• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

A Next Gen Reboot?

Will they make a reboot of TNG eventually? Probably.

Would I be a fan of it? Based on what I've thought of the new takes on TOS with the Kelvin Films and SNW... Probably Not.

I'm normally only in favor of a reboot (of anything) if the original wasn't good and/or didn't do the concept justice. Like with BSG or Dune. Otherwise, I'm usually just not into them. Star Trek or not.
 
It made money. In those terms, as far as those who count the beans go, it was a success.

It brought in countless people to movie theatres who had never seen Star Trek before. That was part of the objective, so in those terms it was a success.

Critically, the movie was a something of a darling. So in terms of getting the media to say positive things about a franchise that at the time was dead in the water… yes, it was a success.

It’s a rather fannish take to look at it and declare it a failure because a minority of hardcore fans reacted badly to it. ST09 did everything Paramount expected of it and more.

Of course ST09 was a success in other words. Whether or not you (or I or any other member of this board) liked it is by the by. I didn’t particularly enjoy ‘Joker’ from a few years back, but I wouldn’t declare it a failure.
But did the "success" last?

I don't think so.

I think that the Star Trek fanbase has suffered because of the bad productions of later years and lack of what we can call "worldwide expose". The whole Trek fanbase are split up like Kazon sects, defending their territory and bickering with each other.

Those "hardcore fans which you unfortunarely dismiss are just the fans which have kept Star Trek alive during all centuries and most likely will keep it alive for centuries if they aren't so bored with later productions that they simply give up.

While those "countless people" you mention might be those who have no real interest in Star Trek. They just saw ST09 as something trendy and watched it because of that. Then they left for other trendy stuff.

There are examples where certain entertainers have tried to adapt to temporary trends in order to gain more popularity and it has backfired.

I remember a certain heavy rock band which had great succes in the 80's which tried to gain more fans by adapting to the current softer trend whiich was going at some point. They made an album which was a bit different from what they had done before and more adapted to new trends.

That really backfired. The old hardcore fans thought that they had sold out and all those new fans they wanted to attract didn't care. The album was a failure.

The band realized their mistake and the next album was a return to the old style. But it was too late!

They did get thir reputation back but never reached the heights of popularity they once had. But they are still going, thanks to those hardcore fans who have remained.

I once had the opportunity to talk to a rock musician whose band have had some success. He said that "I rather play for 30 enthusiasts who really love our music than for 1000 people who aren't interested."
 
But did the "success" last?

I don't think so.

How is that even relevant?

You're asking if ST09 was a success. It was. Saying it wasn't a success because what followed didn't perform as well is like claiming TNG wasn't a success because ENT tanked.

Objectively, in and of itself, ST09 was a critical and commercial success. End of discussion.
 
Last edited:
How is that even relevant?

You're asking if ST09 was a success. It was. Saying it wasn't a success because what followed didn't perform as well is like claiming TNG wasn't a success because ENT tanked.

Objectively, in and of itself, ST09 was objectively a critical and commercial success. End of discussion.
Well, if you see it as a success, then have it your way.
 
I'd say that Star Trek 09 was more like a band making a huge comeback after a string of disappointing albums. Sure the sound was more mainstream, but it seems like most of the existing fans appreciated what it was doing and it remains a jumping-on point for potential new fans to this day.
 
IMO the fact they haven't made one in seven to eight years and the main reason touted was that they couldn't afford to the budget needed to do so given the limited predicted return on investment is suggestive.

I wouldn’t even begin to disagree that what went off subsequently to ST09 was an unmitigated FUBAR. The fact that Paramount dropped the ball is well documented.

Again though, that doesn’t change the fact that taken by itself, as a single entity, ST09 was a success.

The Batman series went off the rails towards the end of the 1990s. Does that change the fact that the original 1989 movie was successful? Not at all.
 
I'd say that Star Trek 09 was more like a band making a huge comeback after a string of disappointing albums. Sure the sound was more mainstream, but it seems like most of the existing fans appreciated what it was doing and it remains a jumping-on point for potential new fans to this day.
Yes, and the band continued to follow up their success album with more of the same stuff, just like Iron Maiden did in 1990 with Brave New World and following albums to this day.

Or...........? :shrug:
 
Yes, and the band continued to follow up their success album with more of the same stuff, just like Iron Maiden did in 1990 with Brave New World and following albums to this day.

Or...........? :shrug:

That's actually a good analogy. They had a huge success with Star Trek '09 and could have gone in any direction they wanted now that they rebooted it, and what did they do? Bring back Khan with the most miscasted actor they could have chosen. But Into Darkess was still successful, as was Beyond. The problem wasn't Paramount actually producing the films. The problem was Paramount's completely inept marketing strategies and having their audience completely lose interest in their new movie series by having eight years go by without anything more than bullshit announcements for films that never get made.
 
Last edited:
The had a huge success with Star Trek '09 and could have gone in any direction they wanted now that they rebooted it, and what did they do? Bring back Khan with the most miscasted actor they could have chosen.

Agreed.

But Into Darkess was still successful, as was Beyond.

Into Darkness was actually slightly more successful than '09 financially, at least according official figures, whereas Beyond only did about as well as '09, which accounting for inflation makes it a good bit less successful, though TBF all of them may at least a small profit.


The problem was Paramount's completely inept marketing strategies and having their audience completely lose interest in their new movie series by having eight years go by without anything more than bullshit announcements for films that never get made.

Absolutely.
 
That's actually a good analogy. They had a huge success with Star Trek '09 and could have gone in any direction they wanted now that they rebooted it, and what did they do? Bring back Khan with the most miscasted actor they could have chosen. But Into Darkess was still successful, as was Beyond. The problem wasn't Paramount actually producing the films. The problem was Paramount's completely inept marketing strategies and having their audience completely lose interest in their new movie series by having eight years go by without anything more than bullshit announcements for films that never get made.
That's just the big problem with reboots. The fact that characters like Kirk, Khan and all other legendary characters simply aren't as good with new actors than they were with the original actors.

Which is the main reason for me to hate reboots. I don't want to see my favorite characters being ruined by actors who aren't up to it.

As it is right now,I can't remember watching any reboot I have liked, at least not one based on any of my favorite movies or TV-series.
 
That's actually a good analogy. They had a huge success with Star Trek '09 and could have gone in any direction they wanted now that they rebooted it, and what did they do? Bring back Khan with the most miscasted actor they could have chosen. But Into Darkess was still successful, as was Beyond. The problem wasn't Paramount actually producing the films. The problem was Paramount's completely inept marketing strategies and having their audience completely lose interest in their new movie series by having eight years go by without anything more than bullshit announcements for films that never get made.
Indeed yes. The films are great. Seeing Pine Kirk and Quinto Spock was fucking awesome. They did an amazing job and I welcomed their attempts to go somewhere new. Unfortunately, the brought back Khan and ignored that momentum from 09, wasting time over the damn script.

I welcome reboots in all stripes, and think Cumberbatch is cold and chilling as Khan in his own right, separate from Montalban. But, the use of Khan as the touchstone for Trek villains is stupid.

No problem with reboots; problem with poor management.
 
That's just the big problem with reboots. The fact that characters like Kirk, Khan and all other legendary characters simply aren't as good with new actors than they were with the original actors.

Which is the main reason for me to hate reboots. I don't want to see my favorite characters being ruined by actors who aren't up to it.

As it is right now,I can't remember watching any reboot I have liked, at least not one based on any of my favorite movies or TV-series.

Well, my point wasn't that the actors were or weren't good. My point was that instead of doing something original for the second film, they went right back to using Khan.

Indeed yes. The films are great. Seeing Pine Kirk and Quinto Spock was fucking awesome. They did an amazing job and I welcomed their attempts to go somewhere new. Unfortunately, the brought back Khan and ignored that momentum from 09, wasting time over the damn script.

I welcome reboots in all stripes, and think Cumberbatch is cold and chilling as Khan in his own right, separate from Montalban. But, the use of Khan as the touchstone for Trek villains is stupid.

No problem with reboots; problem with poor management.

If Cumberbatch was allowed to be an original villain, then I think the movie would have been received better. Unfortunately the film was already structured for Khan to be the bad guy (they originally had Benicio del Toro for the part but he backed out at the last minute, forcing Abrams to recast with Cumberbatch.) So there would have been no way for a pasty white British guy to be his own character rather than be shoehorned into the Khan role with the most paper-thin of excuses as to why he looks and talks the way he does.
 
Reboot can be a good thing if there's a good idea but it's executed poorly.

In the case of STNG the series is good so there's no need for a reboot.
I never understood this idea. Of course there's no need, but if someone wants to do it I welcome them to do so. Why not? What's the harm?

I am lukewarm on TNG, as it has its highs and lows. But, a reboot could do something that draws me in to the characters in a different way.
 
The lows of TNG stand out more to me because I'm not invested in the characters. So maybe a reboot would that so the highs and lows don't stand out as much.
Maybe one could just focus on the good things?
While I love STNG I admit there are a lot of episodes I steer away from.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top