Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot? - Page 57

Admiral Buzzkill · January 30 2013, 11:08 PM

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

M'Sharak wrote:

and this is not the venue for you to argue.

Thread Title wrote:

Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

????????????????????????????

What is it a venue of if, not debate?

You completely missed the context, there.

Nerys Myk · January 31 2013, 02:53 AM

DalekJim wrote:

Set Harth wrote:

I think it was all one person, and it was a dude.

Nice casual homophobia there

.

Nerys Myk wrote:

All of them were French models.

Have you been hacking my account and looking in my PM box?

Watch the video BillJ linked.

CorporalCaptain · January 31 2013, 03:17 AM

The Overlord wrote:

Star Trek 11 essentially rebooted the franchise, do you think that was the right move?

Yes.

J. Allen · January 31 2013, 03:22 AM

I don't remember if I posted in this thread or not, as it's 57 pages, so I'm answering (possibly again).

Yes, the reboot was necessary. Star Trek had become stolid and mired in back breaking canon that left no room for innovation, save to head further into the future, and further away from the relatability that the near future had to offer. By rebooting, a fresh, new lease on the franchise was given, and the end result was a drastic increase in the mainstream popularity of Star Trek. We also got some nice, updated technology, and some updated characters while still making homages to the originals.

All in all, great move.

Greg Cox · January 31 2013, 03:47 AM

And, even if it wasn't "needed," why not?

Reboots are not the devil. Some people even like them.

Saul · January 31 2013, 05:01 AM

Well I always think that it's the Directors mark and not the fact that it's a reboot that defines the look and feel of the movie. I think we could have got away with updating the sets and having more action even if it was kept within continuity/canon. Since Kirk and Spocks early days are pretty much unexplored there was space to still play around and "update" Star Trek while still saying 'This is what the Star Trek world looked like then'. JJ Abrams is talented enough to do that. Obviously he can since he will be continuing the Star Wars story in the same Universe.

Story-wise it's difficult to blow up Vulcan in continuity without hitting the reset button. So if the story really required it then I guess they needed to reboot. But still, to me (as a Trek fan only) there is some kind of feeling that it's not really our Vulcan since it's in an alternate Universe and the other one is safe and sound.

The Mirrorball Man · January 31 2013, 05:03 AM

Saul wrote:

But still, to me (as a Trek fan only) there is some kind of feeling that it's not really our Vulcan since it's in an alternate Universe and the other one is safe and sound.

Of course, infinite versions of Vulcan can live on in our imaginations.

The Stig · January 31 2013, 03:22 PM

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

Saul wrote:

But still, to me (as a Trek fan only) there is some kind of feeling that it's not really our Vulcan since it's in an alternate Universe and the other one is safe and sound.

Of course, infinite versions of Vulcan can live on in our imaginations.

I'm not sure when it happened, but as I grew older I became far less precious about what 'really happened' in an imaginary continuity and got far more invested in whether or not the story I was watching/reading/playing was about real and relateable people. To see Spock taunted as a youth about his mother and then have him witness her death had a real impact, far more than the destruction of his made-up planet.

That being said, I'll probably raise holy hell when (or if) Bryan Singer's Battlestar Galactica movie gets made. There's only one Adama, and it's Edward James Olmos.

BillJ · January 31 2013, 03:29 PM

The Stig wrote:

I'm not sure when it happened, but as I grew older I became far less precious about what 'really happened' in an imaginary continuity and got far more invested in whether or not the story I was watching/reading/playing was about real and relateable people.

This.

Admiral Buzzkill · January 31 2013, 03:37 PM

Yeah, it's called "growing up."

All that matters is whether you're enjoying the show you're watching right now.

Greg Cox · January 31 2013, 04:37 PM

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

Saul wrote:

But still, to me (as a Trek fan only) there is some kind of feeling that it's not really our Vulcan since it's in an alternate Universe and the other one is safe and sound.

Of course, infinite versions of Vulcan can live on in our imaginations.

Like the various versions of Oz, Wonderland, Krypton, Mongo, etc.

Saul · February 1 2013, 01:32 PM

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

Saul wrote:

But still, to me (as a Trek fan only) there is some kind of feeling that it's not really our Vulcan since it's in an alternate Universe and the other one is safe and sound.

Of course, infinite versions of Vulcan can live on in our imaginations.

Like that version of Vulcan where the deserts are not sand but ice-cream. That's an awesome one.

Set Harth · February 1 2013, 02:35 PM

But not very logical.

January 31 2013, 03:22 AM	#844
J. Allen Trekkie™ Location: A Quantum State	Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot? I don't remember if I posted in this thread or not, as it's 57 pages, so I'm answering (possibly again). Yes, the reboot was necessary. Star Trek had become stolid and mired in back breaking canon that left no room for innovation, save to head further into the future, and further away from the relatability that the near future had to offer. By rebooting, a fresh, new lease on the franchise was given, and the end result was a drastic increase in the mainstream popularity of Star Trek. We also got some nice, updated technology, and some updated characters while still making homages to the originals. All in all, great move. __________________ -------------------- "Laser effects, mirrored balls; John Williams must be rolling around in his grave!" - Homer Simpson

January 31 2013, 03:47 AM	#845
Greg Cox Vice Admiral Location: Oxford, PA	Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot? And, even if it wasn't "needed," why not? Reboots are not the devil. Some people even like them. __________________ www.gregcox-author.com

January 31 2013, 05:01 AM	#846
Saul Rear Admiral Location: 東京	Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot? Well I always think that it's the Directors mark and not the fact that it's a reboot that defines the look and feel of the movie. I think we could have got away with updating the sets and having more action even if it was kept within continuity/canon. Since Kirk and Spocks early days are pretty much unexplored there was space to still play around and "update" Star Trek while still saying 'This is what the Star Trek world looked like then'. JJ Abrams is talented enough to do that. Obviously he can since he will be continuing the Star Wars story in the same Universe. Story-wise it's difficult to blow up Vulcan in continuity without hitting the reset button. So if the story really required it then I guess they needed to reboot. But still, to me (as a Trek fan only) there is some kind of feeling that it's not really our Vulcan since it's in an alternate Universe and the other one is safe and sound. __________________ "It's not that you can see the strings, it's that 40 years later you're still looking at them." - Steven Moffat "This movie was big. Imagine how big it could have been with me in it?" William Shatner

January 31 2013, 03:37 PM	#850
Admiral Buzzkill The Man Location: Defying Gravity	Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot? Yeah, it's called "growing up." All that matters is whether you're enjoying the show you're watching right now. __________________ I had steak and a loaded baked potato for dinner on Sunday. As a steak I enjoyed it a lot, but as macaroni and cheese I thought it was disappointing.

February 1 2013, 02:35 PM	#853
Set Harth Commodore Location: Ekkaia	Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot? But not very logical. __________________ Are you casting aspersions on my asparagus?

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US