Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Ssosmcin, Sep 7, 2009.
And it WILL happen, I give it twenty years.
So I guess First Contact was a reboot, since they changed the ship, the uniforms, redesigned the Borg, and recast Zephram Cochrane, right?
How about we just get rid of the word "reboot" altogether? No one can even agree on what it means, making it worse than useless.
Should it have been a straight reboot? No, I don't think so, and I have yet to be convinced otherwise by any argument or assertion I've seen presented (most of which have tended toward the "Admit it's a reboot! I demand that you admit this was a reboot!" end of the spectrum, with much invective and frothing at the mouth.)
Time for reboot to get re imagined.
Eh. Some people want it to be a reboot, others don't. It really isn't any more complicated than that, despite some variation in the reasons why.
To me, it boils down to....
Is this a Star Trek style/universe/reboot/whatever that I embrace?
If they wanted to do a Kirk, Spock era story.
Do one, forget telling us about old Spock or anything.
Just tell a good story.
Normal people can.
This is a Star Trek forum, there are no normal people here.
While I wish the Spock Prime/Nero backstory had been thought out a little better, I do think this is still probably the best solution they could have come up with.
Having Nero come back from the future jumpstarts the story in a MUCH stronger way than simply telling the mundane story of how Kirk and Spock slowly rose through the ranks to become officers on the Enterprise. That kind of thing works fine in the books, but the movie really needed to speed the process up and throw these two together in a more exciting way. Hence, Nero.
I'm not really sure what other device they could have used to accomplish that.
Yeah I know the diehards would have been perfectly happy with just a typical "biopic" kind of movie... but I really doubt the studio would have ever gone for it.
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".
Batman Begins should've began with the Scarecrow going back in time to the 60's Batman movie and altering the time-line to the current Begins/Dark Knight one. Adam West could've had a cameo.
Why didn't that happen? Because it's retarded.[/QUOTE]
Do you mind if I use this line in my sig? Thats hilarious...
The trailers were well done and got people who weren't into Trek interested. Quinto likely had little effect. I doubt the 8-10 million viewers who still bother to watch "Heroes" made that much of a difference since a lot of them would be pre-disposed to watch sci-fi anyway.
I don't follow you. What about Khan?
I think he's saying they should've used Khan as the heavy in the film. Terrible idea if you ask me.
LOL Go for it.
But anyone who doesn't take it to mean...
...would be wrong.
I don't care. It works as a reboot, a reimagining and a continuation. It was hugely successful. I loved it and I don't care.
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.
How is it dated?
Separate names with a comma.