Eh, I do read the summaries on Wikipedia and Memory Alpha.
And I am not saying that others can not like the new movies and Discovery, I just do not like either.
Was a reboot inevitable?
- Thread starter Ghost
- Start date
Eh, I do read the summaries on Wikipedia and Memory Alpha.
And I am not saying that others can not like the new movies and Discovery, I just do not like either.
Of course a reboot has always been inevitable. What's annoying is how they're rebooting it. The whole point of a reboot is to break away from the other continuity to do something new, yet Star Trek continues to live on in the shadow of the Prime Universe, even thirteen years after the Prime Universe shut down. You have the new movies which treat the rebooted continuity as a separate timeline which branched off from the Prime Universe mostly only for the purpose of bringing Leonard Nimoy in so that he can continue to play Spock from TOS. And then there's Disco which more or less is a reboot in every definition of the word minus the fact the producers are for some reason saying it's supposed to be in the Prime Universe.
I'm noticing a lot of people saying that they don't like the new Star Trek movies or they don't like Discovery, but haven't actually watched them. Not sure that's a fair statement to say you don't like something if you haven't tried it. Reading summaries online is not the same as watching the actual content as intended. I think it would be more fair to say that you don't think you would like it given what you've read/heard about it. That's like me saying I don't like broccoli even if I've never tried it. It smells bad, so I don't like the taste of it. What? More like, it smells bad, so I don't think I'll like the taste either. (By the way, I have tried it and blech.]
We've never seen the Discovery era on TV before, so it can't really be called a reboot in any sense of the word, can it? Yes, the writers keep saying it's in the Prime Universe, but show us stories that appear to be counter to that. However, there's another season coming, so why should we distrust them on this? We've seen a sizzle reel showing the Enterprise uniforms looking more like TOS (albeit, not so much like "The Cage").
I agree with previously commented sentiments regarding prequels, sequels, remakes, reboots... they aren't going to please everyone. I, for one, don't really care that much. I'm just happy more Star Trek is being made. I also read Star Trek novels, which gives me new Star Trek all the time. Technically a movie/series could come in and undo a lot of what I read (as has been the case in the past). I could let that piss me off royally and stop reading the books. But they're all just stories. Some good. Some not so much. But they're Star Trek to me.
The actual experience of watching a show or movie is miles from reading a blandly written Wiki summary.
There's no emotional connection whatsoever in a Wikipedia summary. You won't react to the Kirk/Spock death scene in Wrath of Khan by reading about it on Wikipedia.
It's better with cheese sauce.
Oh, come on. The Abrams films were not created as a vehicle for Leonard Nimoy to reprise his role. They were created to get casual moviegoer's asses in theater seats instead of catering to a small percentage of trufans. Nimoy was just a bonus.
Amen. The concept and plot details are just one ingredient in the mix. There's also the execution: the writing, the acting, the direction, the music, the production values, the style, the atmosphere, etc. All of which goes into the total experience of watching a dramatic presentation.
Heck, this applies to books as well. Back when I was reading lots of submissions for Tor, I always read the sample chapters before reading the outline because it was impossible to tell if a book was worth publishing from the synopsis alone. Even if the plot was ingenious, it didn't matter if the writing wasn't up to snuff.
At best, a synopsis is just an X-ray of a skeleton. It's the flesh and blood that brings a story to life.
Last edited:
It's both a reboot and a Prime Universe show.
Let that cook your biscuit for a few, dawg.
You know, if someone actually involved with that show would come forward and admit even that much, I'd probably let the matter drop.
Except that if CBS said it was a reboot, you wouldn't be saying that at all.
Except Roddenberry didn't try to pass TMP off as the same universe as TOS. He wrote in the novelization that TOS was a dramatic reinterpretation of the "real world" which TMP depicted.
That was the novelization. Nothing in the actual movie implied that, nor was that how it was taken by either casual viewers or the franchise in the general in the years to come. Indeed, it was Roddenberry and his people who later promoted the idea that only the onscreen stuff was "canon." TOS was treated as "canon" by TPTB for decades, not as some inaccurate variant version of Trek.
It was all the same universe--except maybe the Saturday morning cartoon.
So what you're saying is that despite the original intent of the creator, what we actually see with our own eyes is what matters. Sweet! So we can ignore CBS and say that DSC is a reboot!
(Sorry, Greg, didn't mean to take your words out of context for an awesome joke, but I did anyway
)
The legend states: the only franchise locked into non-reboot protection are the Back to the Future films... so long as Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale are alive those properties can't be rebooted. Something to do with their original contracts with Universal and Amblin Entertainment. Any way we can keep those two alive forever? Advance cryogenics, anything?
OP's point: Yes, I always expected the/a reboot to come, but after Enterprise was canceled in 2004, that wait until 2009 was a long wait. I guess you could say that it was a long road, getting from there to here. Agreed that Trek does better on TV... that was a super long wait, 2004-2017.
OP's point: Yes, I always expected the/a reboot to come, but after Enterprise was canceled in 2004, that wait until 2009 was a long wait. I guess you could say that it was a long road, getting from there to here. Agreed that Trek does better on TV... that was a super long wait, 2004-2017.
Yep
One thing that still gets me is how Trekkies like to say how the franchise "died" in 2005 and JJ Abrams miraculously swooped in and "saved" it in 2009. That's... not exactly how it went.
The franchise was never "dead" to begin with, because Paramount ordered a new movie in 2005 as soon as Enterprise was cancelled. A dead franchise is one that no longer makes a profit, and any and all future plans are halted. Obviously, Paramount still saw the potential to make money off of the Star Trek franchise, as they went through several movie pitches such as the proposed Romulan War movie, until JJ Abrams' Star Trek was officially announced on April 20, 2006. Barely a year after Enterprise.
The franchise was never "dead" to begin with, because Paramount ordered a new movie in 2005 as soon as Enterprise was cancelled. A dead franchise is one that no longer makes a profit, and any and all future plans are halted. Obviously, Paramount still saw the potential to make money off of the Star Trek franchise, as they went through several movie pitches such as the proposed Romulan War movie, until JJ Abrams' Star Trek was officially announced on April 20, 2006. Barely a year after Enterprise.
Similar threads
- Locked
