Legal situation concerning the new TV series
- Thread starter Jinn
- Start date
Bashir's parents?
Well, then, no wonder Odo doesn't like to imitate the process of eating. If he can't smell, he probably can't taste either...
In the third-season episode "Improbable Cause," Odo forces an alien to mix various perfume "scents" for him, due to having no sense of smell (for a "lady friend") -- just when Odo is about to add an ingredient of his own, the alien confesses that a poison-gas would result from the mixture.Odo without a sense of smell? I don't remember seeing that anywhere. Can anyone confirm this?
Thanks. I couldn't remember the citation, but I remember sitting up and taking note when that bit aired. "Hang on? Odo can't smell? Who knew?"
Not just the general plans:
(Ship names, classes, and numbers taken straight out of the Technical Manual.)
Sure, but probably more because it was convenient to draw on the work FJ had already done than out of some desire to wink and nod at fanboys.
Why not both?
What Idran said.
Let us not forget that this was the same movie that earned Roddenberry the ire of the Screen Extras Guild, by including a crowd scene for the specific purpose of getting screen time for a lucky few fans.
Really? Accept a setting with no Borg? When Borg stories could sell well? No way.
Yeah. Borg are money.
That said, I'd lay odds we won't be seeing any in the new show. They said they want to strike out in a new direction with respect to aliens. I'm sure there will be some familiar faces/facial appliances, tho.
That said, I'd lay odds we won't be seeing any in the new show. They said they want to strike out in a new direction with respect to aliens. I'm sure there will be some familiar faces/facial appliances, tho.
Much like TNG did when it started out. It avoided familiar TOS races like Vulcans, Andorians, Tellarites, and Romulans, and Roddenberry had to be talked into including a Klingon character (though the fact that they were allies now made it different enough).
I'm sure there will be some familiar faces/facial appliances, tho.
I dunno... There was an interview where Fuller alluded to using digital enhancement for aliens. That's one reason I'd welcome a full continuity reboot -- not another "alternate timeline" but a complete reinvention from the ground up. Then they could totally redesign the aliens to be less like actors with rubber glued to their faces and more genuinely alien in anatomy.
I loathe reboots.
Victor Fleming, Noel Langley, Florence Ryerson, and Edgar Allan Woolf's 1939 vision of The Wizard of Oz was, in essence, a reboot of Baum's perfectly good 1900 novel, one that took the story in directions utterly incompatible with the thirteen sequels Baum wrote.
If you're going to do something completely different, then call it something completely different.
ADF's Humanx Commonwealth milieu, with its optimistic view of the future, with Humanity's closest allies being a logical alien species, in a universe where FTL travel is a given, is close enough to Star Trek that it could almost be considered a Star Trek reboot, but it's not, because it doesn't claim to be Star Trek. It's entirely different, it's presented as something entirely different, and it can be enjoyed as something entirely different.
I have precisely zero interest in the post-reboot Bond films. I have precisely zero interest in the upcoming Ghostbusters reboot. The fact that Abrams used a branch timeline to justify an almost-reboot of Star Trek dampened my enthusiasm for the Abramsverse.
Victor Fleming, Noel Langley, Florence Ryerson, and Edgar Allan Woolf's 1939 vision of The Wizard of Oz was, in essence, a reboot of Baum's perfectly good 1900 novel, one that took the story in directions utterly incompatible with the thirteen sequels Baum wrote.
If you're going to do something completely different, then call it something completely different.
ADF's Humanx Commonwealth milieu, with its optimistic view of the future, with Humanity's closest allies being a logical alien species, in a universe where FTL travel is a given, is close enough to Star Trek that it could almost be considered a Star Trek reboot, but it's not, because it doesn't claim to be Star Trek. It's entirely different, it's presented as something entirely different, and it can be enjoyed as something entirely different.
I have precisely zero interest in the post-reboot Bond films. I have precisely zero interest in the upcoming Ghostbusters reboot. The fact that Abrams used a branch timeline to justify an almost-reboot of Star Trek dampened my enthusiasm for the Abramsverse.
There's no such thing as "completely different." All fiction draws on precedent. All fiction is a variation on pre-existing themes, regardless of whether it reuses the names or not.
And if you don't like something, it's enough just not to watch it or read it. You don't get to tell people they're wrong even to create something that doesn't conform exactly to your tastes. If someone wants to do a drastic reinvention of something and give it the same name, they have every right in the world to do it if that's what they feel the story needs.
Last edited:
Why does it matter what a thing is called? Titles are nothing but a set of random noises associated arbitrarily with a concept that has no innate meaning beyond that which we choose to associate to it through past experience and contextual cues. It's like Shakespeare said; "that which we call a squibble blarp vorp, by any other name would smell as sweet".
Also Dr. No was a reboot of the original failed Casino Royale television adaptation and the 1939 Wizard of Oz was a reboot of the half-dozen failed Wizard of Oz films that came before it. And you're confusing "reboot" and "adaptation", turning a book into a movie doesn't mean you're rebooting the book.
(Double-also, the Kelvin Universe is a reboot, not an almost-reboot. In-universe justifications don't matter.)
Also Dr. No was a reboot of the original failed Casino Royale television adaptation and the 1939 Wizard of Oz was a reboot of the half-dozen failed Wizard of Oz films that came before it. And you're confusing "reboot" and "adaptation", turning a book into a movie doesn't mean you're rebooting the book.
(Double-also, the Kelvin Universe is a reboot, not an almost-reboot. In-universe justifications don't matter.)
It matters if the creators decide it matters. Stories are constructed from symbols that carry meaning to the audience. A familiar title or character name is a symbol that carries weight, and thus it can be useful. Taking a familiar idea and transforming it into something completely different or deconstructed can create a conceptual tension that's useful in provoking a reaction from the audience. That's why people do that instead of just coining a new title or character names. Art is about variations on established themes and symbols.
"Reboot" is a slang term that doesn't really have a precise, formal definition. Its use in entertainment is a metaphor based on its use in computing to mean restarting a device, which in turn is a metaphor derived from the slang expression "to pull oneself up by one's bootstraps." It used to be that "reboot" was an industry-insider term meaning to revive a dormant entertainment franchise and make it profitable again, regardless of whether the existing continuity was revived or replaced. It was more a marketing/business term than anything to do with story content. But when the Battlestar Galactica revival came along, the term "reboot" was popularized along with it, and that led to the emergence of the belief in fandom that the term applied specifically and exclusively to continuity reinventions like BSG, even though the industry use of the term was never so limited. And really, that's pretty much the direct opposite of its use in computing -- after all, rebooting a computer just means starting the same program a second time, not replacing it with a rewritten program. By all rights, if we're going to use computer analogies, "reboot" should mean simply restarting the existing continuity (like Doctor Who or TNG), and a change to a new continuity should be called, I don't know, an update (like from Windows 7 to Windows 10, say). But instead we pretty much do the opposite of that, which makes little sense, so we really shouldn't be too rigid about that being the "right" terminology.
(On second thought, maybe it's called a "reboot" because it's going back to the beginning, rather than just returning from sleep mode, as it were?)
^Sure, but this is a public forum, so we're all allowed to respond to any comment if we have an opinion about the question being raised.
Similar threads
