Is a modern-day big screen reboot of TNG inevitable?

[Hippocrates Noah]

Absolutely. The same people who are 'purists' about something like Trek being rebooted don't seem to worry about how many times, for example, Sherlock Holmes has been done and redone, many of *those* being remakes or reboots. Or that the 'iconic' Superman movie was hardly the first time the man of steel had been on cinema screens. We could go on, but the point is, like you say, characters in pop culture and mythology have been 'rebooted' for millennia, if they weren't then they'd just fade away. I see no reason why the Star Trek characters (and our rich universe) shouldn't be likewise reinterpreted by new generations.

For the record I don't really have a problem with reboots/remakes, even though there's quite a few I don't care anything about. I just think the amount of them is getting pretty silly. Some make sense, like the characters you talked about and I've enjoyed the Trek reboot. I was just talking about the complete saturation of the market with reboots and remakes. I recently read of a list of 120 reboots/remakes currently in production that most people probably don't even want. There are currently 3 remakes of Jean Claude van Damme movies in the works (that I know of), a reported remake of the Kurt Russell/Goldie Hawn romantic/kidnapping comedy Overboard, Road House, She's All That, Sister Act and I heard there's a "dark" remake of Short Circuit on the horizon. It just seems like studios are looking through all the old junk they own and trying to squeeze a few more dimes out of them. It doesn't bother me too much though, I usually just don't see the ones I have no interest in. I'm not one of those "you're raping my childhood" types. I only brought it up because, as I said, if they're remaking/rebooting Cliffhanger and Full House then I think anything is possible.

 

[Greg Cox]

But I suspect this isn't all that different from the old days where the studios routinely redid old properties, many of which started out as stage productions before being redone on film over and over again. I mean, how many different versions of The Cat and the Canary were there back in the day? And when people object to GHOSTBUSTERS being remade after a mere thirty years or so, I like to point out that Bob Hope's THE GHOST BREAKERS (1940) was the third movie adaptation of the original play, and was remade again with Jerry Lewis & Dean Martin in 1953.

People tend to forget (or never knew) that plenty of "classic" movies were remakes of even older moves dating back to the silent era. The more things change . .. ..

 

[lordsofelsewhen]

I like too see it with a british captain picard a female welsy crusher .

 

[KirbyHawk]

I know this sounds weird, but I do not think any actor could ever fill the shoes of Patrick Stewart. I cannot see anyone else playing him. I love all the actors on TNG, but I could see other actor play Riker, Worf, LaForge, Dr. Crusher, Wesley, Troi, and Data.

 

[Hippocrates Noah]

But I suspect this isn't all that different from the old days where the studios routinely redid old properties, many of which started out as stage productions before being redone on film over and over again. I mean, how many different versions of The Cat and the Canary were there back in the day? And when people object to GHOSTBUSTERS being remade after a mere thirty years or so, I like to point out that Bob Hope's THE GHOST BREAKERS (1940) was the third movie adaptation of the original play, and was remade again with Jerry Lewis & Dean Martin in 1953.

People tend to forget (or never knew) that plenty of "classic" movies were remakes of even older moves dating back to the silent era. The more things change . .. ..

I don't know, it may have been no more original, but I think it was a little different. I wasn't alive back then, but I know there weren't any VCR's or DVD/Blu Ray. Not everybody even had televisions, and those that did weren't spoiled for choices of stations or movies to watch. The movie theater was still the place to see films for the most part. So if somebody enjoyed a particular story then a remake was probably welcome, a chance to get to see it again. Or perhaps they thought people might not notice. I don't know, I wasn't in on any old Hollywood meetings.

These days though you have just about every movie ever made at your fingertips on the internet or through Blu Rays and whatever else. If people want to see The Ghost Breakers now they don't have to wait for it to be re-released to theaters or brought back in another adaptation. The remake/reboot market these days has a lot to do with nostalgia and name recognition, hoping fans who already love (or at least like) these movies will pay to go see it again. "Hey I loved The Fog, I need to go see the remake".

As for The Ghost Breakers (a film I wasn't familiar with) I'd guess the remakes were probably a little less repetitive as the first two versions were silent films from the 10's and 20's, then they remade it again in '40 and '53. So there proably weren't a lot of people in 1953 who were like "this is the 4th damn time I've seen this movie".

It is what it is though, sometimes I watch them and enjoy them and sometimes it's clearly a half-ass name recognition cash grab. I've enjoyed some of them like Dawn Of The Dead (2004), Fright Night (2011), Star Trek and some others. I can't think of one off the top of my head I enjoyed more than the original (except The Thing but I didn't grow up on the original) however that's likely nostalgia and a matter of preference.

 

[Lance]

I guess my point was that, sometimes, the reinterpretation of those characters was often the one that captured the public imagination and became iconic. If nobody had taken Superman and remade it, we'd never have had the Christopher Reeve movie. Although many of us acknowledge the character existed before, a far greater number of the public came to the mythology through that film, having no prior conceptions of the character as played on film by George Reeves or Kirk Alyn, while others were immediately taken by it, so clearly did it manage to redefine exactly who and what Superman was.

I see the viewpoint about the current mess of reboots and remakes seeming to indicate a lack of creativity and a risk-adverse Hollywood, but.... I also think people forget that remaking things is something Hollywood has always done, and that many of those remakes, far from being shallow copies of their forebears, actually took those franchises in new directions that Changed The Game. Sometimes, these 'reboots' become even more iconic than the originals, by merit of a new generation taking concepts and characters that others had already thought up, but refining them down in a brand new way that nobody has done before, but which just feels right.

Which I guess is why I talk about untapped potential. Any one of us could look at each Star Trek series and see the paths not taken.... sometimes, a reboot gives authors the ability to explore those paths. That's certainly how I interpreted the Abrams movies. They don't so much 'remake' Star Trek as they strip the mythology back down to it's bare essentials and then reconstructs it anew. As a viewer I find that approach refreshing.

 

[Greg Cox]

I do think that the rise of home video contributes to much of the modern grumbling about remakes, despite the fact that, as noted, they've been standard operating procedure since the silent era. The old versions still seem "new" and fresh in the memory because they're still available to be watched at any time, as opposed to the old days where, if you were lucky, the earlier versions popped up on the Late Late Show once in a blue moon. I like to point out that the thirty-year gap between the old and new GHOSTBUSTERS is just as big a gap as between the 1950s and the 1980s versions of THE THING and THE FLY, yet some modern viewers still seem to think that it's too soon to remake GHOSTBUSTERS.

One other consideration, though: every version is the first for someone. I mean, I'm old enough to remember watching George Reeves on TV as a kid, but I'll grant that Christopher Reeve was the first Superman many people encountered. And you know what, somewhere out there are plenty of eleven-year-old kids for whom Henry Cavill will always be the "real" Superman because he's the one they're imprinting on as kids. And that's okay. Reboots are NOT primarily aimed at fans of the original, but a new generation of potential fans.

Bringing this back to TNG, Patrick Stewart will always be Picard to fans of our generation, but that doesn't mean that future Trekkies can't have their own Picard someday.

 

[Shikarnov]

I do think that the rise of home video contributes to much of the modern grumbling about remakes, despite the fact that, as noted, they've been standard operating procedure since the silent era. The old versions still seem "new" and fresh in the memory because they're still available to be watched at any time, as opposed to the old days where, if you were lucky, the earlier versions popped up on the Late Late Show once in a blue moon. I like to point out that the thirty-year gap between the old and new GHOSTBUSTERS is just as big a gap as between the 1950s and the 1980s versions of THE THING and THE FLY, yet some modern viewers still seem to think that it's too soon to remake GHOSTBUSTERS.

One other consideration, though: every version is the first for someone. I mean, I'm old enough to remember watching George Reeves on TV as a kid, but I'll grant that Christopher Reeve was the first Superman many people encountered. And you know what, somewhere out there are plenty of eleven-year-old kids for whom Henry Cavill will always be the "real" Superman because he's the one they're imprinting on as kids. And that's okay. Reboots are NOT primarily aimed at fans of the original, but a new generation of potential fans.

Bringing this back to TNG, Patrick Stewart will always be Picard to fans of our generation, but that doesn't mean that future Trekkies can't have their own Picard someday.

Firstly, well said. I agree with every word you've written...

As an aside, I wonder why we accept this with movies and music, but not so much with books. Why doesn't anybody rewrite The Great Gatsby, for example, in a style that's a bit more accessible to modern readers? Or the works of Shakespeare for that matter. Sometimes I envy my foreign friends and family reading Twelfth Night with ease in their contemporary native languages, while we're stuck trying to figure out what "reason thus with reason fetter" is supposed to mean...

If we're capable of building on and improving these stories at least once every generation, why don't we?

ETA: I wonder what a Trek novel would be like to read in an old English metered prose...

 

[Hippocrates Noah]

I do think that the rise of home video contributes to much of the modern grumbling about remakes, despite the fact that, as noted, they've been standard operating procedure since the silent era. The old versions still seem "new" and fresh in the memory because they're still available to be watched at any time, as opposed to the old days where, if you were lucky, the earlier versions popped up on the Late Late Show once in a blue moon. I like to point out that the thirty-year gap between the old and new GHOSTBUSTERS is just as big a gap as between the 1950s and the 1980s versions of THE THING and THE FLY, yet some modern viewers still seem to think that it's too soon to remake GHOSTBUSTERS.

One other consideration, though: every version is the first for someone. I mean, I'm old enough to remember watching George Reeves on TV as a kid, but I'll grant that Christopher Reeve was the first Superman many people encountered. And you know what, somewhere out there are plenty of eleven-year-old kids for whom Henry Cavill will always be the "real" Superman because he's the one they're imprinting on as kids. And that's okay. Reboots are NOT primarily aimed at fans of the original, but a new generation of potential fans.

Bringing this back to TNG, Patrick Stewart will always be Picard to fans of our generation, but that doesn't mean that future Trekkies can't have their own Picard someday.

To be honest, and probably obvious, I think it's the female cast that's causing most of the outrage over Ghostbusters. It being "too soon" might be an excuse some of them use but it's been a long time since 1989 and there have been many reboots that didn't wait that long. Take Batman for example, they only waited 4 years after the Nolan franchise ended before they rebooted it and Affleck supposedly wants to do direct another reboot while the current reboot is still going on. While some of this news has had people saying "Really?", it's nothing like the outrage over Ghostbusters. I've never seen any backlash over a reboot like this one. They're rebooting movies from the 90's and 00's without a large "it's too soon" uproar.

I'm not really talking about Superheroes though, or other iconic characters/franchises, when I say they're playing on nostalgia. Some of those characters will, and should, be introduced to new generations. I was talking more about the cult films (or not even cult films) that new generations aren't really clamoring for, often times the generation who first saw the film are surprised some of this crap is getting rebooted and remade.

And yes, future generations could very well have their own Picard, like I'm sure Pine might be the definitive Kirk for kids of this generation. I never said they shouldn't or can't. I'm not some purist who gets pissed off about these remakes, I was just making an observation about the number of them in recent years and how they sometimes appear to be scraping the bottom of the barrel. I mean... Overboard? I LOVE Kurt Russell but even I won't sit through that.

 

[Greg Cox]

True, there is an unpleasant, reactionary subtext (that's too often not all that sub) to the GHOSTBUSTERS flap. Twice today already I've resisted the temptation to engage with posters (on other boards) who are convinced that the new movie is some sort of evil feminist assault on geek culture. As opposed to, say, the result of a studio looking at the box-office receipts of BRIDESMAIDS and searching for another profitable vehicle for the same crew. ("You know, GHOSTBUSTERS worked with a bunch of SNL alumni way back when. Maybe it will work again with another crop of SNL alumni?")

But who says that only good movies deserve to get remade? You can actually make a case that it's sometimes more promising to remake a movie that maybe didn't quite live up to its potential the last time around. In which case you're not so much trying to cash in on nostalgia for the original as seeing potential in an intriguing old premise. (C'mon, somebody remake HORROR EXPRESS or VAMPIRE CIRCUS; they're just sitting there waiting for new versions.) Or maybe you think there's still life in some durable old chestnut that's been a proven winner generation after after generation.

And sometimes the remakes do end up better and more "iconic" than the originals. I mean, look at ONE MILLION YEARS B.C..with Raquel Welch. People are still talking about that famous fur bikini, but does anybody besides us hardcore film buffs even remember the 1940 version with Victor Mature and Carole Landis? And the classic Vincent Price version of HOUSE OF WAX is much better (and better known) these days than the original 1933 version with Lionel Atwell. (We'll just forget about the Paris Hilton version, okay?) Sometime there's good material to be found in those old film vaults.

I admit, though, that I was bit taken aback to hear that Spike Lee had remade GANJA AND HESS of all things. Clearly, there is no cult movie so obscure that somebody doesn't want to remake it!

 

[Hippocrates Noah]

True, there is an unpleasant, reactionary subtext (that's too often not all that sub) to the GHOSTBUSTERS flap. Twice today already I've resisted the temptation to engage with posters (on other boards) who are convinced that the new movie is some sort of evil feminist assault on geek culture. As opposed to, say, the result of a studio looking at the box-office receipts of BRIDESMAIDS and searching for another profitable vehicle for the same crew. ("You know, GHOSTBUSTERS worked with a bunch of SNL alumni way back when. Maybe it will work again with another crop of SNL alumni?")

But who says that only good movies deserve to get remade? You can actually make a case that it's sometimes more promising to remake a movie that maybe didn't quite live up to its potential the last time around. In which case you're not so much trying to cash in on nostalgia for the original as seeing potential in an intriguing old premise. (C'mon, somebody remake HORROR EXPRESS or VAMPIRE CIRCUS; they're just sitting there waiting for new versions.) Or maybe you think there's still life in some durable old chestnut that's been a proven winner generation after after generation.

And sometimes the remakes do end up better and more "iconic" than the originals. I mean, look at ONE MILLION YEARS B.C..with Raquel Welch. People are still talking about that famous fur bikini, but does anybody besides us hardcore film buffs even remember the 1940 version with Victor Mature and Carole Landis? And the classic Vincent Price version of HOUSE OF WAX is much better (and better known) these days than the original 1933 version with Lionel Atwell. (We'll just forget about the Paris Hilton version, okay?) Sometime there's good material to be found in those old film vaults.

I admit, though, that I was bit taken aback to hear that Spike Lee had remade GANJA AND HESS of all things. Clearly, there is no cult movie so obscure that somebody doesn't want to remake it!

There seems to be a huge number of PC/Feminist conspiracy theorists on the internet these days. It seems like IMDb has thousands of them, on any board I go to there's somebody ranting about how PC is ruining films. I saw on the board for the new Trek series one of them actually showed up to gripe about the new series and how they were casting in a color and gender blind way and how they were trying to be progressive and ruin Trek. Somebody pointed out that's kind of ALWAYS been Star Trek's deal, and it seemed obvious this person didn't really watch Trek. Just an anti-PC crusader who heard about this and went to the Trek board to whine.

Don't get me wrong, I really have no interest in seeing the new Ghostbusters though. For one the trailer wasn't enough to wow me into seeing it, in fact it looked bad but you can't judge a movie by a trailer, just judge whether or not you want to go see it. And secondly, as much as I love Ghostbusters that love has very little to do with ghosts or ghostbusting, it was Bill, Dan and Harold. Though mostly Bill. I never wanted any Ghostbusters toys or anything like that, because a lot of kids loved the idea behind it, I just thought the stars were hilarious. Without them I really don't care about seeing a proton pack or Slimer. I don't understand the outrage though, or people claiming their childhood is being sh#t on. And the funny thing is they'll probably all go see it just so they can gripe about it.

 

[David Strickhouser]

I do think that the rise of home video contributes to much of the modern grumbling about remakes, despite the fact that, as noted, they've been standard operating procedure since the silent era. The old versions still seem "new" and fresh in the memory because they're still available to be watched at any time, as opposed to the old days where, if you were lucky, the earlier versions popped up on the Late Late Show once in a blue moon. I like to point out that the thirty-year gap between the old and new GHOSTBUSTERS is just as big a gap as between the 1950s and the 1980s versions of THE THING and THE FLY, yet some modern viewers still seem to think that it's too soon to remake GHOSTBUSTERS.

One other consideration, though: every version is the first for someone. I mean, I'm old enough to remember watching George Reeves on TV as a kid, but I'll grant that Christopher Reeve was the first Superman many people encountered. And you know what, somewhere out there are plenty of eleven-year-old kids for whom Henry Cavill will always be the "real" Superman because he's the one they're imprinting on as kids. And that's okay. Reboots are NOT primarily aimed at fans of the original, but a new generation of potential fans.

Bringing this back to TNG, Patrick Stewart will always be Picard to fans of our generation, but that doesn't mean that future Trekkies can't have their own Picard someday.

Valid points.
I guess I forgot about the silent era. It seems Hollywood has been "revisiting" stories since the beginning.
Christopher Reeve's Superman was not my "first" Superman; I'd seen the George Reeve series re-runs before seeing the first film. But he was, in my opinion, the definitive Superman for the big screen. Henry Cavill's interpretation was fine in "Man of Steel"; I just did not like the story and the outcome (have not seen BvS nor have any desire to do so).

I can accept the changes in casting for "evergreen" characters such as Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Superman and James Bond because they started out on the page, book or comic. The reader's "mind's eye" can create their own image of the ideal individual to inhabit the character, if they haven't yet been swayed by the images on the screen.

In the case of Star Trek, to me, it is different. No one prior to 1966 had read or heard of these characters; they were introduced on the screen first. Therefore, the "mind's eye" did not need to create an image; the actors had.

So when the reboot came in '09, it was difficult for me to watch. I really tried. Even with Leonard Nimoy back as Spock, I felt his "blessing" of the project would help. But as the years went by, the more difficult it became to watch. I've since removed it from my video library.

As long as those characters stay in their universe, then I can tolerate it.

Why couldn't the 2009 film started a franchise of all-new characters, all-new ship, all-new adventures just like Gene Roddenberry did in 1987 with TNG? As long as the film had STAR TREK somewhere in the title, the general audience (which the producers/studios seem to want over niche fans) would have showed up at the box office.

My opinion.

 

[BillJ]

As long as the film had STAR TREK somewhere in the title, the general audience (which the producers/studios seem to want over niche fans) would have showed up at the box office.

But they won't show up just because "Star Trek" is in the title, as became painfully apparent during the late-09's/early-2000's. Just putting "Star Trek" in the title with new characters wasn't an automatic draw.

Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise were/are still cultural touchstones that everyone knows. It was a smart move by Paramount to recast, as box officer totals for the first two films have shown.

 

[David Strickhouser]

Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise were/are still cultural touchstones that everyone knows

So I guess that means they've become "evergreen" characters, suitable for re-casting every "generation".
Actor-interchangeable.
Sad.

 

[BillJ]

So I guess that means they've become "evergreen" characters, suitable for re-casting every "generation".
Actor-interchangeable.
Sad.

Why is that sad? The alternative is to consign them to the dustbin of history. The further we move away from 1966, fewer and fewer people are going to be interested in those episodes.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Bill's point is only true if Star Trek (as a brand name) never fully breaks the mainstream barrier. But, over all, TPTB have done a pretty good job at slowly building up the brand over the seven-or-so years. And the recent marketing has been nothing short of outstanding.

If CBS can continue to carry the torch for the next six months with Fuller-Trek, I think it's very likely the franchise will break into that next tier. While it will never be Star Wars or Marvel, it will be to a point where "Star Trek," as a brand, is enough on its own.

And Picard, Data, and the Reading Rainbow guy with the hairband on his face might not be Kirk, Spock, Bones, but they aren't exactly pop culture obscurity either.

 

[Ralphis]

I don't know about a reboot with the TNG characters, but I can see a Kelvin Timeline sequel that skips ahead to the 24th century and introduces that timeline's version of those characters. With maybe Quinto's Spock bridging the gap somehow.

 

[David Strickhouser]

Why is that sad? The alternative is to consign them to the dustbin of history. The further we move away from 1966, fewer and fewer people are going to be interested in those episodes.

Precisely. My generation will be gone, the generation that grew up while TOS was still on the air new will be gone; succeeding generations will view TOS with disdain as "old, archaic, out of touch, cheap" and place the newer iterations above all as THIS IS STAR TREK not that old "warhorse" from the twentieth century trying to look futuristic.
Will future generations defend the "old warhorse" for what it stood for; who will be around to remind them?

 

[BillJ]

Precisely. My generation will be gone, the generation that grew up while TOS was still on the air new will be gone; succeeding generations will view TOS with disdain as "old, archaic, out of touch, cheap" and place the newer iterations above all as THIS IS STAR TREK not that old "warhorse" from the twentieth century trying to look futuristic.

I don't have a problem with any of this. Roddenberry himself said he wanted people to exceed what he did with Star Trek.

Will future generations defend the "old warhorse" for what it stood for; who will be around to remind them?

They won't need to. The core elements will survive and be tweaked for current and future audiences. Those that really get into some down the road version, will hunt down the originals to see what they are and how they reflected life in the time they were made. No different than comic book fans hunting down Silver and Golden Age issues of their favorite heroes.

 

[Squiggy]

I don't think so. I think they'll just keep recasting and rebooting TOS characters because they presume that's all anyone knows or cares about. I know DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were not huge hits but TNG has been completely shortchanged over the years. It was a huge hit and introduced a lot of people to Star Trek, not to mention a lot of iconic races and characters. I feel it's being a little bit forgotten.

Short changed? Nah. TNG was going to go on as long as it remained popular and profitable.

We're not due endless movies because it was successful 25 years ago. Insurrection was a bad movie and Nemesis almost killed Star Trek. TNG ran for 15 years. The population got their fill.

Once Star Trek gets beat opening weekend by a J-Lo romcom it's time to pack it up.