Yeah and most of the fans voting on STID are young fans that have never seen the original TWOK. Do you really think STID is superior to TWOK?
So we should ignore the next generation of fans? In the long run, capturing the "young fans" takes priority over catering to us old coots.
And what's wrong with rebooting things every generation or so? As you pointed out, it works for Batman, Spider-Man, Sherlock Holmes, Zorro, etc. So why not STAR TREK, too?
In general, it often seems as though the aversion to reboots comes down to generational chauvinism. "The old version was good enough for me, darn it! Kids these days don't know real STAR TREK when they see it!"
I mean, nobody is demanding that the next TARZAN movie return to the continuity of the old Johnny Weissmuller movies. Or that the next MUMMY reboot should pick up where the original Karloff movie left off!
And clearly I am not remotely a young fan!![]()
How many time s should we even reboot such a great property like Star Trek? The TOS universe had many great stories to tell with other crews both past and future. What is the sense of rebooting something and completely changing it and dumbing it down? Why not create a whole new science fiction franchise for the kids? George Lucas did it. Do you think they should reboot Star Wars now because the young kids can't relate to the original Star Wars Trilogy? NuStar NuTrek won't last and won't have the legacy of the old because the people playing the characters now will not want to do many more movies. The kids as you call them probably wont rush to see a television version of these characters being played by someone else and probably wont accept a new crew in the NuTrek universe either. Basically NuTrek will be short lived and will not spawn sequels or other television series with different crews as the original did. It will not have a 50 year lasting power.
That really shouldn't be the goal; indeed, the Prime Universe fizzled out because it wore out its welcome; ENT's entire premise was dependent on when the franchise was new as a vital reference point. And even then, the ones who made the best TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT episodes probably didn't think, "I'll write the best episode of all time and they'll love it in the next century and I'll get awards!" Rather, their main goal is the same as the current crew and the next -- to make the best product that they possibly can and let the audience decide (and to make money, of course, but money is the reward). When Star Trek started, Roddenberry just wanted to make a successful TV show -- the cartoon and the movies and TNG, that was much, much later; there's no point in putting the cart before the horse.
Roddenberry didn't write The Cage with Nemesis in mind.
(besides, it would be difficult to keep this gang together for an extended period of time -- many of them already had full fledged careers before they took the job, and clearly the movies are raising their profile, getting them Hollywood money. By contrast, most of the main casts of the TV shows were relative unknowns and had more to lose with a bad performance)
To paraphrase Zephram Cochrane: "Don't try to write a great feature, just write a feature and let the audience decide." It's better to make something that's fantastic and leave it at that, than to make something fantastic and then see it deteriorate over time from burn out and overexposure until it's put to bed like TATV.
(also, point of reference: some of the posters here actually work on media that depend on the Prime Universe, like the novels or the FX crews of the TV shows. Lecturing them about the importance of the Prime Universe is preaching to the choir, but less effectively if they're arguing that Trek can indeed be told in different reboots and versions. They'd have a better idea than most.).
Last edited: