Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.

[martok2112]

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.

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

Open....sassafrass! Er.....open....sasaparilla?.....er.....open...Seskatchewan?

 

[Gov Kodos]

To the OP: No.

Time to move on.

Thus Spake Zarathu... Jedi Master.

 

[FrankT]

Flawed though it may be, the JJverse is some awesome stuff. I liked the first one the first time I watched it, anyway.

 

[Jedi_Master]

The point of the "repeated exposure" comment is that many of the fans who have complained the loudest about the reboot and subsequent changes will simply not have the energy to maintain their objections for the next 20 years. There will always be diehards like those Star Wars fans who will only watch unaltered VHS copies of the Original Trilogy and refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Special Edition or the prequels, but over time there will be less and less "mainstream" fans who maintain their negative attitude towards nuTrek, and to them it will go from a 'travesty against all Star Trek' to 'meh, it's not much worse than Generations or Nemesis'.

 

[Greg Cox]

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....

It's a reboot. The method they used was through "time travel" but that doen'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.

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.

I like to describe it as a reboot with a time-travel fig leaf.

 

[Dar70]

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....

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.

That all said, i would have prefered a complete reboot instead if all we are gonna get now is 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.

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 .

Well whichever way you look at it, i still would have preferred a reboot without ties to the original.

 

[Darren Mooney]

This whole "reboot" debate is why I really dislike fandom's (not just Star Trek fans, though) veneration of canon.

The Abrams movies are de facto reboots, like TMP, TWOK and TNG were all de facto reboots. New looks, new feels, new tones, changed rules. (Heck, The Jem'Hadar and The Expanse are also reboots; as is - more tenuously - Evolution.)

That doesn't make them invalid or diminish them, but it does denote an "unfamiliar storytelling with familiar trappings" shift in storytelling.

But because there's actual honest-to-goodness continuity involved, the Abrams movies are somehow easier targets for that sort of criticism.

 

[Dales]

I think they will reboot it and we will have another alternate alternate universe with the TOS Characters all over again.

 

[Greg Cox]

For what it's worth, it's not just Trekkies. I actually got into a debate last night, in another forum, on whether THE MUMMY'S HAND (1940) was a remake or reboot of the original 1932 version of THE MUMMY.

We ultimately agreed to disagree.

Although THE MUMMY'S HAND is so a reboot of Karloff movie.

 

[Squiggy]

The movie was not as well recieved among fans.

I'm a fan. I liked it.

 

[JWPlatt]

We ultimately agreed to disagree.

That phrase should be eradicated from popular speech.

Two people staring at object:

FRED: It's a hammer.
TOM: It's a banana.
FRED: Let's agree to disagree.

Yeah, no. At least one of them is dead wrong and quite dumb.

Can we agree on that?

 

[Ovation]

We ultimately agreed to disagree.

That phrase should be eradicated from popular speech.

Two people staring at object:

FRED: It's a hammer.
TOM: It's a banana.
FRED: Let's agree to disagree.

Yeah, no. At least one of them is dead wrong and quite dumb.

Can we agree on that?

No. Not all matters of assessment are unitary. One can look at a painting and come away with an entirely different interpretation of what the artist was attempting to convey than another person, standing right next to you, looking at the same painting. You turn to the other person and start discussing the painting. You fail to come to an agreement. "Agree to disagree" is a perfectly fine way to end the discussion.

 

[BillJ]

Can we agree on that?

We're talking about entertainment here. Where personal interpretation is a big part of the discussion. So I'd say no.

 

[Darren Mooney]

Two people staring at object:

FRED: It's a hammer.
TOM: It's a banana.
FRED: Let's agree to disagree.

Yeah, no. At least one of them is dead wrong and quite dumb.

They could both be right.

 

[BK613]

Two people staring at object:

FRED: It's a hammer.
TOM: It's a banana.
FRED: Let's agree to disagree.

Yeah, no. At least one of them is dead wrong and quite dumb.

They could both be right.

I quite agree. (youtube)

 

[fireproof78]

Not to hammer a point home (pun intended ) but even Leonard Nimoy had a comment about art and its interpretation. Part of it is in my signature, but here is the entire quote:

"Art, if it is successful, needs no explanation. Star Trek and Spock, if they are works of art, can be discussed. But finally the response comes in individual terms. Each viewer sees what is there for him, depending on his frame of reference.

(Emphasis mine)

I agree that some things are not subjective, but art, including TV, is not one of them. Obviously, this means there is no wrong answer either, but that I don't have to agree with everyone's opinion on what makes Star Trek, as a quick example.

Does making nuTrek a clean reboot free it of a stigma? That is more a question that I would like to ask. Personally, I didn't care for nuBSG but that was for a variety of reasons, and not just its differences from BSG.

I don't know. To me, nuTrek was just an alternate reality, like the Mirror Universe, that we got to actually see.

 

[Darren Mooney]

That phrase should be eradicated from popular speech.

All joking aside, is the solution to this that everybody should agree with certain aesthetic judgements or be branded "dead wrong and quite dumb"?

We may have to agree to disagree.

 

[urbandefault]

I think there are some missteps in the reboot universe that fans just can't get their head around. "Black hole" is one. Instead of calling the red matter effect a black hole, they should have called it a "quantum singularity." Voyager fans are familiar with the term. It must have been used at least 250 times.

These things could have easily been fixed in the scripts, and I don't know why they weren't.

That said, I can ignore them.

We ultimately agreed to disagree.

That phrase should be eradicated from popular speech.

Two people staring at object:

FRED: It's a hammer.
TOM: It's a banana.
FRED: Let's agree to disagree.

Yeah, no. At least one of them is dead wrong and quite dumb.

Can we agree on that?

No. Not all matters of assessment are unitary. One can look at a painting and come away with an entirely different interpretation of what the artist was attempting to convey than another person, standing right next to you, looking at the same painting. You turn to the other person and start discussing the painting. You fail to come to an agreement. "Agree to disagree" is a perfectly fine way to end the discussion.

It's a good way to tell someone that you've realized that you'll never change their mind and you're tired of arguing. Of course, some fans will never, ever accept that.

 

[Greg Cox]

The movie was not as well recieved among fans.

I'm a fan. I liked it.

Exactly.The "fans" do not speak with one voice, and I always get a little leery when I see people making sweeping statements about what "the fans" want.

Heck, most of my friends are Trekkies and we never agree on anything. Arguing about this stuff is half the fun sometimes.

 

[thumbtack]

I foresee a continuing series of increasingly frequent reboots and a future in which longtime fans look back on Abrams as the "purest" and "truest" of the reboots.