Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.

[Greg Cox]

If Blomkamp has permission to erase canon, it points to an entirely different trend. Not one that involves "going back to a previous point", but one that appears to be in full swing in Hollywood right now.

Although, at the risk of showing my age, the whole concern with "canon" is pretty much a new trend in itself. Prior to the eighties, movie series tended to play fast and loose with continuity in ways that would make modern fans' heads explode.

Getting back to the MUMMY movies, at one point an entire town migrates from New England to the Deep South without explanation!

 

[JWPlatt]

If Blomkamp has permission to erase canon, it points to an entirely different trend. Not one that involves "going back to a previous point", but one that appears to be in full swing in Hollywood right now.

Isn't it just called "reimagining" now? And all the "re-" words boil down to "artistic license."

 

[fonzob1]

With regards to Superman Returns . . . exactly. For all we know, that version of Superman did run into Richard Pryor at some point or battle Nuclear Man, but there was simply no reason to mention those particular adventures years later. Returns wisely avoided mentioning those movies, but that doesn't mean they were "officially" stricken from the continuity--whatever that means.

I believe Superman Returns was basically Superman 2.5. It takes places after Superman 2 but before Superman 3 and 4. So, you can choose to ignore Superman 3 and 4 in the context of Superman Returns if you want.

 

[Greg Cox]

With regards to Superman Returns . . . exactly. For all we know, that version of Superman did run into Richard Pryor at some point or battle Nuclear Man, but there was simply no reason to mention those particular adventures years later. Returns wisely avoided mentioning those movies, but that doesn't mean they were "officially" stricken from the continuity--whatever that means.

I believe Superman Returns was basically Superman 2.5. It takes places after Superman 2 but before Superman 3 and 4. So, you can choose to ignore Superman 3 and 4 in the context of Superman Returns if you want.

If I remember right, Returns doesn't even explicitly mention Zod or the Phantom Zone or any of that. It just seems to take place sometime vaguely after the Christopher Reeve movies.

 

[Ryan8bit]

The Sarah Connor Chronicles contradicted T3, but followed T2, albeit somewhat loosely. And Salvation still came out during that show, which was also on a different continuity.

So it's not impossible that a new TV show could exist following a different continuity than these movies, perhaps one closer to the original. Of course, it's never going to be airtight, as it never really was. If they return to the original, which parts do they respect? Which do they ignore? You know that they would still ignore a lot, even if Vulcan were still there.

 

[RandyS]

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.

This is how I see it too.

 

[Greg Cox]

The Sarah Connor Chronicles contradicted T3, but followed T2, albeit somewhat loosely. And Salvation still came out during that show, which was also on a different continuity..

When I wrote my Terminator: Salvation novel, I was told explicitly that I could not reference the TV show. Different continuities, different corners of the franchise.

 

[RandyS]

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.

I also agree with this, as "Parrallels" demonstrated perfectly.

 

[mos6507]

It will be seen the same way TWOK is now. At first, a small core of fans will hate all of the changes.

There's no universal rule that dictates that only a "small core of fans" will reject each and every reboot whose voices of dissent then fades off into obscurity. A reboot still needs to win over the audience. It doesn't do so just because it's served up by the company that owns the property or because it is new and therefore automatically better. It is dependent on how well it's executed. And there are plenty of examples of mishandled franchises even in this thread alone to prove that theory out, Alien, Hulk, Superman, etc...

As for Trek II in particular, that is a bad example to use, as TMP was the film that alienated the fans the most, due to the lack of fun, humor, or inter-crew dynamics, all things Trek II fixed. Trek II did not face anywhere near the backlash with existing Trek fans as JJ Trek did.

 

[Darren Mooney]

But what they did to Alien with the reprehensible and reviled snuffing of Newt, Hicks and Bishop was loathsome to me; an abuse and violence done upon the franchise itself and perhaps to the character of the little saved girl too. What they did to Star Trek was *nothing* like that and deeply respectful and entertaining in comparison.

But surely it's easy to pick examples like that from any franchise? (Off the top of my head, the killing of Kirk in Generations or the racism of Code of Honour.)

Isn't the best response simply to go on and just ignore the part you don't like, as Greg has suggested, instead of going back to dredge it up so you can "officially" ignore the part you don't like?

Same net result, less confusion and muddling.

I don't need The Omega Glory "undone" to justify my decision to generally ignore it.

 

[Amaris]

It will be seen the same way TWOK is now. At first, a small core of fans will hate all of the changes.

There's no universal rule that dictates that only a "small core of fans" will reject each and every reboot whose voices of dissent then fades off into obscurity. A reboot still needs to win over the audience. It doesn't do so just because it's served up by the company that owns the property or because it is new and therefore automatically better. It is dependent on how well it's executed. And there are plenty of examples of mishandled franchises even in this thread alone to prove that theory out, Alien, Hulk, Superman, etc...

As for Trek II in particular, that is a bad example to use, as TMP was the film that alienated the fans the most, due to the lack of fun, humor, or inter-crew dynamics, all things Trek II fixed. Trek II did not face anywhere near the backlash with existing Trek fans as JJ Trek did.

That's because Trek II didn't have the internet to lambast it before its premiere. There are a number of critics, fans, and publications, though, that tore the shit out of the film, saying essentially the same things about Star Trek II that some fans say about the new Star Trek films.

There will always be a core of fans who believe the latest incarnation isn't "real Trek". They can be safely ignored. It's the general audience that has to be won over, while also being enjoyable for the casual to dedicated fan, and both Abrams films accomplished that feat quite handily.

 

[Greg Cox]

It will be seen the same way TWOK is now. At first, a small core of fans will hate all of the changes.

There's no universal rule that dictates that only a "small core of fans" will reject each and every reboot whose voices of dissent then fades off into obscurity. A reboot still needs to win over the audience. It doesn't do so just because it's served up by the company that owns the property or because it is new and therefore automatically better. It is dependent on how well it's executed. And there are plenty of examples of mishandled franchises even in this thread alone to prove that theory out, Alien, Hulk, Superman, etc...

As for Trek II in particular, that is a bad example to use, as TMP was the film that alienated the fans the most, due to the lack of fun, humor, or inter-crew dynamics, all things Trek II fixed. Trek II did not face anywhere near the backlash with existing Trek fans as JJ Trek did.

That's because Trek II didn't have the internet to lambast it before its premiere. There are a number of critics, fans, and publications, though, that tore the shit out of the film, saying essentially the same things about Star Trek II that some fans say about the new Star Trek films.

And remember that KHAN was the first Star Trek movie or TV show that Roddenberry had no say over. That alone would be enough to make it suspect in the eyes of some fans.

And, yes, I remember people complaining that it was just an action-packed,shoot-em-up, space opera about a larger-than-life super-villain compared to the lofty ambitions of TMP. And how dare they kill Spock!

 

[fonzob1]

With regards to Superman Returns . . . exactly. For all we know, that version of Superman did run into Richard Pryor at some point or battle Nuclear Man, but there was simply no reason to mention those particular adventures years later. Returns wisely avoided mentioning those movies, but that doesn't mean they were "officially" stricken from the continuity--whatever that means.

I believe Superman Returns was basically Superman 2.5. It takes places after Superman 2 but before Superman 3 and 4. So, you can choose to ignore Superman 3 and 4 in the context of Superman Returns if you want.

If I remember right, Returns doesn't even explicitly mention Zod or the Phantom Zone or any of that. It just seems to take place sometime vaguely after the Christopher Reeve movies.

True. You could probably really plug it in anywhere.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Isn't the best response simply to go on and just ignore the part you don't like, as Greg has suggested, instead of going back to dredge it up so you can "officially" ignore the part you don't like?

I guess it depends on the size of the differences and the time frame in which it was set. If it was post Generations, ignoring Kirk's death would be easy. But if that's a set continuity and you're actually showing the adventures of a young Kirk, it becomes a little harder to ignore because you know he won't die (although this hasn't strongly affected other popular prequels).

It also probably depends on how egregious the perceived error is. Kirk dying isn't exactly a deal breaker. It's not like there was a lot more potential there. Also, his death doesn't make a previous story seem meaningless like how Alien 3 did. I honestly can't think of too much in Star Trek that really invalidates things like that or requires a return to previous continuity.

 

[fireproof78]

There's no universal rule that dictates that only a "small core of fans" will reject each and every reboot whose voices of dissent then fades off into obscurity. A reboot still needs to win over the audience. It doesn't do so just because it's served up by the company that owns the property or because it is new and therefore automatically better. It is dependent on how well it's executed. And there are plenty of examples of mishandled franchises even in this thread alone to prove that theory out, Alien, Hulk, Superman, etc...

As for Trek II in particular, that is a bad example to use, as TMP was the film that alienated the fans the most, due to the lack of fun, humor, or inter-crew dynamics, all things Trek II fixed. Trek II did not face anywhere near the backlash with existing Trek fans as JJ Trek did.

That's because Trek II didn't have the internet to lambast it before its premiere. There are a number of critics, fans, and publications, though, that tore the shit out of the film, saying essentially the same things about Star Trek II that some fans say about the new Star Trek films.

And remember that KHAN was the first Star Trek movie or TV show that Roddenberry had no say over. That alone would be enough to make it suspect in the eyes of some fans.

And, yes, I remember people complaining that it was just an action-packed,shoot-em-up, space opera about a larger-than-life super-villain compared to the lofty ambitions of TMP. And how dare they kill Spock!

Assisted in part by GR's own leaking of sensitive plot information and general disapproval of the film as well.

Of course, TWOK is remembered fondly now, but I have a feeling that if the Internet had been around as it is now, the forums would have been lit up over TWOK not being Star Trek as well.

 

[Makarov]

Off topic but because I brought it up earlier, it looks like Blomkamp's new film Chappie isn't reviewing so well. Still early to tell. Not sure if that will impact his involvement with Alien 5.

 

[JWPlatt]

But what they did to Alien with the reprehensible and reviled snuffing of Newt, Hicks and Bishop was loathsome to me; an abuse and violence done upon the franchise itself and perhaps to the character of the little saved girl too. What they did to Star Trek was *nothing* like that and deeply respectful and entertaining in comparison.

But surely it's easy to pick examples like that from any franchise? (Off the top of my head, the killing of Kirk in Generations or the racism of Code of Honour.)

Isn't the best response simply to go on and just ignore the part you don't like, as Greg has suggested, instead of going back to dredge it up so you can "officially" ignore the part you don't like?

I'm not an activist. But when it comes up in conversation, I'll discuss it.

 

[fonzob1]

Off topic but because I brought it up earlier, it looks like Blomkamp's new film Chappie isn't reviewing so well. Still early to tell. Not sure if that will impact his involvement with Alien 5.

Chappie does not look good in previews, so not surprising, but Alien hasn't always been such a picky franchise anyhow.

 

[BillJ]

As for Trek II in particular, that is a bad example to use, as TMP was the film that alienated the fans the most, due to the lack of fun, humor, or inter-crew dynamics, all things Trek II fixed. Trek II did not face anywhere near the backlash with existing Trek fans as JJ Trek did.

Yet there were a group of fans sure that TMP would be the one remembered instead of TWOK.They made the same noised that TWOK wasn't "real" Star Trek.

But a movie maker has to be true to their own vision. They can't allow themselves to be persuaded by the whims of fandom on any given week. Imagine if Paramount had decided to pull TNG after 13 weeks because there was a group that decided it wasn't "real" Star Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

As for Trek II in particular, that is a bad example to use, as TMP was the film that alienated the fans the most, due to the lack of fun, humor, or inter-crew dynamics, all things Trek II fixed. Trek II did not face anywhere near the backlash with existing Trek fans as JJ Trek did.

Yet there were a group of fans sure that TMP would be the one remembered instead of TWOK.They made the same noised that TWOK wasn't "real" Star Trek.

But a movie maker has to be true to their own vision. They can't allow themselves to be persuaded by the whims of fandom on any given week. Imagine if Paramount had decided to pull TNG after 13 weeks because there was a group that decided it wasn't "real" Star Trek.

I know people who still, to this day, have not seen TNG or any other spin-off TV show, or any of the TNG movies, but still like both TOS and Abrams Trek.