Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.

NuTrek, known as Star Trek according to Paramount and the masses who enjoyed it, including life long Trek fans and admirers, is already part of the 50 year legacy, just as TAS, TNG, DS9,VOY, ENT, and all the previous ten films before the Abrams era. There is no need to worry about whether or not Abrams' Star Trek will endure 50 years. It's already become part of the history, as will the future Trek films.

TOS: 50 years old
TAS: 42 years old
Start of the TOS movie series: 35 years old
TNG starting the line of spinoffs for that era: Some 25 years old.
Abrams Star Trek: 6 years old.

All the above, starting with TAS are part of the 50 year legacy that TOS launched. We needn't fret over the legacy that TAS and beyond will leave. It's all interlinked.

 

The first two Nolan Batman films taught me that lesson well, as did Casino Royale. They almost made me forget that Batman & Robin and Die Another Day actually happened.

Indeed. If in the future we get a VOY reboot with no TOS-style reboot preceding it, in a completely new universe away from Prime or Abrams, it'll still be working from foundations laid by 1960s TOS and thus Roddenberry. Part of the fun is to see how those foundations hold up and how to make them work in the present.

 

And let's be honest here. The last two Planet of the Apes movies were much better than Battle for the Planet of the Apes back in 1973.

(We'll just forget about the Tim Burton version, okay? Clearly, 20th Century Fox want us to!)

 

Prime Trek is done. We've got 700+ episodes of it, and 10 movies. That's damned good.

I started watching Star Trek in 1984. It captivated me. Granted, I was more interested in the use of primary colors, the pretty matte sets (which I thought were totally real) and the arguments between Spock and McCoy (My 4 year old self thought they were hilarious), but that's where my love of it all started.

I am a huge fan of the Abrams films. When I saw Star Trek 2009, I felt like that child again. There I was, seeing the beautiful sets, the primary colors, hearing the arguments of Spock and McCoy. It felt like home. With that, J.J. stole my heart, and I've yet to get it back.

 

New spin: JJ Abrams steals from fan. Refuses to give back!

 

As long as he puts as much effort into his future films as he has in the past, he can keep it.

One of the complaints I've never understood is the idea that J.J. hates Star Trek. If anything, he grew to love Star Trek while making the first film. Hell, from my perspective, the first film was a serious love letter to the whole franchise, and it worked. All of the little touches, the dedication to making certain the characters looked right, and behaved similarly to their counterparts without copying them. The idea that he would hate the series doesn't hold any water at all, and I wish people would just admit they don't like the films rather than trying to assassinate the character of the man who worked to get them onto the big screen. I realize that there are some people who actually hate Abrams, they hate him for "taking away" their Star Trek, and that just boggles my mind.

 

For me, it's the lazy co-opt of a buzz word from a completely different industry of which I happen to a part; it's unimaginative. That annoys me as much as anyone who says "like" when it's not a simile. Yeah, I know it's my problem.

 

This is absolutely right, Greg. I think part of the trouble that some people have got with this reboot is that we haven't really seen anything like it in *this* franchise before..... it's brand new territory, taking the classic characters and giving them a new spin, with new actors and new histories..... so I understand the fear of the reboot, even if I do not share those fears myself.

I think in the fullness of time, this idea that rebooting Star Trek is somehow a 'bad' thing will be forgotten, just as it has been for all those other fiction franchises you mentioned.

 

It will be seen the same way TWOK is now. At first, a small core of fans will hate all of the changes, and some will declare it stupid, flash and no substance, etc., but in 20 years, it will be a popular favorite, and the new reboot of whatever is next will be seen as trying to replace the "classic" that is the original Star Trek Into Darkness.

 

I don't disagree that it could be true in this specific case. I also had the same thought that the Abramsverse is the first time this has happened to Star Trek; change is generally difficult for people. But I do disagree with the reasoning in your quote because it's easy to say and a bad habit of thought to get into - acceptance through repeated exposure. A friend of mine always said, "If you stick your head in a bucket of shit long enough, you learn to like it." I'm not saying that the Abramsverse is like that; I'm fine with it as entertainment. I'm just saying it's not a good habit of thought and I see my friend's quote as cautionary to always try to take an objective look at your situation.

 

Because that industry has never co-opted words from other industries.

 

Agree! I would like to add that a reboot may offer a bit of room for additional creativity. "Into Darkness", for example, featured Pike as a sort of elder statesman, and mentor to Kirk. And the depiction of Klingons hinted at a distinctly foreign culture.

 

Like, you got that right.

 

Same here. Also, I *love* the way Pike was presented in the Abrams universe. I wanted him to live, so I was horrified along with Spock and Kirk when Pike was killed, and I wasn't the only one. The whole theater gasped when Pike died. I think a lot of people loved his character.

 

Hence my previous signature: Don't be a fan. Don't be a victim!

That which boggles you, J.Allen, boggles myself (and likely many others) as well.

Fans like that tend to be "victims" of something that they have absolutely no control or ownership over. Why do they get this misguided and delusional notion that they somehow own a property (in this case, obviously Star Trek) they never created in the first place, ergo everything must fall in lock-step with their idea of what that given property should be? And then, to justify their delusions, they put on airs that they are the true fans, the paragons of purism, and the defenders of the one true vision as they see it, and that anyone who does not strictly adhere to their views is not worthy of liking Star Trek or appreciating it. They put on further airs to try and proclaim themselves as smarter than everyone else, especially smarter than those who might like the less lofty ideals and stories of Trek.

Such folk need someone to blame when things don't go exactly their way: Who better to blame than the person who decided to take a bold and different direction that at the same time still pays loving tribute to that which came before, but somehow it just revulses them? Perhaps they would be wise to look at themselves for not being as open minded as the fictional heroes they worship.

Such folk are the first to forget the fictional principal they claim to uphold: IDIC.

I've always advocated that Star Trek means different things to different people. Some folk may embrace more than one aspect of Star Trek, while others may be slavishly constrained to only one. Star Trek has something for everyone: the science minded, the philosophers, the spiritual, the atheist, the dreamer, the adventurer, the people of action, the explorers, the mirthical, the logical, the black, the white, the red, the yellow, the men, the women, the kids, the straight, the gay, the list goes on....

Although I tend to lean toward the more action oriented eps and movies, I love all aspects of Star Trek. To deny, reject, or eschew an aspect of it is to do it a disservice.

Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.

Live Long and Prosper.


Hmmmm.....what if the Vulcans embraced hard labor over logic?

Their salutation might be:
Work Hard And Perspire. (WHAP)

Or

Work Hard. Induce Perspiration. (WHIP)

 

I agree with J. Allen. Pike was a good character.

 

Everyone keeps talking reboot.....nuTrek really wasnt a true reboot.(thats the way in saw it anyways) They linked it to the prime universe via prime spock. Theres a wormhole out there that they can open and go into the prime universe....

That all said, i would have prefered a complete reboot instead of an alternate universe spawned from the prime. Just feels like they shoehorned leonard nimoys spock and the rest of the prime universe to appease original fans. I think a complete clean reboot without any ties at all to original trek would have been a better approach.

Oh well as J.Allen mentioned....i have 700+ eps i can rewatch as well as films.

 

It's a reboot. The method they used was through "time travel" but that doesn't make it any less of a reboot. That's like saying Crisis on Infinite Earths wasn't a true reboot. And how are they going to open that wormhole? Did someone leave a key? A password? A secret handshake? Do you think the wormhole is a street that was closed for repairs? It was a fluke and a one way trip.

The reboot is complete. You get an alternate universe either way, so what's the difference?

Spock and Nero and the many world interpretation are central to the plot of ST09, it's pretty clear more is going on there than fan appeasement .

There will always be ties to original trek, that's the nature of the beast. I don't see how a "clean reboot" would change that .

 

Agreed, it's indeed a reboot, but it's pretty unique in the world of Hollywood reboots in how it was executed. Using staples like time travel and quantum singularities to initiate the reboot? That's some Star Trek right there.

 

This is Star Trek though, they open worm holes every other week. With the right technobabble anything is possible.