RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,238
Posts: 5,348,137
Members: 24,612
Currently online: 537
Newest member: SombreroHoag

TrekToday headlines

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

IDW Publishing Comic Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

A Baby For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 9 2009, 12:22 AM   #61
Disillusioned
Commander
 
Re: Should it have been a straight reboot?

Most people I know don't call it "booting up" anymore, they just say "turn on" or "start up". And instead of "reboot" more people tend to say "restart". After all, that's what it says in most computer menus anyway.
Disillusioned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9 2009, 12:32 AM   #62
davejames
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Sac, Ca
Re: Should it have been a straight reboot?

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
MvRojo wrote: View Post
I think he's saying they should've used Khan as the heavy in the film. Terrible idea if you ask me.
Perhaps, but my point is that Nero isn't the only possible bad guy they could have used. There could have been any number of antagonists who were *native* to that time period. (Even Nero, with a bit of rewriting, could have worked that way.) Indeed, if ST XI had been a flat-out reboot, the possibilities would truly be limitless.
My point about Nero is that his presence shakes things up and jumpstarts the story in a way another villain couldn't have.

Yeah I suppose they could have started with Khan (or some other villain) attacking the Enterprise, and then flashed back to Kirk and Spock as kids and later at the Academy, but that probably would have been even MORE tired and predictable a device.

And just like with SR, you would have had a lot of people wondering how much of a reboot/sequel/reimagining they were really watching, and why some things adhered to canon and others didn't.

With Nero, it's a lot clearer from the start that we're watching a different timeline where anything can happen.
davejames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9 2009, 02:00 AM   #63
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Should it have been a straight reboot?

Shazam! wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Normal people wouldn't use the word at all, except perhaps as an increasingly dated term for restarting one's computer. Around places like this, the more people you ask, the greater the number you'll have of different (and often incompatible) meanings for the word "reboot".
But anyone who doesn't take it to mean...
Reboot, in serial fiction, means a discarding of much or even all previous continuity in the series, to start anew. Effectively, all previously-known fictive history is declared by the writer(s) to be null and void, or at least irrelevant to the current storyline, and the series starts over.
...would be wrong.
Then there are a whole lot of people on this BBS alone who are wrong, yet disagree with each other (often vehemently) about just what rebooting involves. I know the definition you've just given, and there are others here who understand a reboot to be thus, but how is the term useful in discussion with those who insist upon giving it other meanings? (And if moderating this forum for the last 18 months has taught me anything, it is that there are a wide variety of opinions held about just what constitutes a reboot.) There are plenty who have stated in complete seriousness that Star Trek -- the movie which opened in early May of this year -- was a complete reboot. This, both before and after the movie hit the screens.

Clearly, the term is problematic.
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9 2009, 03:19 AM   #64
urbandk
Commodore
 
urbandk's Avatar
 
Location: the European "canon" is here
Re: Should it have been a straight reboot?

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Shazam! wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Normal people wouldn't use the word at all, except perhaps as an increasingly dated term for restarting one's computer. Around places like this, the more people you ask, the greater the number you'll have of different (and often incompatible) meanings for the word "reboot".
But anyone who doesn't take it to mean...
Reboot, in serial fiction, means a discarding of much or even all previous continuity in the series, to start anew. Effectively, all previously-known fictive history is declared by the writer(s) to be null and void, or at least irrelevant to the current storyline, and the series starts over.
...would be wrong.
Then there are a whole lot of people on this BBS alone who are wrong, yet disagree with each other (often vehemently) about just what rebooting involves. I know the definition you've just given, and there are others here who understand a reboot to be thus, but how is the term useful in discussion with those who insist upon giving it other meanings? (And if moderating this forum for the last 18 months has taught me anything, it is that there are a wide variety of opinions held about just what constitutes a reboot.) There are plenty who have stated in complete seriousness that Star Trek -- the movie which opened in early May of this year -- was a complete reboot. This, both before and after the movie hit the screens.

Clearly, the term is problematic.
Not to belabor this point (I have been avoiding this discussion), but a definition of a term taken from Wikipedia because no actual dictionary of the English language includes this term is pretty weak evidence of a term's meaning. Moreover, the definition does not permit for secondary definitions. Moreover, it may very well be some dude writing his opinion on Wikipedia. Forgive me if I hold out for the OED on this one. If the scholarly consensus is the solitary definition presented in Wikipedia, then I'll eat crow on this one, but I won't assent to being called abnormal and incorrect by provocateurs on a BBS.
__________________
urbandk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9 2009, 10:54 AM   #65
Shazam!
Rear Admiral
 
Shazam!'s Avatar
 
Re: Should it have been a straight reboot?

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
how is the term useful in discussion with those who insist upon giving it other meanings?
If they want to live in their own special world with their own special definition of reboot they can do.

Let them be special.

Meanwhile, everyone else will manage just fine defining reboot to mean what it actually means.

Last edited by Shazam!; September 9 2009 at 11:20 AM.
Shazam! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9 2009, 11:13 AM   #66
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Should it have been a straight reboot?

Yeah, if you don't want to believe Wikipedia, because it happens to be catching up to today's fast changing world better than any dusty encyclopedia, and because it happens to disagree with you, you still have the definition of a reboot of the computer.

Close the last session, clear all memory and restart the system.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9 2009, 02:02 PM   #67
urbandk
Commodore
 
urbandk's Avatar
 
Location: the European "canon" is here
Re: Should it have been a straight reboot?

Shazam! wrote: View Post

Meanwhile, everyone else will manage just fine defining reboot to mean what it actually means.
Have you ever heard of a secondary definition?

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Yeah, if you don't want to believe Wikipedia, because it happens to be catching up to today's fast changing world better than any dusty encyclopedia, and because it happens to disagree with you, you still have the definition of a reboot of the computer.

Close the last session, clear all memory and restart the system.
I do believe Wikipedia. I just believe that there is an alternate but equally valid meaning for the word, and since the argument for the singular definition seems to rest on consensus, if there is another group of people who have an additional understanding for the word's meaning, then this group has a consensus of its own.

In addition, the point was not to argue the meaning of reboot but to argue that the wholesale changes in the new Trek are commensurate to the wholesale changes in every trek series before, a point that has been lost in this imbroglio over the use of the term "reboot."

If you wish to adhere to a singular definition of "reboot," then you can understand my original use of the term in a figurative sense, as in a "reboot" is just as much of a change as the "spin-offs" we've already had.
__________________
urbandk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9 2009, 04:11 PM   #68
Shazam!
Rear Admiral
 
Shazam!'s Avatar
 
Re: Should it have been a straight reboot?

urbandk wrote: View Post
Have you ever heard of a secondary definition?
Yes, but they usually aren't slightly tweaked primary definitions employed because some people are having problems grasping the concept.
Shazam! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9 2009, 05:23 PM   #69
urbandk
Commodore
 
urbandk's Avatar
 
Location: the European "canon" is here
Re: Should it have been a straight reboot?

Shazam! wrote: View Post
urbandk wrote: View Post
Have you ever heard of a secondary definition?
Yes, but they usually aren't slightly tweaked primary definitions employed because some people are having problems grasping the concept.
Why do you keep insulting me? Your use of "special," "normal," and "some people" is a thinly-veiled jab at me. What have I done to provoke your insults?

I have no trouble grasping the primary definition. I was using the word "reboot" as a metric to describe the amount of change in the new movie vis-à-vis the previous Star Trek movies and series. Are we on the same page here?
__________________
urbandk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9 2009, 07:27 PM   #70
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Should it have been a straight reboot?

Shazam! wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
how is the term useful in discussion with those who insist upon giving it other meanings?
If they want to live in their own special world with their own special definition of reboot they can do.

Let them be special.

Meanwhile, everyone else will manage just fine defining reboot to mean what it actually means.
Shazam! wrote: View Post
urbandk wrote: View Post
Have you ever heard of a secondary definition?
Yes, but they usually aren't slightly tweaked primary definitions employed because some people are having problems grasping the concept.
Shazam!, knock off taking jabs at other posters. At least as far back as your post here, you've been implying that anyone who doesn't agree with the definition you've cited is somehow deficient. Disgree with them if you like, and explain why you disagree, but stop with the insults.
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9 2009, 08:00 PM   #71
Shazam!
Rear Admiral
 
Shazam!'s Avatar
 
Re: Should it have been a straight reboot?

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Disgree with them if you like, and explain why you disagree, but stop with the insults.
But it's so crushingly obvious what the definition of reboot is in regards to serialized fiction. I've posted a definition from a [relatively] reputable* (albeit unofficial source) whereas I've had nothing in return save for "I think it means something else"





*Say what you will about Wiki but they're actually pretty decent at correcting errors and picking up on mistakes.
Shazam! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9 2009, 08:23 PM   #72
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Should it have been a straight reboot?

Shazam! wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Disagree with them if you like, and explain why you disagree, but stop with the insults.
But it's so crushingly obvious what the definition of reboot is in regards to serialized fiction. I've posted a definition from a [relatively] reputable* (albeit unofficial source) whereas I've had nothing in return save for "I think it means something else"





*Say what you will about Wiki but they're actually pretty decent at correcting errors and picking up on mistakes.
I like Wiki, myself, and agree that they're generally quite reliable.

That you see something as being "crushingly obvious", however, does not excuse insults. It's a good definition, but experience has taught me that it's not the only one out there; "reboot" comes in a lot of shades and flavors, and I didn't see a problem with the way urbandk used it here -- it was quite clear what he meant. Less clear is what you meant by "nonce-sense" in responding to his post, but I'm not interested in making a big deal of it. In fact, I think this whole side-discussion has preempted the original topic for quite long enough.
__________________
Dinosaurs are just really, really big chickens.
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10 2009, 08:12 PM   #73
Disillusioned
Commander
 
Re: Should it have been a straight reboot?

Of all the arguments about this movie (wrong font! canon violation!), arguing over the definition of the word "reboot" has to be simultaneously the most pointless and amusing of them.
Disillusioned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 06:01 PM   #74
OneBuckFilms
Fleet Captain
 
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
 
Re: Should it have been a straight reboot?

Reboot = Restarting a computer by powering it down, then powering it back up.

The analogy of a Reset switch used to perform a fast reboot of a computer is probably where the term Reboot is used for a story.
OneBuckFilms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 06:02 PM   #75
OneBuckFilms
Fleet Captain
 
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
 
Re: Should it have been a straight reboot?

Star Trek (2009) is an in-continuity reboot.
OneBuckFilms is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
reboot

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.