Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
Just like in the real world ... hurah
Last edited:
If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Recast
- Thread starter TRON JA307020
- Start date
Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
Because a spin-off is, by definition, something new and different from the original, whilst a reboot is taking what's already been done, making minimal changes to fit modern audiences and casting new and almost always younger actors to play the same characters we've already seen.
Because a spin-off is, by definition, something new and different from the original, whilst a reboot is taking what's already been done, making minimal changes to fit modern audiences and casting new and almost always younger actors to play the same characters we've already seen.
Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
I would like to continue this, but I'm kind of leery about getting a warning for going off topic.
That, and I have a feeling this will have been argued to death before. I don't want to be the 'Omega Glory' equivilant of that guy who endlessly repeats RLM's criticisms of the Star Wars prequels.
I do find the similarities to Insurrection interesting.
Overgeeked- Well, luckily for us the NuMovies better fit your definition of spin off, rather than your definition of reboot. Seeing as they're sequels, following a different set of characters, in a time period we haven't seen before...in a different universe even!
Also, still doesn't explain why it was fine to reboot TOS and TNG as a movie franchise in the first place.
I also don't know where you got your definitions from.
Spin-off:
a by-product or incidental result of a larger project.
a product marketed by its association with a popular television programme, film, personality, etc.
'Reboot' has been discussed to death, but it's original definition was just to end and then begin again. In Hollywood, it's meaning varies depending on who is saying it.
So 'spin off' is the one that "by definition" is derivative, whereas 'reboot' by definition better compares to 'restart', 'continuation' or 'sequal'.
I would like to continue this, but I'm kind of leery about getting a warning for going off topic.
That, and I have a feeling this will have been argued to death before. I don't want to be the 'Omega Glory' equivilant of that guy who endlessly repeats RLM's criticisms of the Star Wars prequels.
I do find the similarities to Insurrection interesting.
Overgeeked- Well, luckily for us the NuMovies better fit your definition of spin off, rather than your definition of reboot. Seeing as they're sequels, following a different set of characters, in a time period we haven't seen before...in a different universe even!
Also, still doesn't explain why it was fine to reboot TOS and TNG as a movie franchise in the first place.
I also don't know where you got your definitions from.
Spin-off:
a by-product or incidental result of a larger project.
a product marketed by its association with a popular television programme, film, personality, etc.
'Reboot' has been discussed to death, but it's original definition was just to end and then begin again. In Hollywood, it's meaning varies depending on who is saying it.
So 'spin off' is the one that "by definition" is derivative, whereas 'reboot' by definition better compares to 'restart', 'continuation' or 'sequal'.
Last edited:
Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
This pretty much nails it.
This pretty much nails it.
Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
Yeah, sorry, two minutes of backstory lamely trying to connect the reboot to the established franchise is a bit lame. It's far more a handwave and fanservice than it is a proper 'spin-off'. Luckily 2009 and STD also happen to exactly meet the criteria for reboot. Same characters. Check. Younger actors. Check. Slight changes to the franchise for a modern audience. Check. And what was that last one? Oh, yeah, rehashing old story lines. Check.
As a gross oversimplification perhaps. Though the word you don't know you're looking for is trope. That argument is akin to saying all fossil fuel powered motor vehicles are the same. You have to ignore all the glaring differences between the specific instances in order to come to that conclusion. You're arguing that a lawnmower is the same as a jetliner because on a basic level they're powered by the burning of fossil fuels. Sure, those characters filled the same role in the ensemble cast, the Outsider, but the specific characters and how they were expressed in the writing and by the actors makes them really different from each other on a fundamental level.
Yeah, sorry, two minutes of backstory lamely trying to connect the reboot to the established franchise is a bit lame. It's far more a handwave and fanservice than it is a proper 'spin-off'. Luckily 2009 and STD also happen to exactly meet the criteria for reboot. Same characters. Check. Younger actors. Check. Slight changes to the franchise for a modern audience. Check. And what was that last one? Oh, yeah, rehashing old story lines. Check.
As a gross oversimplification perhaps. Though the word you don't know you're looking for is trope. That argument is akin to saying all fossil fuel powered motor vehicles are the same. You have to ignore all the glaring differences between the specific instances in order to come to that conclusion. You're arguing that a lawnmower is the same as a jetliner because on a basic level they're powered by the burning of fossil fuels. Sure, those characters filled the same role in the ensemble cast, the Outsider, but the specific characters and how they were expressed in the writing and by the actors makes them really different from each other on a fundamental level.
Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
Is that anything new for Trek though?
We never had an explanation of the Mirror Universe, or the Alternate Universe from the Alternative Factor, or any other myriad of such stories.
Is that anything new for Trek though?
We never had an explanation of the Mirror Universe, or the Alternate Universe from the Alternative Factor, or any other myriad of such stories.
Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
They're not new characters, they're the same characters we ended up with just with the names originally being different.
April is Pike is Kirk, Tyler is Sulu, Boyce is Piper is McCoy, Colt is Rand, Spock is Spock with bits of Number One added.
All Roddenberry did when developing the characters from the pitch to the pilot to the series was cross out some names and write new ones.
They're not new characters, they're the same characters we ended up with just with the names originally being different.
April is Pike is Kirk, Tyler is Sulu, Boyce is Piper is McCoy, Colt is Rand, Spock is Spock with bits of Number One added.
All Roddenberry did when developing the characters from the pitch to the pilot to the series was cross out some names and write new ones.
Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
Hmmm, I can't seem to find that definition of reboot anywhere. Though it certainly fits what TNG was when it started towards the end of the TOS movies- down to every last point.
Here's some questions:
1) Since when did an already recurring character reappearing in a sequal count as 'rehashing a storyline'?
2) Since when did we get to discard what we consider 'lame' parts of Star Trek from the official continuity? Nimoy's Spock came from a time that's meant to be after Nemesis, and now is a recurring character in a new universe he accidentally helped create. That's more direct connections to its predecessors than VOY, DS9 and ENT (initially) had.
Hmmm, I can't seem to find that definition of reboot anywhere. Though it certainly fits what TNG was when it started towards the end of the TOS movies- down to every last point.
Here's some questions:
1) Since when did an already recurring character reappearing in a sequal count as 'rehashing a storyline'?
2) Since when did we get to discard what we consider 'lame' parts of Star Trek from the official continuity? Nimoy's Spock came from a time that's meant to be after Nemesis, and now is a recurring character in a new universe he accidentally helped create. That's more direct connections to its predecessors than VOY, DS9 and ENT (initially) had.
Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
How about changing Luke Skywalker to Kirk and Obi-Wan to Pike in the 2009 movie? They have the same number of basic similarities that Spock and Data do anyways, if not more. When things are looked at too broadly, anything can seem the same, and that's because there's really only a handful of character types common to most storytelling. That each series had an alien foil doesn't exactly make them not any different, it's just putting out there that one of the fundamentals of Star Trek is the alien foil. The difference is in the nuance of the character and the environment that shapes it.
How about changing Luke Skywalker to Kirk and Obi-Wan to Pike in the 2009 movie? They have the same number of basic similarities that Spock and Data do anyways, if not more. When things are looked at too broadly, anything can seem the same, and that's because there's really only a handful of character types common to most storytelling. That each series had an alien foil doesn't exactly make them not any different, it's just putting out there that one of the fundamentals of Star Trek is the alien foil. The difference is in the nuance of the character and the environment that shapes it.
Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
I actually find the Kirk/Pike relationship closer to the Okita/Kodai relationship from Space Battleship Yamato.
I actually find the Kirk/Pike relationship closer to the Okita/Kodai relationship from Space Battleship Yamato.
Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
I'd argue that both Han Solo and Prime Kirk owe at least a teensy bit to Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon, and before that you can probably trace a line to John Carter or even 'adventurers' and western heroes like Alan Quartermaine, Davy Crockett etc. I know people like to bring up Hornblower, but besides Kirk being 'the youngest captain' I saw that more in the films than the original TV series.
I personally don't see variations on a theme as a bad thing. I don't consider it a slight against Data to say that he filled Spocks role as an 'alien' looking in on the mostly human crew. The major difference between the two is that Spock slowly accepted his human heritage, whereas Data was actively trying to be more like us. Then you had Odo and Quark on the other end of the spectrum, who managed to pretty much avoid...I want to say human assimilation, but not go that far. They developed, but it wasn't to become more 'human.'
I'd argue that both Han Solo and Prime Kirk owe at least a teensy bit to Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon, and before that you can probably trace a line to John Carter or even 'adventurers' and western heroes like Alan Quartermaine, Davy Crockett etc. I know people like to bring up Hornblower, but besides Kirk being 'the youngest captain' I saw that more in the films than the original TV series.
I personally don't see variations on a theme as a bad thing. I don't consider it a slight against Data to say that he filled Spocks role as an 'alien' looking in on the mostly human crew. The major difference between the two is that Spock slowly accepted his human heritage, whereas Data was actively trying to be more like us. Then you had Odo and Quark on the other end of the spectrum, who managed to pretty much avoid...I want to say human assimilation, but not go that far. They developed, but it wasn't to become more 'human.'
Last edited:
Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
You're right.
They aren't.
Of course, Data is simply a renaming of Xon who was a renaming of Questor, who was a variation on Spock.
More than anything, they reminded me of Spock and McCoy from TOS.
You're right.
They aren't.
Of course, Data is simply a renaming of Xon who was a renaming of Questor, who was a variation on Spock.
More than anything, they reminded me of Spock and McCoy from TOS.
Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
Or perhaps: "This is his revenge for all that latinum he lost....to me."
Or perhaps: "This is his revenge for all that latinum he lost....to me."
Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
I don't see any reason why Trek couldn't sort of have it's cake and eat it too.
The film franchise could remain exclusively a Kirk-Spock-TOS narrative in the Nu-Verse, even if recasting was needed. It would be accepted as long as the acting and stories were quality, and they continued with good box office returns. It's worked well for other movie franchises like Bond and Batman and Superman.
....and then go back to the Prime-Verse on television with something set 20-30 years after the destruction of Romulus. Again, make it high quality and produce a great cast with a good story. I would even be content with an adult-targeted animated series. No Prime-verse backstories --- go forward.
TOS for films. Post-TNG era for TV. The two sides of the franchise could reinforce one another.
And I don't think it would create confusion among general audiences. We're not that stupid. Hell, Star Wars is producing two separate film franchises simultaneously with the Sequel Trilogy and the Anthology Series, and they'll be jumping all over the same timeline between those two. They won't match up chronologically, and they'll be churning out a new one of each every other year.
Trek could definitely handle a TOS-film franchise that serves as a giant cash-cow of adventurous romps while allowing the Prime-Verse to move forward in its own direction. They both continue to exist and grow in their own fresh ways. It would only expand interest in Trek and enlarge the fanbase, the franchise, and the bottom line for the TPTB.
I don't see any reason why Trek couldn't sort of have it's cake and eat it too.
The film franchise could remain exclusively a Kirk-Spock-TOS narrative in the Nu-Verse, even if recasting was needed. It would be accepted as long as the acting and stories were quality, and they continued with good box office returns. It's worked well for other movie franchises like Bond and Batman and Superman.
....and then go back to the Prime-Verse on television with something set 20-30 years after the destruction of Romulus. Again, make it high quality and produce a great cast with a good story. I would even be content with an adult-targeted animated series. No Prime-verse backstories --- go forward.
TOS for films. Post-TNG era for TV. The two sides of the franchise could reinforce one another.
And I don't think it would create confusion among general audiences. We're not that stupid. Hell, Star Wars is producing two separate film franchises simultaneously with the Sequel Trilogy and the Anthology Series, and they'll be jumping all over the same timeline between those two. They won't match up chronologically, and they'll be churning out a new one of each every other year.
Trek could definitely handle a TOS-film franchise that serves as a giant cash-cow of adventurous romps while allowing the Prime-Verse to move forward in its own direction. They both continue to exist and grow in their own fresh ways. It would only expand interest in Trek and enlarge the fanbase, the franchise, and the bottom line for the TPTB.
Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
But it didn't work the last time. The more Trek they produced, the less people cared.
But it didn't work the last time. The more Trek they produced, the less people cared.
Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
Problem being, from a story, acting and production point-of-view, Enterprise really wasn't any worse than its counterparts. People just didn't care because they were burned out.
Hell, I'm still burned out. I think CBS/Paramount have the perfect gameplan by focusing on Kirk and Spock on the big screen.
Problem being, from a story, acting and production point-of-view, Enterprise really wasn't any worse than its counterparts. People just didn't care because they were burned out.
Hell, I'm still burned out. I think CBS/Paramount have the perfect gameplan by focusing on Kirk and Spock on the big screen.
Re: If Star Trek Beyond Is The Last Film Should They Start NuTNG or Re
I don't disagree with the quality assertion of ENT. But the premise of a prequel series of Trek --of all franchises, the most intricately interwoven story that spanned decades and was scrutinized by a pretty intelligent fanbase that treated the saga like Scripture --was a bad idea from the start. And then it didn't attach itself to the name STAR TREK. And it was coming on the heels of 4 other series and ten films --- like you correctly say, there was a sense of burn-out and TPTB didn't help themselves with the concept of ENT and the timing was bad.
But things have changed. The nuTrek films have revitalized the franchise. I've introduced several old friends to PrimeVerse Trek after they watched the new movies and hit me up about wanting to see more. I basically made them a Trek syllabus of viewing and they loved them. Very cool. Love them or hate them, the new films have undeniably rekindled interest in Star Trek.
I do too, as far as the big screen is concerned. Trek should continue to focus exclusively on the TOS crew of Kirk and Spock and continue making fun space adventures for movie-going audiences that will please the general public and the fanbase alike. Re-casting isn't a deal-breaker either in this context. Don't have to re-boot again...just be smart about casting choices, make fun stories of Kirk, Spock, and the iconic Enterprise and Trek will stay healthy.
But for the small screen, it's 2015 now. It's been awhile since the period of Voyager-Enterprise-TNG Movie burnout. Most people have had time to catch their breath.
If the right medium could be found, it's time for Trek to move the PrimeVerse forward on the small screen too. And it would be successful if they did it right. It's a risk, but Trek has rolled the dice many times throughout the last 50 years and won.
I don't disagree with the quality assertion of ENT. But the premise of a prequel series of Trek --of all franchises, the most intricately interwoven story that spanned decades and was scrutinized by a pretty intelligent fanbase that treated the saga like Scripture --was a bad idea from the start. And then it didn't attach itself to the name STAR TREK. And it was coming on the heels of 4 other series and ten films --- like you correctly say, there was a sense of burn-out and TPTB didn't help themselves with the concept of ENT and the timing was bad.
But things have changed. The nuTrek films have revitalized the franchise. I've introduced several old friends to PrimeVerse Trek after they watched the new movies and hit me up about wanting to see more. I basically made them a Trek syllabus of viewing and they loved them. Very cool. Love them or hate them, the new films have undeniably rekindled interest in Star Trek.
I do too, as far as the big screen is concerned. Trek should continue to focus exclusively on the TOS crew of Kirk and Spock and continue making fun space adventures for movie-going audiences that will please the general public and the fanbase alike. Re-casting isn't a deal-breaker either in this context. Don't have to re-boot again...just be smart about casting choices, make fun stories of Kirk, Spock, and the iconic Enterprise and Trek will stay healthy.
But for the small screen, it's 2015 now. It's been awhile since the period of Voyager-Enterprise-TNG Movie burnout. Most people have had time to catch their breath.
If the right medium could be found, it's time for Trek to move the PrimeVerse forward on the small screen too. And it would be successful if they did it right. It's a risk, but Trek has rolled the dice many times throughout the last 50 years and won.
Similar threads
