Do you think they'll keep making Abramsverse movies after #3?

I have to ask: Why should reboots be confined to comic-book universes? And, more importantly, who says that reboots chase away fans?

Last time I checked, CASINO ROYALE and BATMAN BEGINS and the new GODZILLA had not driven away long-time fans.

We mustn't assume that reboots automatically alienate us old-time fans. Most of us are used to them by now . . . and are usually curious to check out the latest version of an old favorite.

Am I going to check out the new DAREDEVIL or "Man from UNCLE"? Of course I am, regardless of whether they're reboots or not. Ditto with whatever new iteration of STAR TREK comes along the pike.

 

For me, reboots give the opportunity to see the fan universe that I enjoy from someone else's point of view, and their take on the material. I may not agree with that take, but that's ok. I'm still glad to see that point of view.

I like Star Trek, and many of its incarnations, but that doesn't mean it has to remain the same for me to enjoy it. I've written more than my fair share of fan-fiction, owned several uniform tops and props, and have a varied action figure collection. Despite all this, I would still love to see Abrams, Lin, or any other person take a shot with Trek.

 

Lol, not exactly. As movie theater employees, we were allowed to watch movies for free on our days off. I didn't walk off the job, only the film

 

Casino Royale was a soft reboot and all the other cases there is about 10 years or more between the old continuity and the new movie.

 

No. There is simply no way, shape, or form that Casino Royale exists in the same continuity as Dr. No. It's a hard reboot.

 

Fan since 1975 here, not quite an "old" old timer, but I'm definitely interested in seeing Trek given the hard reboot treatment where anything can be altered.

 

Casino Royale was a James Bond origin story. Despite being set in the present day, it treated the franchise as though none of the previous films existed and effectively started over. That's a pretty hard reboot in my book.

And the only reason for the time shifts was to keep up with the present day, something that is totally unnecessary for Star Trek.

 

For now. In 300 years, it might be necessary.

 

I wouldn't bet on something so unlikely.

 

Since none of us will be alive, I doubt any of us will care.

 

Up until Skyfall I would have agreed with this statement. Explain the presence of the Aston Martin DB5 in the movie for me, because it's bugged the hell out of me ever since I first saw it.

 

Fans are mindless sheep who will see anything with the words Star Trek in the title. There's no risk of losing them. Even if there was, who cares? There aren't enough of them to make a movie profitable.

 

A guy who probably makes a nice bit of coin without much else to spend it on isn't allowed to run off to a car auction and pick himself up a classic car?

 

My thoughts exactly. Mystery solved.

 

It was probably just an old car that old agents used and Bond thought was cool so decided to get hold of one.

 

Nevermind the fact we saw him win one in a poker game. While it's extremely difficult to convert the steering column, it can be done. Of course he could have just easy easily found someone on Daniel Craig's list who had a left-hand drive and wanted to trade.

 

It could've been worse. It could've been a Mini Cooper.

 

But it is the exact same car that was used in Goldfinger and Thunderball. It has the same registration plate - BMT 216A.

 

A nod and wink to longtime fans--nothing more.