Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot? - Page 21

DalekJim · January 2 2013, 01:46 AM

BillJ wrote:

I know this doesn't mean anything, but they didn't rewrite continuity.

I see zero difference between "rebooting the franchise", "changing history" and re-writing continuity but as this is possibly the most tired debate topic ever I think we should agree to disagree

.

Greg Cox wrote:

I nearly cheered when that space monster lunged out of the ice; when was the last time TREK indulged in some gratuitous space-monster action just for the sheer fun of it?

Nemesis. The Remans.

BillJ · January 2 2013, 01:47 AM

DalekJim wrote:

BillJ wrote:

I know this doesn't mean anything, but they didn't rewrite continuity.

I see zero difference between "rebooting the franchise", "changing history" and re-writing continuity but as this is possibly the most tired debate topic ever I think we should agree to disagree

.

You were the one to bring it up.

Awesome Possum · January 2 2013, 01:48 AM

DalekJim wrote:

A Very Jewel Christmas wrote:

Is there any other franchise that has to hire historians for their own fictional universe? I know Doctor Who relies on what the writer likes and ignores what they don't like. Dropping that weight is the best thing that ever happened to Trek and frees it to go places we can't even imagine.

I don't understand this attitude. Couldn't they just... write a story for the movie that didn't require knowledge of continuity? Just have a new ship and crew explore the universe and find a new adventure on a new planet.

The way to avoid getting swamped in continuity is to not write a movie that's premise hinges entirely on rewriting continuity.

Well in case you missed the last 20 years. They tried that with DS9, VOY and ENT. Each one lost audiences to the point where it wasn't worth it to keep it on the air. So no, that doesn't work. Audiences only seemed to connect with Kirk and co. They did to a lesser degree with TNG, but they burned out after five movies and they're were going downhill as they made them.

As I said before Paramount isn't in the business of making a minority of Trek fans happy, they want to make money. Star Trek 2009 was both an appeal to new audiences to watch and it tried to not piss off the built-in fan base. Most fans seem to enjoy it, a minority aren't. But they're never happy so it doesn't matter. Most of them paid to see it just to complain. You seemed to enjoy it based on your posts from when it was released.

DalekJim · January 2 2013, 01:49 AM

BillJ wrote:

You were the one to bring it up.

Yes, but as an aside. I'm not gonna get in to a debate about the difference between "rebooting" and "re-writing" continuity as it would be tedious.

Awesome Possum · January 2 2013, 01:52 AM

DalekJim wrote:

BillJ wrote:

I know this doesn't mean anything, but they didn't rewrite continuity.

I see zero difference between "rebooting the franchise", "changing history" and re-writing continuity but as this is possibly the most tired debate topic ever I think we should agree to disagree

.

Greg Cox wrote:

I nearly cheered when that space monster lunged out of the ice; when was the last time TREK indulged in some gratuitous space-monster action just for the sheer fun of it?

Nemesis. The Remans.

Nemesis and fun should never be associated with each other.

AllStarEntprise · January 2 2013, 01:53 AM

James Bond received a reboot and it's doing phenominal. Already made more money than several of the previous James Bond films. Just like Star Trek 2009 made more money than any of the previous films and more than the most recent TNG films.

BillJ · January 2 2013, 01:54 AM

DalekJim wrote:

BillJ wrote:

You were the one to bring it up.

Yes, but as an aside. I'm not gonna get in to a debate about the difference between "rebooting" and "re-writing" continuity as it would be tedious.

Don't bring things into a discussion if you're not prepared to defend them. You thought you could drop a snarky comment and people would simply ignore it?

Greg Cox · January 2 2013, 01:54 AM

DalekJim wrote:

BillJ wrote:

You were the one to bring it up.

Yes, but as an aside. I'm not gonna get in to a debate about the difference between "rebooting" and "re-writing" continuity as it would be tedious.

What about "retconning"?

DalekJim · January 2 2013, 01:55 AM

A Very Jewel Christmas wrote:

Well in case you missed the last 20 years. They tried that with DS9, VOY and ENT. Each one lost audiences to the point where it wasn't worth it to keep it on the air.

What?

I mean... what?

The modern Star Trek that started with the Kirk and Spock-less TNG pilot and ended with ENT finale ran for well over a decade. It is by any measure, hugely successful to have gained 25 seasons. Sure, the ratings were terrible by the end but... so? No show is going to be successful forever. Same thing happened with Doctor Who.

No show that ran for 25 seasons had a lack of audience in my book. To say there's not been an appetite for non-Kirk and Spock Trek is entirely untrue and flies in the face of my generation, who almost all prefer Picard to Kirk.

BillJ wrote:

Don't bring things into a discussion if you're not prepared to defend them. You thought you could drop a snarky comment and people would simply ignore it?

Huh....I don't even...

BillJ · January 2 2013, 01:57 AM

DalekJim wrote:

No show that ran for 25 seasons had a lack of audience in my book. To say there's not been an appetite for non-Kirk and Spock Trek is entirely untrue and flies in the face of my generation, who almost all prefer Picard to Kirk.

Then why did the 2009 film make nearly as much money as all four Next Gen films combined?

Greg Cox · January 2 2013, 01:58 AM

DalekJim wrote:

Greg Cox wrote:

I nearly cheered when that space monster lunged out of the ice; when was the last time TREK indulged in some gratuitous space-monster action just for the sheer fun of it?

Nemesis. The Remans.

I confess I barely remember Nemesis. I saw it once when it opened, and maybe a few snippets on cable now and then, but that's about it.

Whereas I've already seen the new movie three or four times, and am tempted to pop the DVD back into the machine now.

But, yes, TNG definitely had a substantial audience during its prime. And Picard was a fine captain, although I personally find Kirk more fun to write.

(On the other hand, my bestselling Trek book was a Picard novel, so go figure!)

DalekJim · January 2 2013, 02:02 AM

BillJ wrote:

Then why did the 2009 film make nearly as much money as all four Next Gen films combined?

1) Marketing. JJ-Trek was advertised everywhere whereas Nemesis came and went with only us noticing.

2) Over-saturation of Star Trek. Dunno about USA but here in Britain TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT were constantly on television. BBC2 was flooded with Trek and Sky One may as well have been renamed "The Star Trek Channel". The audience needed to miss Star Trek until they'd pay for it.

You don't pay to go see a hooker if you've got your sexy wife at home that'll screw ya for free. You only do it if you're single and there's nothing else available.

Awesome Possum · January 2 2013, 02:07 AM

DalekJim wrote:

A Very Jewel Christmas wrote:

Well in case you missed the last 20 years. They tried that with DS9, VOY and ENT. Each one lost audiences to the point where it wasn't worth it to keep it on the air.

What?

I mean... what?

The modern Star Trek that started with the Kirk and Spock-less TNG pilot and ended with ENT finale ran for well over a decade. It is by any measure, hugely successful to have gained 25 seasons. Sure, the ratings were terrible by the end but... so? No show is going to be successful forever. Same thing happened with Doctor Who.

No show that ran for 25 seasons had a lack of audience in my book. To say there's not been an appetite for non-Kirk and Spock Trek is entirely untrue and flies in the face of my generation, who almost all prefer Picard to Kirk.

TNG was successful, DS9 never got close to the same ratings as it. VOY remained on the air mainly because it was successful by UPN standards and it was the only constant that channel had, ENT then got cancelled because it couldn't do that. It didn't end it's run, it was cancelled after four seasons of bland stories. I was here when the Save Enterprise campaign was going. I didn't bother, it was a mercy killing. The franchise was run completely into the ground and the only solution was to start from scratch years later. That isn't a success, it was the rise, fall and rebirth of Star Trek. No one denies the success of TNG, but DS9, VOY and ENT didn't come close to it and are the reason it isn't on the air now. If they had all been successful, Star Trek would still be on television now.

Dale Sams · January 2 2013, 02:08 AM

Greg Cox wrote:

Noname Given wrote:

Greg Cox wrote:

On the other hand, 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.

Worse - the line referred to appeared in the second pilot - where they hadn't even had time to develop the characters, hell, Spock is practically smiling in that same second pilot episode when he states;

"Ah, one of your Earth emotions."

Good point. Did the show ever describe the young Kirk in those terms again, or was that just an odd artifact from the pilot that was largely forgotten as the show found itself--like Dr. Piper and the phaser rifle and "Jame R. Kirk"?

Maybe, I'd have to go over the Finnegan dialouge in Shore Leave. That's the only one of the top of my head that might.

Kevin W. · January 2 2013, 02:09 AM

BillJ wrote:

Then why did the 2009 film make nearly as much money as all four Next Gen films combined?

Lowest common denominator.

January 2 2013, 01:53 AM	#306
AllStarEntprise Commander	Re: Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot? James Bond received a reboot and it's doing phenominal. Already made more money than several of the previous James Bond films. Just like Star Trek 2009 made more money than any of the previous films and more than the most recent TNG films.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US