Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[Cartoonist]

DalekJim wrote:

---

No, it was completely pointless. See also The Amazing Spider-Man.

Should have just given us a new ship and crew instead of setting the franchise back 40+ years and making it a cosy nostalgia cash-in akin to The A-Team.

To each his own. After Raimi's third Spider-Man, I was hoping they'd reboot it.

And this was an excellent, well-paced story that preserved the classic timeline while creating an alternate one. The music was great, the action was good, and they nailed the essences of the original characters, while still making them feel new. This was NOTHING like The A-Team.

[Greg Cox]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

...Actually, let me rephrase that. I think they ARE "able" to do it, but for some reason they are unwilling to do it. It seems some of them just WANT to hate AbramsTrek, so they suddenly become very stubborn and uncharacteristically nit-picky about continuity and canon.

There was a good line in USA TODAY this morning (referring to the new season of HOMELAND): "If you expect to be disappointed, you probably will be."

I keep vowing not to get sucked into this same old debate again (it's been three years, people.) But the sheer double standard some fans apply to the new movie just sets my eyes to rolling every time. "But STAR TREK would never do that--except for the dozen or so times it already did!"

(I still remember the poster who primly insisted that Gene Roddenberry would have never allowed casual sex or gratuitous cheesecake in Star Trek. WTF? Had they even seen TOS?)

[Balrog]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Should have just given us a new ship and crew instead of setting the franchise back 40+ years and making it a cosy nostalgia cash-in akin to The A-Team.

Hmmm... I wonder if Will Smith is available...

[Greg Cox]

DalekJim wrote:

---

No, it was completely pointless. See also The Amazing Spider-Man.

Yeah, they should have just stuck with Nicholas Hammond!

What was the point of rebooting SPIDER-MAN with that Tobey Maguire guy?

[thumbtack]

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:

---

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.

Then we must also praise the reboot for weeding out the Star Trek universe fans, or at least exposing them, as I have no intention of ever becoming a canon fan.

I can't even imaging myself treating each new movie or series like the next chapter of galactic history.

[BillJ]

Whether I think it needed rebooted or not, it doesn't matter. Unless you're involved in the creative process you're a spectator.

[Carcazoid]

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!

I've been a Trekkie for about 40 years and I still don't give a damn what that is.

[UFO]

thumbtack wrote:

---

Then we must also praise the reboot for weeding out the Star Trek universe fans, or at least exposing them, as I have no intention of ever becoming a canon fan.

I can't even imaging myself treating each new movie or series like the next chapter of galactic history.

You have lost me. How will "weeding out" or "exposing" Star Trek universe fans* save you from becoming one of them? Is it like homosexuality, where some people are afraid of it being made compulsory? Now if your intention is to stone them to death, I could see how the so-called "reboot" might be helpful in identifying them.

The distinction is of course ridiculous anyway. I doubt there are many fans of TOS who would not want to see those characters back on screen, provided they were indeed faithful to the originals, as opposed to just getting the names right. Sure there are probably some fans who don't like Star Trek divided up in to neat little commercial packages, but if the latest film did anything, it showed us how to avoid that. Where is the problem?

Besides, there was room in the old universe for more stories with TOS characters (I doubt most causal viewers even realised this was a new one, as I think has been said). What they probably couldn't have done, and didn't succeed doing convincingly* in ST09, was make them ten years younger. That was the main goal of course.


* Yes, I know some will claim to be "convinced".

[Locutus of Bored]

Chronius Fawkes wrote:

---

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

The dying words of a virgin?

That spell Harry Potter says to scare away Dementors?

One of the eleven herbs and spices that make up the Colonel's secret recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken?

The glue that holds Shatner's toupee down?

[SalvorHardin]

I think it's Coca Cola's secret ingredient.
Can I be a fan now?

[M'Sharak]

... people! Verterium Cortenide is made out of people!

[Lance]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

I keep vowing not to get sucked into this same old debate again (it's been three years, people.) But the sheer double standard some fans apply to the new movie just sets my eyes to rolling every time. "But STAR TREK would never do that--except for the dozen or so times it already did!"

(I still remember the poster who primly insisted that Gene Roddenberry would have never allowed casual sex or gratuitous cheesecake in Star Trek. WTF? Had they even seen TOS?)

Adding casual sex and gratuitous cheesecake into Trek is exactly what Roddenberry did best. Not for nothing do many of the early drafts of TNG's first season bear little resemblence to those which actually got televised, mainly because Gene came along with his magic marker and started adding sex scenes everywhere. The difference between Fontana's draft of The Naked Now and Roddenberry's draft (which ultimately made it to screen) is like comparing apples to oranges.

There's pros and cons to it of course. But nobody could possibly legitimately suggest that Star Trek wasn't always fairly sexuallly super-charged, almost as Gene's raison detre. Now, the addition of sexual overtones to the modern Doctor Who, on the other hand...

[teacake]

By gratuitous cheesecake are you talking about the time the Doctor inhabited 7's body and ate himself stupid on cheesecake? And almost had casual sex?

Oh and I don't think by today's standards Star Trek is even remotely "sexually super charged".

[Lance]

teacake wrote:

---

I don't think by today's standards Star Trek is even remotely "sexually super charged".

The operative words being "by today's standards".

[teacake]

Yes. Though I've had disagreements with people here before on the topic. I recall someone listing a whole series of incidents where it is clear that a Trek character was in a sexual relationship as proof that Trek was sexy. Completely missing the point, knowing that sex takes place does not a sexy series make.

And that's why we need a little more realism and a little more fun in NuTrek. It doesn't have to go too far. I think a lot of Trek is just step up from Tolkien in sexiness, as in very much not so.