Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

teacake wrote:

---

I think a lot of Trek is just step up from Tolkien in sexiness, as in very much not so.

Cate Blanchett as Galadriel in The Hobbit puts the lie to that.

[Dale Sams]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Cate Blanchett as Galadriel in The Hobbit puts the lie to that.

And of course there's Figwit.

[Greg Cox]

teacake wrote:

---

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

And yet I've run into fans who insist that sex has no place in "real" Star Trek--conveniently forgetting all the scantily-clad love interests and passionate clinches in TOS.

Which strikes me as a fine example of the way the naysayers tend to compare the reboot to some idealized, cerebral, utopian idea of STAR TREK rather than actual Original Series that aired in the sixties . . . which (gasp!) actually had imperfect characters and fist-fights and explosions and space monsters and romance. All that stuff we keep being told doesn't belong in the new movies 'cause Star Trek is strictly about science and exploration and progress, damnit!

Never mind that the old shows and movies got away with the very same things that are condemned as deal-breakers when the reboot does them.

A double standard, like I said.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Its time has come...again.

[AllStarEntprise]

^
I haven't been posting on Trekbbs for weeks because of the fan bashing, and fan speculation of STID. It's too much and makes me feel like I have an aneurysm. My god we are like Star Wars and Dr. Who fans who can't accept the prequels/sequels and the r continuation of of these long running franchises.

Star Trek lives because of JJ Abrams. Yes Star Trek needed a reboot. Just like Dr Who needed a reboot. My only complaint with JJ is that he doesn't do more with his films. Paramount wants 5, but we'll be lucky to even get 3 films

[Dale Sams]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Its time has come...again.

Much like people will watch a 9 hour Hobbit film, I eagerly await three hours of Chris Pine standing around talking to the Andorian ambassador.

[FarStrider]

Dale Sams wrote:

---

Much like people will watch a 9 hour Hobbit film, I eagerly await three hours of Chris Pine standing around talking to the Andorian ambassador.

And you'll be waiting a long time.


~FS

[Cartoonist]

UFO wrote:

---

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".

I can't agree with any of that. First of all, as far as I know, the actors were all about ten years younger (with the glaring exception of Pike); so I'm not sure why you weren't convinced they were ten years younger. Their age is just a fact, it doesn't require convincing.

Secondly, most of the reaction I saw (and the reaction I had, as a TOS fan first and foremost) was that Abrams and the cast DID get the characters right. They NAILED them without seeming like they were doing an impersonation. That was the consensus among Trekkies, from what I saw at the time.

And lastly, since nobody's conducted a scientific study about the efficacy of rebooting the franchise... all we have to go on is anecdotal evidence. Mine is this: I saw the film five times in the theaters, to accompany Trek-hating friends of mine who were interested in seeing it. I don't evangelize Trek, but when someone I know expresses an interest in it I don't waste any time. Every last one of them expressed interest in seeing it because they'd heard (not from me) that it was a reboot. I tried to get them all into watching the shows afterward. A few gave them a chance, but only one kept watching. Yet we're ALL going to see Into Darkness. Just going from my small sampling, I'd say Paramount made the right decision.

[DalekJim]

AllStarEntprise wrote:

---

Yes Star Trek needed a reboot. Just like Dr Who needed a reboot.

Doctor Who wasn't rebooted in 2005. Unless you're making some obscure reference to the 60s Cushing movies...

[ROBE]

Well you could say Doctor Who has been rebooted 10 times.
Everytime the Doctor regenerates it is a sort of reboot within the same universe.

[Dale Sams]

Cartoonist wrote:

---

I can't agree with any of that. First of all, as far as I know, the actors were all about ten years younger (with the glaring exception of Pike); so I'm not sure why you weren't convinced they were ten years younger. Their age is just a fact, it doesn't require convincing.

Secondly, most of the reaction I saw (and the reaction I had, as a TOS fan first and foremost) was that Abrams and the cast DID get the characters right. They NAILED them without seeming like they were doing an impersonation. That was the consensus among Trekkies, from what I saw at the time.

And lastly, since nobody's conducted a scientific study about the efficacy of rebooting the franchise... all we have to go on is anecdotal evidence. Mine is this: I saw the film five times in the theaters, to accompany Trek-hating friends of mine who were interested in seeing it. I don't evangelize Trek, but when someone I know expresses an interest in it I don't waste any time. Every last one of them expressed interest in seeing it because they'd heard (not from me) that it was a reboot. I tried to get them all into watching the shows afterward. A few gave them a chance, but only one kept watching. Yet we're ALL going to see Into Darkness. Just going from my small sampling, I'd say Paramount made the right decision.

Can I repectfully say, IMHO, that the Kirk character pandered to the non-fans perception of him, and not 'a stack of books with legs', or a guy that teachs a class wherein 'you either think or sink'*. And also I didn't think Pine 'nailed' Kirk, but rather came up with his own fine completly useful interp.

Seriously, if that were a brand new series and you renamed him, not for one second would I think he was supposed to be Captain Kirk (minus the obvious historical refs, and his fun "Bones!" at the very end)

Again, this is in no way a slam on Pine or the interp he came up with.

I am worried about the future of the character though. You take away his relationship with Spock and inflate the ladies man/cowboy diplomacy stuff and I'm afraid he's going to come off as a little shallow.

*Yes, I know the timeline changed.

[DalekJim]

ROBE wrote:

---

Well you could say Doctor Who has been rebooted 10 times.
Everytime the Doctor regenerates it is a sort of reboot within the same universe.

Why I suggested merely having a new crew post-TNG/DS9/VOY. A Doctor Who-esque reshuffle while still being core Star Trek.

[The Mirrorball Man]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Why I suggested merely having a new crew post-TNG/DS9/VOY. A Doctor Who-esque reshuffle while still being core Star Trek.

I don't think that would have been nearly enough to get rid of the stigma Star Trek had accumulated. Hell, I don't think I would have been interested in yet another new watered-down permutation of the Trek formula, and I'm a fan.

[Greg Cox]

Dale Sams wrote:

---

Can I repectfully say, IMHO, that the Kirk character pandered to the non-fans perception of him, and not 'a stack of books with legs', .

On the other hand, we never actually saw "the stack of books with legs" onscreen. That was one line of dialogue in one episode, as opposed to 79 episodes and 7 movies in which Kirk was a dynamic, swashbuckling leading man. So, yeah, when you think of Kirk, does anybody really think of him as a "stack of books with legs." The "fact" that Kirk used to be a book worm is a bit of trivia, not the essence of the character in the popular imagination. It has nothing to do with the character we actually grew up watching.

So, yeah, I think the movies should feature the Kirk the audience expects to see, regardless of some obscure bit of trivia from one old episode.

"When the legend becomes the truth, print the legend."

[DalekJim]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

I don't think that would have been nearly enough to get rid of the stigma Star Trek had accumulated. Hell, I don't think I would have been interested in yet another new watered-down permutation of the Trek formula, and I'm a fan.

I think if you liked the characters then you'd have dug it just fine. Who knows, you might even have liked them more than Kirk and Spock .