Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot? - Page 47

Greg Cox · January 12 2013, 07:33 PM

Spider wrote:

I was reading three different scifi magazines at the time, and buying dozens of those Ace Doubles. I wonder how many of yall are old enough to remember those Ace Doubles?.

Those are a little before my time, but I remember seeing them around, possibly in libraries and used bookstores. And Tor did a line of Tor Doubles back in the early nineties.

A brief digression: Tor recently revived the Doubles format to publish paired sf novellas by Walter Mosely. By sheer coincidence, I just happened to write the cover copy for next Double a few days ago . . .

Jackson_Roykirk · January 12 2013, 07:39 PM

DalekJim wrote:

I dunno which was less satisfying a conclusion out of Galactica 1980 or the revived series' "A wizard did it!" ending.

Considering that the polytheism of the humans -versus- the monotheism of the Cylons was a recurring theme throughout the four season run of the show, I'm not surprised that theism in general played a part in the series finale.

LobsterAfternoon · January 12 2013, 07:45 PM

My apologies if someone brought this up earlier in this 47 page thread, but to people who are bothered by the fact that these are alternate universe/timeline versions of the crew - would it have made a difference to you if they had just done a straight-up prequel? Like, set it in the prime universe, just doing a story we never saw before?

BillJ · January 12 2013, 09:33 PM

LobsterAfternoon wrote:

My apologies if someone brought this up earlier in this 47 page thread, but to people who are bothered by the fact that these are alternate universe/timeline versions of the crew - would it have made a difference to you if they had just done a straight-up prequel? Like, set it in the prime universe, just doing a story we never saw before?

You couldn't do the same story at all. You couldn't blow up Vulcan, you couldn't kill Amanda and any danger you put the characters in wouldn't matter because you've already seen how their futures play out.

Either hard or soft, it had to be a reboot if they were going to do a Kirk/Spock origin.

LobsterAfternoon · January 12 2013, 09:50 PM

Would it have to be a reboot if they just showed the original way prime Spock and Kirk met? I don't believe we've ever seen that on screen, and with careful plotting, surely they could've made use of whatever references have been made to it in existing media.

BillJ wrote:

LobsterAfternoon wrote:

My apologies if someone brought this up earlier in this 47 page thread, but to people who are bothered by the fact that these are alternate universe/timeline versions of the crew - would it have made a difference to you if they had just done a straight-up prequel? Like, set it in the prime universe, just doing a story we never saw before?

You couldn't do the same story at all. You couldn't blow up Vulcan, you couldn't kill Amanda and any danger you put the characters in wouldn't matter because you've already seen how their futures play out.

Either hard or soft, it had to be a reboot if they were going to do a Kirk/Spock origin.

Shazam! · January 12 2013, 09:52 PM

A true prequel would be an absolute minefield continuity wise and would likely have had to span a substantially longer period than Trek IX to facilitate the meetings of all the characters.

BillJ · January 12 2013, 10:20 PM

LobsterAfternoon wrote:

Would it have to be a reboot if they just showed the original way prime Spock and Kirk met? I don't believe we've ever seen that on screen, and with careful plotting, surely they could've made use of whatever references have been made to it in existing media.

No.

Greg Cox · January 12 2013, 10:24 PM

Shazam! wrote:

A true prequel would be an absolute minefield continuity wise and would likely have had to span a substantially longer period than Trek IX to facilitate the meetings of all the characters.

And would have left the "new" STAR TREK movies in the middle of the continuity minefield for every movie to come. "Wait? Why isn't Kirk serving on the Reliant now? Why isn't he dating Janice Lester . . . or Carol Marcus . . . or Ruth . . . ? What about the gas monster from 'Obsession'? Where does Kodos the Executioner fit in? Why is Chekov on the bridge already? Where is Dr. Piper? And Robert April?"

Like I said before, better to tear the "Canon" bandaid off in one clean swoop, rather than get nitpicked to death, continuity-wise, for the next ten years . . . .

King Daniel Into Darkness · January 12 2013, 10:29 PM

For those eager for a prequel Kirk-meets-Spock film set in the TOS continuity and who don't mind awful acting, there's this fan film coming this year:

JarodRussell · January 12 2013, 10:31 PM

Greg Cox wrote:

Shazam! wrote:

A true prequel would be an absolute minefield continuity wise and would likely have had to span a substantially longer period than Trek IX to facilitate the meetings of all the characters.

And would have left the "new" STAR TREK movies in the middle of the continuity minefield for every movie to come. "Wait? Why isn't Kirk serving on the Reliant now? Why isn't he dating Janice Lester . . . or Carol Marcus . . . or Ruth . . . ? What about the gas monster from 'Obsession'? Where does Kodos the Executioner fit in? Why is Chekov on the bridge already? Where is Dr. Piper? And Robert April?"

Like I said before, better to tear the "Canon" bandaid off in one clean swoop, rather than get nitpicked to death, continuity-wise, for the next ten years . . . .

One could have easily avoided all that by not doing a TOS remake at all to begin with.

Carcazoid · January 12 2013, 10:34 PM

LobsterAfternoon wrote:

Would it have to be a reboot if they just showed the original way prime Spock and Kirk met? I don't believe we've ever seen that on screen, and with careful plotting, surely they could've made use of whatever references have been made to it in existing media.

BillJ wrote:

LobsterAfternoon wrote:

My apologies if someone brought this up earlier in this 47 page thread, but to people who are bothered by the fact that these are alternate universe/timeline versions of the crew - would it have made a difference to you if they had just done a straight-up prequel? Like, set it in the prime universe, just doing a story we never saw before?

You couldn't do the same story at all. You couldn't blow up Vulcan, you couldn't kill Amanda and any danger you put the characters in wouldn't matter because you've already seen how their futures play out.

Either hard or soft, it had to be a reboot if they were going to do a Kirk/Spock origin.

People are going to complain no matter what happens. Trek fans are incredibly anal.

King Daniel wrote:

For those eager for a prequel Kirk-meets-Spock film set in the TOS continuity and who don't mind awful acting, there's this fan film coming this year:

Yikes.

JarodRussell · January 12 2013, 10:37 PM

Kirk and Spock met when Kirk became Captain of the Enterprise, end of the Prime story. Likewise, Kirk and McCoy met the first time when McCoy replaced Dr. Piper aboard the Enterprise. It's a big universe. Not everything has to happen in some epic event.

That whole fate idea is horrible.

Greg Cox · January 12 2013, 10:37 PM

JarodRussell wrote:

Greg Cox wrote:

Like I said before, better to tear the "Canon" bandaid off in one clean swoop, rather than get nitpicked to death, continuity-wise, for the next ten years . . . .

One could have easily avoided all that by not doing a TOS remake at all to begin with.

But where's the fun in that?

If people want more TOS, give it to them. Remakes do not violate the Prime Directive.

Shazam! · January 12 2013, 10:38 PM

JarodRussell wrote:

One could have easily avoided all that by not doing a TOS remake at all to begin with.

I would be fine with a remake if they ever decide to make one.

Carcazoid · January 12 2013, 10:40 PM

Greg Cox wrote:

JarodRussell wrote:

Greg Cox wrote:

Like I said before, better to tear the "Canon" bandaid off in one clean swoop, rather than get nitpicked to death, continuity-wise, for the next ten years . . . .

One could have easily avoided all that by not doing a TOS remake at all to begin with.

But where's the fun in that?

If people want more TOS, give it to them. Remakes do not violate the Prime Directive.

Hear, hear.

If the reboot had been a novel it would likely have been lauded as genius.

January 12 2013, 07:45 PM	#693
LobsterAfternoon Commander	Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot? My apologies if someone brought this up earlier in this 47 page thread, but to people who are bothered by the fact that these are alternate universe/timeline versions of the crew - would it have made a difference to you if they had just done a straight-up prequel? Like, set it in the prime universe, just doing a story we never saw before?

January 12 2013, 09:52 PM	#696
Shazam! Rear Admiral	Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot? A true prequel would be an absolute minefield continuity wise and would likely have had to span a substantially longer period than Trek IX to facilitate the meetings of all the characters.

January 12 2013, 10:29 PM	#699
King Daniel Into Darkness Admiral Location: KingDaniel has fallen Into Darkness (in England)	Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot? For those eager for a prequel Kirk-meets-Spock film set in the TOS continuity and who don't mind awful acting, there's this fan film coming this year: __________________ Star Trek Imponderables, fun video mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors. Episode One Episode Two

January 12 2013, 10:37 PM	#702
JarodRussell Vice Admiral	Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot? Kirk and Spock met when Kirk became Captain of the Enterprise, end of the Prime story. Likewise, Kirk and McCoy met the first time when McCoy replaced Dr. Piper aboard the Enterprise. It's a big universe. Not everything has to happen in some epic event. That whole fate idea is horrible. __________________ lol l /\

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US