Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[Ryan8bit]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

In "Yesterday's Enterprise", how did the Enterprise-D's crew come to be together when obviously the history of each crew member was very different than in the "prime universe" up to that point?

It's true that the changes could have greatly affected each of the people who were there. But at least they gave it a minute of thought as to who should be there and who shouldn't. Worf and Troi were cut since it didn't make sense for them to be there, and Yar was put back. If the writers of the movie thought the same way, they probably would have eliminated Chekov. But they didn't really care if it made at least some sense, and to a certain degree we have to accept that writers are just going to put in what they want. All that really matters is that they maintain the illusion that it makes sense.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

It's true that the changes could have greatly affected each of the people who were there. But at least they gave it a minute of thought as to who should be there and who shouldn't. Worf and Troi were cut since it didn't make sense for them to be there, and Yar was put back. If the writers of the movie thought the same way, they probably would have eliminated Chekov. But they didn't really care if it made at least some sense, and to a certain degree we have to accept that writers are just going to put in what they want. All that really matters is that they maintain the illusion that it makes sense.

They didn't put in "what they wanted". They put in the "Big 7" regulars from the TV show and the films.

Eliminating Chekov would have raised a terrible ruckus. There would have been throngs of fans saying "this is Star Trek; we would have created ways in our own minds by which Chekov could be part of the crew! That's what we have always done with canon."

And please don't tell me that it makes logical real-world sense that Wesley ended up as part of the "Yesterday's Enterprise" Enterprise-D crew, sitting in the chair next to Data. I'm okay with it, because it is only Star Trek (a fictional story), but it doesn't really make that much sense in reality. It's quite the coincidence.

[Franklin]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

They didn't put in "what they wanted". They put in the "Big 7" regulars from the TV show and the films.

The seven, plus an allusion to Nurse Chapel.

[King Daniel]

No Randi, though. So not an exact recreation - and the next movie adds Carol Marcus to the crew and Chekov becomes a redshirt. Things aren't going quite the same.

[Ryan8bit]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

They didn't put in "what they wanted". They put in the "Big 7" regulars from the TV show and the films.

Uh yeah, that's exactly what I mean by them putting in what they wanted. There was no "Big 7" on the TV show, just the movies, and that's what they wanted to do. They had the freedom to change it up a little if they wanted to.

Eliminating Chekov would have raised a terrible ruckus.

I highly doubt that. At the very least, it wouldn't have been any more of a ruckus than the "Chekov is the wrong age" stuff. I would have been perfectly fine if they had waited to put him in a later movie, as I'm sure most would.

And please don't tell me that it makes logical real-world sense that Wesley ended up as part of the "Yesterday's Enterprise" Enterprise-D crew, sitting in the chair next to Data. I'm okay with it, because it is only Star Trek (a fictional story), but it doesn't really make that much sense in reality. It's quite the coincidence.

I think the writers, when they sat down and figured out who should and shouldn't be there, probably at least rationalized it in some way. Probably something like Picard still choosing Dr. Crusher, Wesley still having a fast track to becoming a full officer, and Starfleet being in desperate need of officers straight from the academy. I don't personally buy it that much, but mostly just because I think it probably would have been unlikely for Wesley to even be born.

Obviously to some extent they were going to put in just what they wanted as well. We were unlikely at that stage to get an alternate universe show which only had a couple of the regulars. They probably could have rationalized Troi or Worf as well, but they just decided that it would have stretched credibility too much. It gave the illusion that there were workings to the universe, rather than it appearing like writers are pulling the strings.

[YARN]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Well, we don't have to see that in mystical terms. One could just say that disrupted timestreams tend to correct themselves by making small course corrections.

Course correction implies agency, purpose, which takes us right back to mysticism.

How would the universe know who was important or which ice cave they should be in? How did the universe intervene? What did it do to make sure this happened? What laws of physics were involved here?

The Kelvin was destroyed.

I guess the universe didn't care to stop that from happening.

Vulcan was destroyed.

I guess the universe didn't care to stop that from happening.

The fleet that arrived at Vulcan was wiped out.

I guess the universe didn't care to stop that from happening.

And yet for some reason the universe will cheat so that Kirk gets to be captain of the Enterprise? Maybe the word isn't mysticism. Maybe it's something more like narcissism?

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Think of it as a purely natural phenomenon. Like a river that returns to its original course even if its path is temporarily diverted . . ..

Because nothing fits better with a progressive technological utopian vision of the future, than good old-fashioned fatalism?

Life forms make up a very very small amount of the mass and history of the universe. We're specks on the cosmic river. Rivers don't care which way they flow. They only flow (via gravity) in the easiest channel downhill. In fact, that is the only "purpose" water has -- to get level.

Coins (like rivers) don't have memories. Flip a coin twenty times - if it comes up heads 20 times, what are your odds of getting heads on the 21st flip? It's 50/50 because the universe does not remember or care about the prior coin tosses. The universe only cares that the laws have physics have been obeyed. The coin must land, that is all that matters to the coin. The river must keep moving forward and downward, that is all that matters to the river.

Your metaphor includes both water and a channel (or river bed), but deterministic changes to a causal sequence result in a different "channel" or directing of movement. What guides the sequence are cause and effect, that's it. You seem to want to sneak in some idea that cause and effect don't matter so much as the shape that results from cause and effect, the pattern. But unless that pattern itself is part of a cause and effect process, then it makes no sense as to why the universe would be inclined to revert back to that picture or arrangement.

Yours is an equivocal metaphor. Is the river bed itself part of the cause and effect story? If so, then changes in the cause and effect sequence in the universe results in a different riverbed (since it is part of it). But if this is the case, if we have changed the conditions that influence the flow of the river, why would it attempt to snap back to a prior arrangement? On the other hand, if this is not the case, there is no explanation as to why this river would attempt to do anything but flow downhill.

[Franklin]

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote:

---

No Randi, though. So not an exact recreation - and the next movie adds Carol Marcus to the crew and Chekov becomes a redshirt. Things aren't going quite the same.

Which is fine, of course.

ST09 obviously streamlined things to get the seven everyone knows together (which is more an homage to the movies than TOS, which was hardly an ensemble cast).
So, gone were "little inconveniences" like:
-- Pike's entire original bridge crew when he was captain of the Enterprise.
-- Dr. Piper as Chief Medical Officer, Gary Mitchell at navigation, and Kelso at the helm from when Kirk was captain in WNMHGB.
-- As mentioned above, Yeoman Rand, who was actually as active a character as any four of the big seven in the first season of TOS.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

...There was no "Big 7" on the TV show, just the movies, and that's what they wanted to do. They had the freedom to change it up a little if they wanted to...

So were Uhura, Sulu and Chekov just extras -- like, say Hadley, Leslie, and Lemli -- or were they much more front-and-center in the series than the latter three?

The answer is that Uhura, Sulu and Chekov were much more front-and-center on the TV series and many times integral to the plot than Hadley, Leslie, and Lemli (even though Hadley, Leslie, and Lemli actually appeared in more episodes than the other three, but that's beside the point). As someone mentioned above, the TV series also featured Christine Chapel as one of the "Big 8", but she didn't really make it into the movies, so the Big 8 from TV became the Big 7 in the movies.

Of course Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, (and Chapel) were featured in the TV show.

[YARN]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

So were Uhura, Sulu and Chekov just extras -- like, say Hadley, Leslie, and Lemli -- or were they much more front-and-center in the series than the latter three?

The answer is that Uhura, Sulu and Chekov were much more front-and-center on the TV series and many times integral to the plot than Hadley, Leslie, and Lemli (even though Hadley, Leslie, and Lemli actually appeared in more episodes than the other three, but that's beside the point). As someone mentioned above, the TV series also featured Christine Chapel as one of the "Big 8", but she didn't really make it into the movies, so the Big 8 from TV became the Big 7 in the movies.

Of course Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, (and Chapel) were featured in the TV show.

All this really says is that there were background players and deep background players.

The holy trinity is Spock, Kirk, and McCoy. We love them all, but the show is this triad. We've seen plenty of other people at the helm and the comms station.

[Dale Sams]

YARN wrote:

---

Course correction implies agency, purpose, which takes us right back to mysticism.


Yours is an equivocal metaphor. Is the river bed itself part of the cause and effect story? If so, then changes in the cause and effect sequence in the universe results in a different riverbed (since it is part of it). But if this is the case, if we have changed the conditions that influence the flow of the river, why would it attempt to snap back to a prior arrangement? On the other hand, if this is not the case, there is no explanation as to why this river would attempt to do anything but flow downhill.

And yet..the TOS crew just happened to be in the right spot at the right time in The Alternative Factor, The Immunity Syndrome, Obsession ...only a superlative Captain as Kirk would have come through as he did in Balance of Terror...etc..etc..

You don't want mysticism? Just say the Q Continuum is working behind the scenes.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

YARN wrote:

---

All this really says is that there were background players and deep background players.

The holy trinity is Spock, Kirk, and McCoy. We love them all, but the show is this triad. We've seen plenty of other people at the helm and the comms station.

I agree. But if the TOS movies had just Kirk, Spock, and McCoy -- with some Scotty thrown in, fans would have noticed the glaring omissions of Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov (and Chapel).
In fact, the minor roles in TMP for Uhura, Sulu, and especially Chekov was a major point of contention regarding that film for many fans.

Sure -- Kirk, Spock, and McCoy are the triad, with Scotty thrown in just below them. But fans even as far back as TMP expected Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov, too. Those fans STILL expected those characters for the new films, so that's who they got. Like I said, leaving Chekov out of ST09 just because he would be too young would have caused a fan uproar.

[Greg Cox]

YARN wrote:

---

Because nothing fits better with a progressive technological utopian vision of the future, than good old-fashioned fatalism?.

You may be overthinking it. It was mostly just a plot contrivance to give the audience what it expected: the familiar cast of TOS, back together again. I was just pointing out that the time-stream fixing itself is a standard plot device in classic SF, dating back to Amazing and Astounding, probably. It may be a cheat, but it's one time-travel and parallel universe stories have been using for decades. Kind of like "universal translators" or aliens who conveniently speak English.

Plus, as a rule, I don't judge STAR TREK movies on whether they adhere to some abstract, ideological agenda. Telling a good story is at least equally as important as staying true to some sort of high-falutin' "vision." We're talking fiction here, not sermons.

And I will argue to my dying day that TOS was never "utopian." Optimistic, yes, but full of drama and tragedy and conflict as well . . .

[UFO]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

I tried to argue that one once, but someone pointed out that there could have been an infinite number of possibilities we DIDN'T see in "Parallels" where the crew NEVER came together. We just happened to see the hundred's of thousands where they DID happen to come together.

I can buy that. But still, that means it is possible for the same crew to all come together in another timeline.

Perhaps another timeline, but not ST09 because that one wasn’t chosen from an infinite number of possibilities because it suited the needs of the plot. It is a direct copy of the prime timeline with a significant change that we have every right to believe would normally cause the opposite result to what actually happened.

While not directed at Jackson_Roykirk necessarily, I do believe that there is a difference between an "establishing implausibility" and a continuing series of unlikely plot points that keep rubbing our noses in what the writers are up to.

YARN wrote:

---

Course correction implies agency, purpose, which takes us right back to mysticism.

How would the universe know who was important or which ice cave they should be in? How did the universe intervene? What did it do to make sure this happened? What laws of physics were involved here?

...

Good post. I doesn't seem like "over thinking" to question basic science in a science fiction story. Unfashionable maybe.

Greg Cox wrote:

---

You may be overthinking it. It was mostly just a plot contrivance to give the audience what it expected: the familiar cast of TOS, back together again. I was just pointing out that the time-stream fixing itself is a standard plot device in classic SF, dating back to Amazing and Astounding, probably. It may be a cheat, but it's one time-travel and parallel universe stories have been using for decades. Kind of like "universal translators" or aliens who conveniently speak English.

Except as I mentioned previously, those things aren't supposed to contradict basic science.

Moreover I somehow doubt most of those stories used that plot device to allow the universe to so selectively "correct itself" time and again in full view of the audience. That seems more like "abuse" than "use" to me. And lets face it, such behaviour would be ripped to shreds if people hadn't liked the movie.

Plus, as a rule, I don't judge STAR TREK movies on whether they adhere to some abstract, ideological agenda.

You mean like "THE 'LAWS' OF PHYSICS"?! ()

Telling a good story is at least equally as important as staying true to some sort of high-falutin' "vision." We're talking fiction here, not sermons.

OH, I see. You're addressing those of us who are misguided enough to value the real, if subtle (in TOS), feeling that the Star Trek’s future is at least to some degree socially and morally optimistic. Well this isn't the first time you have said something like: "Telling a good story is at least equally as important as staying true to some sort of high-falutin' "vision." as though if we look hard enough we might find some sort of reasonable compromise in ST09 between those two qualities.

And I will argue to my dying day that TOS was never "utopian." Optimistic, yes, but full of drama and tragedy and conflict as well . . .

I have no problem with the view that Star Trek is not "utopian." Nor do I believe that when most people use the word "utopian" to describe ST they mean a "perfect society". I think that like "reboot", it is just too convenient. So that contention is hopefully a straw-man.

The point is that ST09 is not even optimistic (allowing minor quibbles about nuSpock's so-called character development etc), unless your view of optimism is simply: "The good guys won". Socially and morally (based on what we saw, not fan speculation) its it worse and/or no better than now, and that was probably intentional up to a point. Strange that with all the homages, we didn’t get the one about not killing (or attempting to kill) today. Sure, there was some lip-service, but "luckily" it didn't interfere with the plot.

[Greg Cox]

Honestly, I don't remember TOS explaining the physics behind how the Guardian of Forever worked, or the Atavachron, or Janice Lester's mind-transfer device, or whatever the Kelvans used to turn the crew into paperweights. Star Trek has never really been about rigorous hard science fiction, especially if it gets in the way of an exciting space opera adventure/morality play/drama/comedy/horror story . . . .

And, unless I missed something, the new movie still takes place in a future that basically works, where people from diverse backgrounds and worlds come together for the common good. Where people aspire to explore the cosmos as part of a United Federation of Planets. Sounds like STAR TREK to me . . . .

As for turning "utopian" into a straw man, you may use the word in a less literal sense (which I applaud), but I've seen endless debates on this very board about whether such and such episode or movie or book is "utopian" enough, or people stating confidently that there should be no disease or conflict or personal failings or political corruption or casual sex or child abuse or whatever in the perfect utopian world of STAR TREK, which bears little resemblance to the universe depicted in TOS.

So, yeah, I do think it's possible to get carried away with the "utopian" thing, at the expense of telling stories like "Conscience of the King" or "Is There in Truth No Beauty?" or "The Enemy Within" or "Court-Martial" or "The Ultimate Computer" that explore both the dark and light sides of the 23rd Century . . . ..

[Franklin]

TOS was labeled "optimistic" only because it did show a future where somehow humankind got through it all (kids, let me tell you about the 1960s), solved a few major problems, and seemed to be able to get along well enough to cooperate for a greater good.

It presented a better world, but never a utopia.

And, while Earth may even seem like a paradise full of comfort and no worries for its 23rd century inhabitants, I have a feeling Cumberbatch is about blow that myth to bits and show how naive and complacent that attitude really is. (If the destruction of Vulcan and probably being just minutes from Earth's own destruction didn't destroy that myth, already.)