Khan . . . which was, of course, all about revenge.

[Balrog]

Chronius Fawkes wrote:

---

If you don't know what verterium cortenide is, then your opinion of the matter is moot IMNTHO.

Ah! Good to know, thanks!

I had to get a shot of that for my lower back...

[SeerSGB]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Hah! We're obviously coming at this from completely opposite directions. The Voyage Home is a marvelously entertaining, feel-good movie that appeals to everyone, fans and non-fans alike. I get sucked into it every time I stumble onto it on TV.

It's easily my second-favorite Trek film after Khan . . . which was, of course, all about revenge.

I tend to count II, III & IV, as one movie when ranking. I know they're not, but the trilogy aspect of the story works really well.

You could strip all the reboot nonsense off ST'09 and it'd pass for a TNG or TOS movie. I guarantee had they done the same script with the classic crew (kind of hard, with Doohan and Kelly being dead, just saying) or the TNG cast--even DS9 or Voyager--people would have fallen all over themselves praising it.

Chronius Fawkes wrote:

---

Not by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, it seems as if "fans" can rationalize anything, even if its just a faint resemblance to what its supposed to be. The only thing that keeps me happy about the whole thing is quantum mechanics, and the idea that the original timeline still exists in another universe. If you don't know what verterium cortenide is, then your opinion of the matter is moot IMNTHO.

Dude, I've probably watched the movies, the tv shows, and read the tech manuals more times than a man with an active sex life should be willing to admit to, and even I had to look that one up.

[Greg Cox]

SeerSGB wrote:

---

Dude, I've probably watched the movies, the tv shows, and read the tech manuals more times than a man with an active sex life should be willing to admit to, and even I had to look that one up.

Hell, I've been a professional Trekkie for nearly twenty years and I had no idea what that was . . . .

You shouldn't have to pass a written exam to enjoy a STAR TREK movie!

[SalvorHardin]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Hell, I've been a professional Trekkie for nearly twenty years and I had no idea what that was . . . .

You shouldn't have to pass a written exam to enjoy a STAR TREK movie!

And you call yourselves fans? I am disgusted to be in the same thread with you both.