Reset or not to reset?

[Therin of Andor]

I think a split should occur as a result of Spock trying to fix things and that will leave our TOS and the rest of history as it is, and allow for the offshoot to grow and have its own history to be recorded. Then we can watch this crew grow and gel and gain a place in Star Trek all their own.

If time is a river, then that never-ending flow will carve out new paths all the time. Even the Mirror Universe, with all of its premature deaths of key figures, still manages to parallel the ST timeline over several centuries and resemble a similar environment and population.

Remember in "Yesteryear" (TAS), where Spock, as Cousin Selek, manages to restored the damaged timeline, only to realise that a minor change had occurred: his pet sehlat died during Young Spock's practice-run at the kahs-wan, instead of living to an even older age. As Spock observes in the episode, it is perhaps an insignificance which may matter to some.

If Nero's tinkering with the timeline causes changes, I'd expect most of the familar order of events to eventually reassert themselves anyway, with no need for the pressing of a reset button.

 

[mswood]

Consider this - without a reset of some kind, big or small, any new TOS stuff would be unexciting as hell. ..

Exactly why a new crew should have been made up for this movie, or do more TNG or DS9 movies.

That would be an extremely bad business decision. There is no sound argument one could make for having a DS9 (VOY or ENT) film. Period. I say this has DS9 is my favorite series, but the business model would not ever support this.

As for TNG while it was mainstream success during its initial run and managed one film that was a moderate success (based on film standards of its time), it has shown to be a declining franchise (Which all Trek has been since 6th season of TNG) with a consistent decline in viewers and ticket sales each year.

Using TOS (not my favorite Trek, though as an original viewer its what got me hooked like on crack), the concept, and the main characters (at least in the US) reached a level in popular culture and recognition far more then any other trek.

Using the original characters, not having original trek on tv, not having to deal with a cast that is aging beyond what one can logically suspend disbelief are all factors that help.

Right now there is probably more general interest in this film then any Trek in decades (for film). And hopefully as it gets closer to the release date that interest builds.

 

[Siwilliams]

Consider this - without a reset of some kind, big or small, any new TOS stuff would be unexciting as hell. ..

Exactly why a new crew should have been made up for this movie, or do more TNG or DS9 movies.

As for TNG while it was mainstream success during its initial run and managed one film that was a moderate success (based on film standards of its time)

I would say they had three success' with Nemesis being their only one that did not do well

 

[mswood]

I think a split should occur as a result of Spock trying to fix things and that will leave our TOS and the rest of history as it is, and allow for the offshoot to grow and have its own history to be recorded. Then we can watch this crew grow and gel and gain a place in Star Trek all their own.

If time is a river, then that never-ending flow will carve out new paths all the time. Even the Mirror Universe, with all of its premature deaths of key figures, still manages to parallel the ST timeline over several centuries and resemble a similar environment and population.

Remember in "Yesteryear" (TAS), where Spock, as Cousin Selek, manages to restored the damaged timeline, only to realise that a minor change had occurred: his pet sehlat died during Young Spock's practice-run at the kahs-wan, instead of living to an even older age. As Spock observes in the episode, it is perhaps an insignificance which may matter to some.

If Nero's tinkering with the timeline causes changes, I'd expect most of the familar order of events to eventually reassert themselves anyway, with no need for the pressing of a reset button.

God its been awhile since I watched the animated show. But where I think a huge difference lies, is that the original point of corruption in the timeline is going to occur around 2233 (near the year of Kirk's birth). The correction doesn't seem to be taking place until Kirk is in his 20's. Thats over two decades of changes both on very small things but also on vast interstellar events.

I think it would be naive to not think that large amounts of what we think of Trek's history would be effected by such.

 

[Basil]

At the very least, a reboot on a visual level will occur, if the point of time convergence is assumed to be the destruction of the Kelvin. I don't find the ship or its shuttlecraft entirely convincing as pre-TOS, nor the uniforms (what little I can see of the Kelvin's crew) the same as those worn by Pike and company. So, in this respect, even if events are "restored" at the end, the film will proceed from the assumption that the Trek universe to begin with was a little different than was shown or hinted at during TOS.

I don't buy into the whole "it's a modern movie" argument to explain away visual changes, any more than I would if TOS remastered had suddenly decided to change all of the ships to look more like ones from the films. Actually, that brings up an interesting point about canon -- do we now assume that TOS remastered is the canonical blueprint for ships and design in the TV series era or the original version?

 

[trekkerguy]

Reeeeseeett please! If only to watch a hilarious flock of swine go galloping off a cliff squeeling: "Heressssy!"

But in other senses... I don't think it's a hard reboot. But a reboot in the sense it isn't letting past canon drag down the making of good cinema for the sake of sticking to canon. Same universe, same characters, new story telling.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

They can reset some little stuff and I won't mind. The stuff most people wouldn't notice one way or the other anyway. They should avoid anything major, eg, Vulcans now have purple blood.

Aesthetic reboots - sets, hairstyles, costumes, starships - don't really bother me for some reason. I don't see those in the same way as the purple-blood thing.

 

[mswood]

Exactly why a new crew should have been made up for this movie, or do more TNG or DS9 movies.

As for TNG while it was mainstream success during its initial run and managed one film that was a moderate success (based on film standards of its time)

I would say they had three success' with Nemesis being their only one that did not do well

When I talk success against film at that time I talk how Trek's is performing in direct relationship to the other films of that year.

For example TOS films

Motionless Picture was the 4th highest grossing picture when it was released.

Kahn was the 6th, with the (at the time) largest opening weekend ever.

Search for Spock was 9th (with at the time 3rd largest grossing weekend).

Voyage Home was 5th largest of its year (with the 6th largest opening at the time).

Thats the last time a film was released without new free Trek on tv. And after that the films collapsed in comparison to the rest of the market.

Final Frontier 25th of its year.

Undiscovered Country 15th of its year.

Generations 15th of its year

First Contact 17th of its year.

Insurrection 28th of its year.

Nemesis 54th of its year.

The only positive about TNG films is that (with the exception of the Motionless Picture and Nemesis) they have performed better overseas even out performing the inflation. THough Motion Picture with inflation would kick all their asses.

To even have a chance at being successful this film needs to be something that ranks far, far above what any TNG film has managed (both here and overseas). If it can breach the top Ten it should clear nearly 150 million in US tickets. (based on ticket price Motionless Picture would be over 200 million and Voyage Home would be close behind).

That is a huge reason to go with what Trek is at its heart most none for, and that isn't TNG, or DS9, or VOY or ENT. No matter which shows I love or hate or am indifferent to.

Thats not saying they will be able to, this film could easily be next years Speed Racer (business wise), but I do understand why the studio would want to appeal to the largest aspect of the casual fan (not the fanatic, ie us).

 

[Therin of Andor]

My biggest concern with it is the reality of yet another fracture in the fan base. They're nothing new but it has always been a bit disheartening to me seeing the fan collective tearing its self apart over this or that change. I have seen many people who could not accept change fall out of fandom while I Trekked on, here we go again...

Natural attrition is normal in any social group, be it a sports club, dog training group or science fiction association. What is key is that you are constantly bringing in more new fans that you're losing. Fandom was growing steadily throughout the 70s and 80s, but very few kids were watching DS9, VOY or ENT.

You can't pander to fans hoping to appease them all, or even attempt to second guess what will or won't annoy them. There were fans that didn't want to see TAS, Phase II, TMP or ST II made. There were lots of fans very angry about TNG, and while some were won over, lots weren't, and TNG had to build a phalanx of new fans.

JJ just has to make the best movie he can.

 

[Therin of Andor]

But where I think a huge difference lies, is that the original point of corruption in the timeline is going to occur around 2233 (near the year of Kirk's birth). The correction doesn't seem to be taking place until Kirk is in his 20's.

Or... there are numerous attempts at correction at different points in the movie.

 

[EJA]

I am a little concerned over how any resets in this film may or may not effect certain events in TOS and beyond. What happens to all those pivotal moments, e.g:
)Khan being revived by the Enterprise crew, being exiled to Ceti Alpha V, escaping and causing the death (and resurrection) of Spock?
)The formation of the Khitomer Accords?
)Kirk's "death" on the Enterprise-B?
)The lives of all the TNG characters coming together on the Enterprise-D?
)The destruction of the Enterprise-D and the coming of the Enterprise-E?

These are just some of the major events in the TOS+ timeframe I'd be anxious for (although, to be quite honest, I wouldn't feel too bad if most of the really awful episodes of early TNG were banished to limbo; "Angel One" springs instantly to mind )

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I am a little concerned over how any resets in this film may or may not effect certain events in TOS and beyond. What happens to all those pivotal moments, e.g:
)Khan being revived by the Enterprise crew, being exiled to Ceti Alpha V, escaping and causing the death (and resurrection) of Spock?
)The formation of the Khitomer Accords?
)Kirk's "death" on the Enterprise-B?
)The lives of all the TNG characters coming together on the Enterprise-D?
)The destruction of the Enterprise-D and the coming of the Enterprise-E?

All these events were completely fictional before and they're still completely fictional now.

 

[EJA]

I am a little concerned over how any resets in this film may or may not effect certain events in TOS and beyond. What happens to all those pivotal moments, e.g:
)Khan being revived by the Enterprise crew, being exiled to Ceti Alpha V, escaping and causing the death (and resurrection) of Spock?
)The formation of the Khitomer Accords?
)Kirk's "death" on the Enterprise-B?
)The lives of all the TNG characters coming together on the Enterprise-D?
)The destruction of the Enterprise-D and the coming of the Enterprise-E?

All these events were completely fictional before and they're still completely fictional now.

Of course they are. I just think that there are certain elements of Trek that simply cannot be done away with.

 

[soot]

Of course they are. I just think that there are certain elements of Trek that simply cannot be done away with.

I think it's terribly unlikely that the new filmakers are going to go out of their way to contradict something that wouldn't happen for decades or more regardless. Unless they come up with an idea that requires one of those old concepts -- like a dramatic character death or a sequel where the 'new' Enterprise encounters the Botany Bay adrift, years ahead of schedule.

As JuanBolio says, at least allowing for the prior is almost a must. As for the latter, I don't know how you'd feel about it, but I for one would be hugely excited to see 'Space Seed' reimagined on the big screen.

For me, that's half the fun of reboots: seeing iconic events from the old continuity engaged in the new. I've seen Spider-Man's girlfriend thrown off a bridge by the Green Goblin three times; it only gets more exciting when you know that that particular combination signifies something serious. It never takes away from the old stories for me. At worst, I can always go back and watch the original. At best, I'll get something that reminds me of the original, but is even better.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No reset.

 

[yotsuya]

I'd say they should allow for a partial reset. Things already aren't going to be as they were unless you go back to the point of departure in the timeline. It's like gluing a broken vase back together, it will never be the same. I think that whatever they do should allow for two parallel timelines that can be used for future story development. I would guess that this movie could lead to a new series set in the alternate timeline while at the same time allowing for other projects related to TNG, DS9, or Voyager.

I think not doing a full reset back to the original timeline might be the best thing for the trek franchise. It would give them an opportunity to reinvent the Trek universe. New characters, new settings, while keeping some things as they were. While part of me wants to see a full reset with Kirk sitting in that old blocky command chair with the red elevator doors behind him, I think that if Paramount/CBS wants to bring Trek to the small screen again, that not doing a full reset would be the best thing. I think from an entertainment point of view a partial reset would be the most fun. It allows for the most possibilities and would leave the old canon alone while they go on to more adventures.

I still don't like the new Enterprise design.

 

[yotsuya]

I don't buy into the whole "it's a modern movie" argument to explain away visual changes, any more than I would if TOS remastered had suddenly decided to change all of the ships to look more like ones from the films. Actually, that brings up an interesting point about canon -- do we now assume that TOS remastered is the canonical blueprint for ships and design in the TV series era or the original version?

The Remastered Enterprise is virtually identical, and consistent for the first time, to the original model. They have faithfully recreated what was in the original and included ships not originally seen. So I would say that it's just a deeper picture into the TOS world, not anything really new.

 

[SalvorHardin]

...

 

[seigezunt]

Consider this - without a reset of some kind, big or small, any new TOS stuff would be unexciting as hell. We'd know that Kirk, Spock, and the all the main characters will survive, the Enterprise won't get destroyed, Earth/Vulcan aren't ever in any real danger, etc...

With a reset, anything can happen.

excellent point.

 

[Butters]

I am a little concerned over how any resets in this film may or may not effect certain events in TOS and beyond. What happens to all those pivotal moments, e.g:
)Khan being revived by the Enterprise crew, being exiled to Ceti Alpha V, escaping and causing the death (and resurrection) of Spock?
)The formation of the Khitomer Accords?
)Kirk's "death" on the Enterprise-B?
)The lives of all the TNG characters coming together on the Enterprise-D?
)The destruction of the Enterprise-D and the coming of the Enterprise-E?

These are just some of the major events in the TOS+ timeframe I'd be anxious for (although, to be quite honest, I wouldn't feel too bad if most of the really awful episodes of early TNG were banished to limbo; "Angel One" springs instantly to mind )

The impression I get from this movie is that the changes in the timeline are permanent. Nothing from the Original Series will happen, or at least not as we saw it. I don't see that as a bad thing either. Those stories have been told but it gives massive scope for some new stories.

I'd much rather see a series of epic stories on the big screen than any retelling of TOS, but there is scope for the novelists. We're I a writer, I'd maybe think about the Botony Bay being discovered by another ship, with a less capable crew. Young Kahn in the 23rd Century with a powerful starship. Can Kirk and the Enterprise stop him? Who knows, but it has to be more fun speculating how the new timeline will unfold than assuming everything else stays the same until the sequel violates some other trivial continuity fact and the whole argument starts again.