Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[Sindatur]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Doctor Who wasn't rebooted in 2005. Unless you're making some obscure reference to the 60s Cushing movies...

I think it's fair to call 2005 Doctor Who Revival a Reboot. First, it was not obvious at first that it was indeed a continuation, Eccelston could've very well been the first Doctor or beginning of our journeys with The Doctor (Sans Susan, Ian, Barbara and the Junkyard). Additionally, a big part of the Classic Series was about the Doctor being on the run from his people and having to keep a low profile for that reason, as well, as to keep his interference on the downlow and having to deal with them plucking him up and "sending" him on missions of their own design. RTD completely removed this from the Series by destroying the Time Lords which had the added of effect of being a weight on The Doctor's soul, since he's the one who killed them all.

[DalekJim]

Sindatur wrote:

---

First, it was not obvious at first that it was indeed a continuation,

Eccleston was marketed as The Ninth Doctor and the first 2005 episode has a sequence where he looks in to a mirror and comments on his newly regenerated features.

I'd say it was pretty obvious.

Additionally, a big part of the Classic Series was about the Doctor being on the run from his people

The Time Lords are barely ever mentioned by the first 2 Doctors. Also, The Doctor is completely pardoned by them for everything while in his third incarnation, following the events of The Three Doctors.

The episode we find out he's on from the run from his own people (The War Games) is the exact episode he stops running from them.

[The Mirrorball Man]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I think if you liked the characters then you'd have dug it just fine. Who knows, you might even have liked them more than Kirk and Spock .

I don't know, I like Kirk and Spock quite a bit.

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Sindatur wrote:

---

Additionally, a big part of the Classic Series was about the Doctor being on the run from his people and having to keep a low profile for that reason, as well, as to keep his interference on the downlow and having to deal with them plucking him up and "sending" him on missions of their own design. RTD completely removed this from the Series by destroying the Time Lords which had the added of effect of being a weight on The Doctor's soul, since he's the one who killed them all.

But... this is a completely sequel move, not a reboot one. If it was a reboot, the Doctor WOULD be on the run from his own people yet again, not having encountered them or Omega or etc. But RTD's new status quo directly follows from the old one. The Time Lords used to be the protectors of the universe but between the old show and new one, they're dead. It's the exact opposite of a reboot approach; it's creating a new status quo that still acknowledges the old one happened before it.

[Dale Sams]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

On the other, we never actually saw "the stack of books with legs" onscreen. That was one line of dialogue in one episode, as opposed to 79 episodes and 7 movies in which Kirk was a dynamic, swashbuckling leading man. So, yeah, when you think of Kirk, does anybody really think of him as a "stack of books with legs." The "fact" that Kirk used to be a book worm is a bit of trivia, not the essence of the character in the popular imagination. It has nothing to do with the character we actually grew up watching.

So, yeah, I think the movies should feature the Kirk the audience expects to see, regardless of some obscure bit of trivia from one old episode.

"When the legend becomes the truth, print the legend."

While growing up, my idea of Kirk's past, given the events of Conscience of the King, and Obsession, given he doesn't seem too broken up over Sam...and that his "I lost a brother once (in ST:V)" is referring to Spock and not Sam...given his parents are never mentioned once in the whole series. Given that he gets set up with a girl and almost marries her and that he gets command of one of the 12 Heavy Cruisers in the fleet at a very young age, and already has a ton of awards including diplomatic ones:

My impression of Kirk was that he was very much an obsessive, loner self-made man that was in no way an arrogant, cocky lothario.

AGAIN, (I feel i have to keep saying these disclaimers so i don't get flamed or people think I'm slamming NuKirk or Pine) I'm fine with Pine's interp. It's certainly reasonable given the changed timeline. And I think you make good points. I just wanted to touch on some of "Kirk's legends" that even some fans buy into.

I once pointed out to some people saying "Come on! everyone knows Kirk slept with every girl he saw!" When it was like two, maybe three. Mayyyybe four.

[Greg Cox]

Dale Sams wrote:

---

I once pointed out to some people saying "Come on! everyone knows Kirk slept with every girl he saw!" When it was like two, maybe three. Mayyyybe four.

Well, given the constraints of sixties TV, it's really hard to tell how far things went every time the camera discreetly faded to black while Kirk was sharing a passionate moment with a sexy female guest-star. True, we can only verify a few instances of actual SEX, but, given how often Kirk ended up in clinch with the SFGS, I think people can be forgiven for assuming that there was plenty of fire to go with the smoke--even if the producers couldn't actually show Kirk in bed with anyone.

As even Carol Marcus said, Kirk was no Boy Scout!

Plus, of course, there's the fact that he kept running into old flames all over the galaxy: Ruth, Areel Shaw, Janet Wallace, Janice Lester, Carol Marcus . . . .

That's a lot of long-lost loves for "a stack of books with legs," let alone an obsessive, workaholic loner! One can only wonder how many others there were.

No wonder Kirk has a reputation . . .

[Hartzilla2007]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Why I suggested merely having a new crew post-TNG/DS9/VOY. A Doctor Who-esque reshuffle while still being core Star Trek.

Except with doctor who its a new actor in the role, same backstory and generally cares about the same people. What you're proposing is using new people who I would not necessarily give a flying crap about.

[Cartoonist]

Dale Sams wrote:

---

Can I repectfully say, IMHO, that the Kirk character pandered to the non-fans perception of him, and not 'a stack of books with legs', or a guy that teachs a class wherein 'you either think or sink'*. And also I didn't think Pine 'nailed' Kirk, but rather came up with his own fine completly useful interp.

Seriously, if that were a brand new series and you renamed him, not for one second would I think he was supposed to be Captain Kirk (minus the obvious historical refs, and his fun "Bones!" at the very end)

Again, this is in no way a slam on Pine or the interp he came up with.

I am worried about the future of the character though. You take away his relationship with Spock and inflate the ladies man/cowboy diplomacy stuff and I'm afraid he's going to come off as a little shallow.

*Yes, I know the timeline changed.

I see what you're saying, but as someone else alluded to, he never actually appeared to be "a stack of books with legs" onscreen. Also, since you know the timeline changed, you know Kirk's upbringing was different. Without his dad's influence, dealing with a stepfather he didn't like... he became more of a smartass and less grim. That's not really a fundamental change that destroys his character, it's just the same guy with more swagger. But more importantly: when he said he was "a stack of books with legs," he was referring to himself as he was at the academy. Not how he was while serving on the Farragut, and not how he was as Captain of the Enterprise. When I saw Trek '09, and saw how he went from a nobody to graduating from the Academy (well, he WOULD have if he hadn't cheated on the KM test) in what may have been record time, I assumed he must've been pretty diligent. And we saw glimpses of his intelligence throughout the film. As one of my non-Trek-versed friends whispered to me during the movie, "so he's a genius?"

I don't think you have to worry too much about the future of the character. For one thing, they're not going to remove the Kirk/Spock relationship. For another, this is made by the same people who made Fringe (one of Abrams' best TV efforts), and after watching five seasons of that, shallowness is not something I'd attribute to any of the major characters in their work. And their '09 Trek gave both Spock and Kirk more emotional depth than anything other than Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country.

This isn't about Kirk or Spock, but about the writers' attention to character: through script and direction, they even added depth to Kirk's dad in just a few minutes of screen time. It's easy to forget now, but a lot of Trekkies were literally crying after just the first five minutes (in a good way).

[Shazam!]

Cartoonist wrote:

---

Also, since you know the timeline changed, you know Kirk's upbringing was different. Without his dad's influence, dealing with a stepfather he didn't like... he became more of a smartass and less grim.

?

More grim, surely?

[Greg Cox]

Cartoonist wrote:

---

II don't think you have to worry too much about the future of the character. For one thing, they're not going to remove the Kirk/Spock relationship. For another, this is made by the same people who made Fringe (one of Abrams' best TV efforts), and after watching five seasons of that, shallowness is not something I'd attribute to any of the major characters in their work. And their '09 Trek gave both Spock and Kirk more emotional depth than anything other than Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country.

This isn't about Kirk or Spock, but about the writers' attention to character: through script and direction, they even added depth to Kirk's dad in just a few minutes of screen time. It's easy to forget now, but a lot of Trekkies were literally crying after just the first five minutes (in a good way).

Plus, the new movie, because it had to reintroduce the entire cast to a new generation of moviegoers, was bound to sketch them in broad strokes. Now that the heavy lifting has been done, they can flesh out the characters and deepen the relationships over the course of the next few movies.

Which is generally how it works. It's not like Kirk and Spock were fully fleshed out as early as "Where No Man Goes Before." Shatner and Nimoy and the writers added shades and nuances to the characters, who also evolved over the course of forty years or so.

[Bob Karo]

I think a reboot was probably the best option. Whether they rebooted the continuity or not, a stylistic reboot was necessary. I believe a continuation of the original continuity could have worked if done extremely well and in a way that was sufficiently open to new audiences. A new direction of sufficient quality could make questions of continuity moot. The reboot was easier and had much better chance of success. You can't really blame them for choosing that direction.

There's still a lot of things about Trek 09 I wish they had done differently. I think the plot is kind of a mess. Others have talked about Nero seeming to just sit around for 20 years. I guess he could have been repairing his ship. I know there's an off screen mention of a fleet of Klingon ships being destroyed, but it doesn't do much to justify his absence for 20 years. I know the comics explain this, but I'd prefer the plot stand on its own.

I was kind of disappointed that there was less focus on the "Big Three" characters taking their traditional roles. I love Urban's portrayal of Bones. I wish he'd had more of a focus. In the end, I think they are positioning Uhura as more the "Heart" of the core cast, replacing McCoy to some extent.

I thought the visual effects were great. I would have preferred the design have proportions closer to the original. The new ship design just doesn't work for me. It's purely subjective and has little to do with me enjoying the film.

[King Daniel into Darkness]

NERO: We wait. We wait for the one who allowed our home to be destroyed. That's what we've been doing for 25 years.

It's explained right there. Since when is a guy having patience considered a flaw in the movie?

[ROBE]

Wasn't Nero in a Klingon prison?

Slightly off topic just because the 9th Doctor looks in a mirror and makes a comment about his ears is not proof he just regenerated, I am sure we all make comments every morning about our appearance.
The 11th Doctor looks in the mirror in the Christmas special, what does that prove.

Sorry, back to topic..

[Awesome Possum]

He also has this subtle look between the time where they attack the Kelvin and when he appears 20 years later. Just a completely detached look, he's forgotten how to do anything but want revenge.

[Dale Sams]

A Very Jewel Christmas wrote:

---

He also has this subtle look between the time where they attack the Kelvin and when he appears 20 years later. Just a completely detached look, he's forgotten how to do anything but want revenge.

But he still does that casual "Hey, how ya doin. How's your mother? Tell her I said hello." thing over the viewscreen.