Well that's "Court Martial" and "Obsession" gone then (SPOILERS)

[Dukhat]

A bunch of cynical dweebs who'll lap up anything with the Star Trek label on it and will gleefully jump down the throats of anyone who stands up and cries "foul"?

Watch your mouth, April. JuanBolio is no dweeb, nor am I lapping up anything I don't like because of a label. I can accept new and old together, simultaneously, though they be in direct contradiction. Why can't you?

He can. He just chooses not to because he knows his constant harping on this movie will get a rise out of people. And that's all he really wants. So Robert April's rants should best be ignored for the simple instigations that they are.

 

[trekkerguy]

But it seems that most people on this board don't care that much for Star Trek as such. If all you want is a cool looking movie with lots of explosions, then why don't you go see Star Wars instead?

Well, there are really three "camps" on this BBS.

1) Classic Trek fans... many of whom like everything, but all of whom give significant priority to TOS over everything else (ie, if it contradicts TOS, TOS wins every time).

2) People who became fans with TNG, or later... and who think of TOS as "old-fashioned," not because it is, but because it's not "their" version of Trek. It's a matter of familiarity and "ownership sense."

3) People who really enjoy tweaking other people in order to get a reaction. They'll mock anyone else who feels strongly about any other position... it's more about them tearing other people down than it is about anything else. These people, honestly, are NOT the majority on here, but they're a very vocal minority. They come here to make themselves feel good by virtue of making other people feel bad, it seems.

There is also an army of one that simply enjoys all Trek in all of it's forms.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Ok, that's it. The only thing we can do is get all of us Trek fans to the Paramount lot for a mass suicide. It's the only way man!!!

Hey, if they say they are following the established lore and then they ignore it, it's hardly hysterical to piont that out. A reboot by any other name... well, in this case, a reboot by any other name smells like shit.

 

[Ovation]

I still say if canon is no longer important, let's be really daring.

Let Kirk kill Spock with the Vulcan Death Grip about halfway through the movie, give Sulu a starring position and relegate McCoy and Scotty to background characters (in fact, let 'em swap duties), let Uhura be a child molester, and have Chekhov actually turn out to be Cochrane, time traveling for kicks along George Washington, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nero, who turns out to really be a rogue, wise-cracking Borg who is just looking for a way to pro-create with Ilia. Pike could be a pre-op transexual who is secretly plotting to romance the metrosexual Kirk, himself steamily involved in an affair with the Hispanic Vina and one of Mudd's women. At some point, a bespectacled tribble must turn up to defend Pike in his court martial for jettisoning Captain April during an ion storm so he can take command of the Enterprise, ultimately allowing Kirk to assume that role after Pike is summarily executed for violating General Order Four -- now defined as not wearing white after Labor Day.

In between, have lots of space battles to make this film feel big and "awesome!"

Since the film is being made primarily for non-fans anyway, there's no need to stick to any "established" character traits or identities because A) that's part of that pesky canon that gets eliminated by this better and freer approach, B) non-fans don't really know Star Trek anyway so no detail is any more important than another, C) it opens the door to telling a really good story, and after all, that's more important than anything else, and D) the original Star Trek was never, ever consistent with itself, so this couldn't possibly be any worse. And since no one can really draw a line as to what is too much or too little adherence to canon, this is no worse or damaging a re-imagining of Star Trek.

Why the roll eyes? Help me to understand why some changes are okay, but this level of change is not, since we are proceeding under the assumption that canon is not important and that this film is being made primarily for people who are not fans and therefore know little or nothing about the show.

Don't be such an insufferable little pimple.

I'm quite certain that, by now, you've read a number of posts, in various threads, giving examples of other legends (Arthurian ones come to mind) wherein changes have been made over time, some slight, some larger, and yet the characters and setting remain recognizably similar to the original. You cannot seriously claim ignorance of this. Your "changes", as you know perfectly well, go well beyond that--as well as well beyond any changes proposed in this new movie. You are NOT looking for "reasoned responses" to your query--you're looking to show just how clever you think you are. Well, put simply, you're not that clever. Frankly, the kind of argument structure and style you've attempted here is juvenile as you stretch the notion of using exaggeration to make a point well past any "reasonable" point. You are trying to argue there are no degrees of alteration--that any deviation from your precious "canon" no matter how slight or severe, is equally bad. And now you know why no one has bothered to give you a "reasoned response" (and why I won't waste time giving a detailed rebuttal of your post--it isn't worth the effort).

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

It's 3.0 or 2.5 at a minimum for filmed Trek since TNG constituted a soft reboot of the universe, altering several points in the canon/continuity to fit GR's changed perspective between 1964 and 1987.

Hell, Gene Roddenberry's view of Trek was inconsistent from 1964 to 1987.

TMP was the first soft reboot of Trek, then it Meyer-Bennett rebooted it in TWOK with TNG being GR's attempt to rebooted back from that.

 

[seigezunt]

Checked my dvds. Still there.

 

[Mysterion]

I'm just thankful that "Catspaw", "Spock's Brain", and "The Way to Eden" remain Holy!

If they mess with "And the Children Shall Lead", I'm outta here.

 

[DaveyNY]

Wasn't limiting the franchise to 40 years of continuity one of the reasons why it failed?

Yes, the franchise failed. That's why they only produced 680 television episodes and 11 movies.

---------------

Having the last couple of movies break even and the last series get canceled would be "failure".

I just wish MY checking account had FAILED that badly over the last 40 years!!!

 

[Oso Blanco]

Wasn't limiting the franchise to 40 years of continuity one of the reasons why it failed?

That and oversaturation yes.

No. That was just the excuse that we were given. An excuse happily accepted by those who were to lazy to keep up with continuity anyway.

The real reason was that the writers and the producers had run out of ideas. That's why they are doing a lame remake of TOS now, because they have no idea how to make something new.

 

[Tulin]

While I'm not exactly pleased with this omitting of certain instances in Trek history, it's interesting to note that back when TNG first appeared, Gene Roddenberry himself said that there were some elements of TOS he did not consider to be "canonical" in light of the new series.

UESPA?

 

[Oso Blanco]

Well, there are really three "camps" on this BBS.

1) Classic Trek fans... many of whom like everything, but all of whom give significant priority to TOS over everything else (ie, if it contradicts TOS, TOS wins every time).

2) People who became fans with TNG, or later... and who think of TOS as "old-fashioned," not because it is, but because it's not "their" version of Trek. It's a matter of familiarity and "ownership sense."

3) People who really enjoy tweaking other people in order to get a reaction. They'll mock anyone else who feels strongly about any other position... it's more about them tearing other people down than it is about anything else. These people, honestly, are NOT the majority on here, but they're a very vocal minority. They come here to make themselves feel good by virtue of making other people feel bad, it seems.

I would place myself between 1) and 2). I grew up with TOS and I always loved it. TNG/DS9 made me a die hard fan, and I don't think that Voyager is nearly as bad as people think it is.

I don't think comparing TOS to TNG makes much sense anyway. They are so completely different, but I love them both. I really don't prefer one over the other.

And I surely don't think of TOS as old fashioned. When the dvd boxes came out, I watched all the episodes again and I loved it more than ever! It really doesn't need any new special effects, and there is absolutely no need to "re-imagine" TOS. It's just fine as it is and it should be left alone!

The way I see it, "Star Trek" is not only TOS or TNG. It includes ALL the shows and movies, they are all parts of the same universe. But that's going to be flushed down the toilet with the new movie. That's my complaint.

 

[Oso Blanco]

TMP was the first soft reboot of Trek, then it Meyer-Bennett rebooted it in TWOK with TNG being GR's attempt to rebooted back from that.

The only difference is that they were going FORWARD in time, making it very easy to explain all the visual and technological differences.

And I don't remember any character ever being rebooted, with the exception of Spock coming back from the dead.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Which makes a pretty impressive mockery of the whole concept of "canon," if the series' creator didn't take it seriously enough to prevent him doing what he wanted with future Trek productions

But the creator of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry, defined ST canon to keep the official licensees of the tie-in fiction in line, not the shows themselves. GR always tweaked his universe to maximise the story impact of a script in hand. That's his right, as creator of a show that is evolving and developing as it is being written.

Every subsequent ST series and movie has tweaked the universe they are set in. The licensed tie-ins, though, must take their lead from the live-action, as screened, episodes and movies.

 

[Therin of Andor]

And I don't remember any character ever being rebooted, with the exception of Spock coming back from the dead.

The recasting of Saavik, with a radical makeup change, esp. eyebrows and eye colour? Zefram Cochrane's personality change? Tora Ziyal (twice). Senator Kimara Cretak.

 

[Oso Blanco]

And I don't remember any character ever being rebooted, with the exception of Spock coming back from the dead.

The recasting of Saavik, with a radical makeup change, esp. eyebrows and eye colour? Zefram Cochrane's personality change? Tora Ziyal (twice). Senator Kimara Cretak.

And Neral, and Captain Braxton, and Admiral Paris ... I know, I know. But I see those more like "character recasts" than "character reboots".

Explaining the new Cochrane is a little more difficult, though. Maybe he had changed in all those years he lived on that planet with the Companion?

 

[Baldus885]

Yes, very snarky and insulting, but I still don't see a reasoned answer.

So your suggestion about making one the of the characters a child molester is a reasoned one? No-one is taking your question seriously because your idea was deliberately out of proportion with the debate, and as is the case with many of with the movie-haters on this board presents a logical fallacy as an argument and challenges everyone else to prove you wrong.

It's the "if there's nothing wrong with changing Trek then why is there nothing wrong with not changing it" debate - it has no answer.

 

[Baldus885]

No. That was just the excuse that we were given. An excuse happily accepted by those who were to lazy to keep up with continuity anyway.

I don't watch Trek to "keep up with continuity," and I object to being called "lazy" as a result of that. Trek is entertainment, "canon" is not.

 

[ST-One]

And I don't remember any character ever being rebooted, with the exception of Spock coming back from the dead.

The recasting of Saavik, with a radical makeup change, esp. eyebrows and eye colour? Zefram Cochrane's personality change? Tora Ziyal (twice). Senator Kimara Cretak.

And Neral, and Captain Braxton, and Admiral Paris ... I know, I know. But I see those more like "character recasts" than "character reboots".

Just like with the new actors for these characters (Kirk, Spock etc.) in Star Trek.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Why the roll eyes? Help me to understand why some changes are okay, but this level of change is not, since we are proceeding under the assumption that canon is not important and that this film is being made primarily for people who are not fans and therefore know little or nothing about the show.

Don't be such an insufferable little pimple.

I'm quite certain that, by now, you've read a number of posts, in various threads, giving examples of other legends (Arthurian ones come to mind) wherein changes have been made over time, some slight, some larger, and yet the characters and setting remain recognizably similar to the original. You cannot seriously claim ignorance of this. Your "changes", as you know perfectly well, go well beyond that--as well as well beyond any changes proposed in this new movie. You are NOT looking for "reasoned responses" to your query--you're looking to show just how clever you think you are. Well, put simply, you're not that clever. Frankly, the kind of argument structure and style you've attempted here is juvenile as you stretch the notion of using exaggeration to make a point well past any "reasonable" point. You are trying to argue there are no degrees of alteration--that any deviation from your precious "canon" no matter how slight or severe, is equally bad. And now you know why no one has bothered to give you a "reasoned response" (and why I won't waste time giving a detailed rebuttal of your post--it isn't worth the effort).

You may not agree with Basil's post... and yes, he used hyperbole there... but his point is entirely valid. And calling people him ugly names doesn't change that.

His point... which I thought was remarkably well-illustrated, frankly... was that any change is a change. How do you decide which changes are "OK" and which are "not OK?"

Nobody would argue that the changes he proposed are OK. Not him, not anyone else. But you can easily take the same arguments which are being tossed out, regularly, by folks on here to denigrate the point-of-view of those who think that the current batch of changes are NOT OK and apply those arguments to any of his "hyperbole" changes... and the arguments you guys keep making are every bit as legitimate and appropriate in that case.

Hyperbole is a great tool to illustrate the absurdity of an opposing viewpoint... IF it fits. In this case, it fits perfectly.

Who decides which "dramatic changes to 40+ years of continuity" are trivial and can be tossed aside, and which aren't? Who decides which "uber-kewl stuff" is allowable and which is ludicrous?

There are only two answers to that. Either "the studio guys get to decide, and we have to take what we've been given and say "thank you kind sir" and keep forking over our money... or "WE get to decide," and if the studio does those things, we can choose not to support the bad decisions they make.

Which is it? Do we have to accept any changes, no matter how ludicrous we think that they are, or do we have the right to decide what we like and what we don't?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It's 3.0 or 2.5 at a minimum for filmed Trek since TNG constituted a soft reboot of the universe, altering several points in the canon/continuity to fit GR's changed perspective between 1964 and 1987.

Hell, Gene Roddenberry's view of Trek was inconsistent from 1964 to 1987.

TMP was the first soft reboot of Trek, then it Meyer-Bennett rebooted it in TWOK with TNG being GR's attempt to rebooted back from that.

None of those were "reboots." None required you to forget any element of the history you'd learned in the prior shows.

Changing the costumes by saying that Starfleet has issued replacement uniforms may seem silly, but it doesn't require the audience to pretend that the new uniforms are the ones that were always there.

Changing the design of the props... same thing. It just says that Starfleet has issued a new revision.

Changing the ship in TMP didn't require us to accept that the ship always looked that way. It was, after all, "an almost totally new Enterprise," and wasn't quite ready to be launched at the time the crisis occurred... systems were still under construction, the transporter wasn't operational yet, the new warp drive system hadn't even been tested... remember?

"Reboot" doesn't mean "changing things in-universe." "Reboot" means "ERASING THINGS THE AUDIENCE ALREADY KNOWS."

There has never been a full "reboot" before. The closest we got was with "First Contact" and the dramatically-different portrayal of Cochrane (for no good reason other than the Beebs liked that particular actor!), and with the nonsensical "set-dressing snafus" in "Enterprise."