I agree.
I don't think those can be read to signal "reboot." We're simply looking at TOS (i.e. the future) from 2008, not 1968. Perfectly fine with that.
Can everyone agree now that this is indeed a REBOOT?
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
I don't think those can be read to signal "reboot." We're simply looking at TOS (i.e. the future) from 2008, not 1968. Perfectly fine with that.
I'm more inclined to think of this as a visual updating of TOS, but otherwise on paper nothing's changed--that is, the novelization of this book probably would fit in perfectly with everything that came before it.
But I really can't call it a true reboot until I've actually seen the movie.
Of course, it'd be funny if we saw the original TOS-style Enterprise at some point during the movie too...
But I really can't call it a true reboot until I've actually seen the movie.
Of course, it'd be funny if we saw the original TOS-style Enterprise at some point during the movie too...
We've known for a long time that this would be a visual re-boot (Orci and Kurtzman more-or-less said so over 1 1/2 years ago in this article:
http://trekmovie.com/2007/03/08/orci-kurtzman-open-up-trek-xi-to-be-reimagined-starship-adventure/)
but the jury is still out on whether or not this will be a "canonical reboot" -- and to me at least, THAT'S the reboot that matters. The visual elements are not as relevant when discussing re-boots.
That's an interesting take on it -- that a novelization (since it excludes visuals) may still fit in nicely with the rest of Star Trek.
EDIT TO ADD:
The poll choices are vague and ambiguous, I think. The exact definition of re-boot needs to be agreed upon before I can answer that. In my book, only changing the visuals is NOT a re-boot, but there are others who I know disagree with my definition.
http://trekmovie.com/2007/03/08/orci-kurtzman-open-up-trek-xi-to-be-reimagined-starship-adventure/)
but the jury is still out on whether or not this will be a "canonical reboot" -- and to me at least, THAT'S the reboot that matters. The visual elements are not as relevant when discussing re-boots.
That's an interesting take on it -- that a novelization (since it excludes visuals) may still fit in nicely with the rest of Star Trek.
EDIT TO ADD:
The poll choices are vague and ambiguous, I think. The exact definition of re-boot needs to be agreed upon before I can answer that. In my book, only changing the visuals is NOT a re-boot, but there are others who I know disagree with my definition.
Last edited:
Oh god, this is not a reboot. Its a re-imaging. That is all. Jeesh.
That's a refresh. Updating the design of something while otherwise keeping continuity. It happens when real life technology meets or exceeds that used in SciFi. Lets face it, in 1968 nobody could comprehend what we have in 2008, let alone the mid 2250s.
A reboot is starting over from scratch and ignoring everything that came before it while keeping a general premise. Think Casino Royale, the New BSG, or the Lost in Space Movie.
I dont think most minded a visual reboot BUT the ship is just to much a departure to try to suspend "visual continuity" belief. There have been much better designs on the net that were much closer to what should have been done. AGAIN this ship has the EXACT same saucer as TMP ship. This is more a reimagining of that ship than TOS.
I'm more inclined to think of this as a visual updating of TOS, but otherwise on paper nothing's changed--that is, the novelization of this book probably would fit in perfectly with everything that came before it.
But I really can't call it a true reboot until I've actually seen the movie.
Of course, it'd be funny if we saw the original TOS-style Enterprise at some point during the movie too...
That's pretty much what I think. I don't know if it's a reboot or not, but I'm inclined to believe it isn't based on what the filmmakers have said and the fact that I haven't heard anything yet that completely flies in the face of established canon. Sure, there's some little stuff and the ship obviously looks different, but are they really changing the story?
Just because Kirk's giving orders in a flashy new bridge does that mean he's not essentially the same guy? From what I can see, they're keeping the stuff that matters and fudging on the visuals and more obscure points of continuity. Nothing that screams "reboot" to me, but to each his own.
But surely not all canon will endure the "re-boot".
I mean, Kirk is seen, apparently, driving a stick shift. Is this REALLY a big deal?
I would think that the major canon will be respected, but minor things may have been left behind. So far I haven't seen, read or heard of anything in the new film that would make me say: "Wait, WHAT?? Are they kidding??"
This film needs to make a LOT of money and needs to have a very broad appeal, not JUST fill a nostalgic gap for a few.
I can't wait to see it.
Ok that makes sense. I guess the trick will be determining where the line between reboot and refresh is?
Unless some ridiculous, contrived, fanatic-appeasing time-travel loophole resets everything to the way things were before the Kelvin was attacked, allowing the timeline to continue uninterrupted, I'd have to say yes, this is a reboot. And, in all honesty, I'd be perfectly happy if things stayed that way.
I know most people won't agree with me on what I'm about to say, and that's fine; you're perfectly entitled not to. But, to be brutally honest, I can't really see how Abrams' alleged "reboot" could do any more damage to the Star Trek franchise than what's already been done. These fan-extremists saying that Abrams is going to pound the final nail in Star Trek's coffin must've been hunky-dory with Enterprise, or the Star Trek movies Insurrection and Nemesis, because I felt those particular Star Trek installments did a pretty good job of sealing the coffin shut. I thought Insurrection was an AWFUL movie, even worse than Nemesis. Most of Enterprise was a mess. By the time the writers realized that the fans were unhappy and scrambled to throw in a lot of TOS-inspired references to appease them, it was too late, and for the first time since the original series, a Star Trek series was cancelled by a television network.
The consensus seemed to be, by that time, that Rick Berman and Brannon Braga had driven the franchise into the ground, and I couldn't help but agree. In my opinion, Star Trek was already dead at that point.
To paraphrase a line by Spock in Star Trek: The Motion Picture: Star Trek must evolve. To my way of thinking, Star Trek will not be able to grow as a franchise and reach out to a new generation of fans unless it becomes something more than it's been. I know a lot of people would say that Star Trek should go to the future than the past for new material, but I have a hard time believing that a Star Trek movie or series set in the future of the current timeline would generate much more positive interest or attract the uninitiated. If Star Trek has any hope of maintaining any relevance beyond a faction of science fiction fandom and an oft-ridiculed segment of the pop culture lexicon, it needs to change, even if it means a radical metamorphosis, and J.J. Abrams' take on Star Trek certainly seems to be just that.
It's painfully obvious by now that his interpretation of Star Trek is going to displease a great many fans, but I'm willing to bet he knew this going into the project, and didn't feel that the franchise had all that much more to lose. Those who loved the original Star Trek enough to object to his vision would still have their original Star Trek to keep sacred, and they could just treat this new movie like a Highlander 2, take a mulligan, and pretend it never happened. Those who love the new Trek could become a new and evolved generation of Star Trek fans that helped breathe life into an entity believed to be long dead.
I got told by a fan on one forum discussion of the "new original" Enterprise that I didn't take my fandom of Star Trek seriously because I liked the new design and felt that people were being irrational in their negativity. This alarmed me. I'm a longtime Trekker. I've been a fan since I was 6 years old. When kids watched cartoons, I watched episodes of Star Trek. While other kids played tag or kickball on the playground at recess, I gathered a group of friends who liked the show and played pretend Star Trek (I was always Mr. Spock). I went to more conventions than I can count, and yes, I was one of those guys who went in costume from time to time. I'm not mentioning these facts to brag; I want to make it clear that Star Trek has been a significant part of my life since I was a child, and it still is at 34 years of age.
However, I don't want to take it THAT seriously. I don't want to let some set, ship, and costume design changes alter my enjoyment of this movie. I don't want to allow Abrams' take on Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the rest to dictate how much more or less I'll love Star Trek. If I do that, if I let the new look of the original Enterprise, or Chris Pine's blue eyes for Kirk, or the Kelvin's registry number, or any other detail cause me to wring my hands in frustration and anxiety over Trek's future, then Star Trek is no longer the fun and inspiration it's been for me all my life. I can't have that. I owe Star Trek more than that, more than it owes me for my years of devotion.
For those who can't do that, by all means, continue to take your fandom of Star Trek seriously, if that makes you happy. I'll be over here, having fun.
So, reboot? Bring it on, Abrams.
I know most people won't agree with me on what I'm about to say, and that's fine; you're perfectly entitled not to. But, to be brutally honest, I can't really see how Abrams' alleged "reboot" could do any more damage to the Star Trek franchise than what's already been done. These fan-extremists saying that Abrams is going to pound the final nail in Star Trek's coffin must've been hunky-dory with Enterprise, or the Star Trek movies Insurrection and Nemesis, because I felt those particular Star Trek installments did a pretty good job of sealing the coffin shut. I thought Insurrection was an AWFUL movie, even worse than Nemesis. Most of Enterprise was a mess. By the time the writers realized that the fans were unhappy and scrambled to throw in a lot of TOS-inspired references to appease them, it was too late, and for the first time since the original series, a Star Trek series was cancelled by a television network.
The consensus seemed to be, by that time, that Rick Berman and Brannon Braga had driven the franchise into the ground, and I couldn't help but agree. In my opinion, Star Trek was already dead at that point.
To paraphrase a line by Spock in Star Trek: The Motion Picture: Star Trek must evolve. To my way of thinking, Star Trek will not be able to grow as a franchise and reach out to a new generation of fans unless it becomes something more than it's been. I know a lot of people would say that Star Trek should go to the future than the past for new material, but I have a hard time believing that a Star Trek movie or series set in the future of the current timeline would generate much more positive interest or attract the uninitiated. If Star Trek has any hope of maintaining any relevance beyond a faction of science fiction fandom and an oft-ridiculed segment of the pop culture lexicon, it needs to change, even if it means a radical metamorphosis, and J.J. Abrams' take on Star Trek certainly seems to be just that.
It's painfully obvious by now that his interpretation of Star Trek is going to displease a great many fans, but I'm willing to bet he knew this going into the project, and didn't feel that the franchise had all that much more to lose. Those who loved the original Star Trek enough to object to his vision would still have their original Star Trek to keep sacred, and they could just treat this new movie like a Highlander 2, take a mulligan, and pretend it never happened. Those who love the new Trek could become a new and evolved generation of Star Trek fans that helped breathe life into an entity believed to be long dead.
I got told by a fan on one forum discussion of the "new original" Enterprise that I didn't take my fandom of Star Trek seriously because I liked the new design and felt that people were being irrational in their negativity. This alarmed me. I'm a longtime Trekker. I've been a fan since I was 6 years old. When kids watched cartoons, I watched episodes of Star Trek. While other kids played tag or kickball on the playground at recess, I gathered a group of friends who liked the show and played pretend Star Trek (I was always Mr. Spock). I went to more conventions than I can count, and yes, I was one of those guys who went in costume from time to time. I'm not mentioning these facts to brag; I want to make it clear that Star Trek has been a significant part of my life since I was a child, and it still is at 34 years of age.
However, I don't want to take it THAT seriously. I don't want to let some set, ship, and costume design changes alter my enjoyment of this movie. I don't want to allow Abrams' take on Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the rest to dictate how much more or less I'll love Star Trek. If I do that, if I let the new look of the original Enterprise, or Chris Pine's blue eyes for Kirk, or the Kelvin's registry number, or any other detail cause me to wring my hands in frustration and anxiety over Trek's future, then Star Trek is no longer the fun and inspiration it's been for me all my life. I can't have that. I owe Star Trek more than that, more than it owes me for my years of devotion.
For those who can't do that, by all means, continue to take your fandom of Star Trek seriously, if that makes you happy. I'll be over here, having fun.
So, reboot? Bring it on, Abrams.
If you showed this new Enterprise to the average non-fan and asked them to identify it, they would most likely say, "that's the ship from Star Trek."
...if that were the case, then I would say it DOES in fact "have [some]thing remotely TOS about it"
I'm not saying I love the design -- but it will grow on me, just like the Enterprise D grew on be back in 1987 after I was initially underwhelmed by it. This new ship looks OK and will be good enough to tell the story they want to tell. The look of the ship won't stop me from enjoying this film, if it is a good and well-executed story.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Since there exists no "exact definition of re-boot" that everyone can agree upon, the point is moot.
The line is how it handles events. If it handles the what came before it as happening in a different time (McHale's Navy, NuBSG) or just plain erases everything, then it's a reboot. If it accepts the established timeline but updates some things to take account for a different in age or technology (Enterprise) then it's a refresh. The most common type of refresh would be a prequel.
Yes -- so I didn't vote.
...especially since -- using my definition -- I have no idea whether or not this is a re-boot...I need to know more about the plot and see how the characters act.
One thing it certainly is not is a canon prequel. Unless it starts or ends as a canon prequel and then takes some other twisty path along the way.
I would say clearly different directions that can not be explained away by a couple of sentences.
Just because Chekov is there now but wasnt during TOS season 1, doesn't mean its a reboot. You can say Chekov took a year off to go to school or training. Like when Dr. Crusher left TNG for a couple years then came back.
Just because there was a Cardassian drink at this bar doesn't mean its a reboot. You can say anything from Cardassians were known at the time but they werent violent like now, or no one met Cardassians before but everyone acquires their drinks 3rd hand, or something.
I mean sure, are there things that scratch you head? Sure, like Kirk fighting face to face with Romulans, then a few years later in the Enterprise Incident they never saw them before. Its a stretch but you can say a)after the events in this movie, Starfleet decided to cut all ties with Romulans and put in the records that they didn't acknowledge their existence or something to that effect...so when Enterprise Incident comes around, we can say the crew acted they way they did because of Starfleet protocol and events from this movie.
There has been nothing that happened that can not be explained with a couple of creative twists.
Its one thing if Spock was a girl and had three breasts and in this movie he (she) uses the breasts to get out of a jam and Spock turns to Kirk and says "its a good thing I was born with 3 breasts, I'm sure I will use these breasts as an advantage in the future". Or even worse, Spock is the engineer and Joe Nuxall is the captain and they fly on a death star but call that enterprise. Things like that can not under any circumstances be explained or connected with the original TOS.
People need to understand that when a director makes a new movie, he is going to have creative liberty and change things. What you guys dont realize is how much he really ISN'T changing. I mean think about the things you guys complain about. There hasn't been one thing that can not be logically explained away.
Why do you say that?
