Was it a mistake to do a movie set in TOS time period?

[Brent]

Would a movie set in the future, continuing what we know of the 24th century+ have been a better move?

They could have had a movie take place in the 25th or even 26th century, showing the NEXT Enterprise 1701-F. They could have introduced an entire new cast and crew of the Enterprise and started off on a new adventure showing us what the next Enterprise is like and future problems, which could involve time travel since we know it starts to get much more common 25th+ century.

I dunno, do you guys think it was better to do what they have done, rebooting the past, with which we were very familiar with already, instead of continuing on way post-Nemisis?

 

[Kelso]

Would a movie set in the future, continuing what we know of the 24th century+ have been a better move?

No.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Much better to do a movie about Kirk and Spock and the crew of the Enterprise than anything else they could have called Star Trek.

There is no "future" except what they make up as they go along - and frankly, the entire "future history" of Star Trek is pretty flat - the differences between the 22nd, 23rd, 24th or even 29th (or whenever the Relavity episode of Voyager was set) are negligible except to the hard-core fan.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

It wasn't a mistake because the ratings for DS9 and VOY as well as the box office on Insurrection and Nemesis proved that nobody gave a fuck about the 24th Century anymore. Ratings also proved nobody gave a fuck about the 22nd Century either. There's no reason to think anybody would care about a 25th or 26th Century Trek because nobody was watching Star Trek anymore. Paramount in it's wisdom realized that the only Trek movies people saw in anything even resembling droves were the Classic Trek movies. It was wise to resurrect that era with a hot director and the best VFX technology in the history of film.

 

[Captain X]

Honestly I think a TOS era movie could have been good without a reboot.

 

[Johnnymuffintop]

The problem with setting it in the "future" of canon is that if you get TOO far into the future, people don't give a damn. Societies change drastically over just a couple hundred years, let alone 4 or 5!
Starting a reboot and setting it in TOS was the best, and in my opinion ONLY, option to save Star Trek. It's close enough in the future for us to have wondrous technology but we'd still have people act similar to the way we do now.

 

[npsf3000]

Reboot is good cause it allows them to use a new cast (old cast is old now, scotty is dead, shatner is not quite as buff as he used to be + after being killed twice in generations he is dead).

And as it is a reboot, you kinda have to do it with the original enterprise and crew (other wise it aint really trek).

But asfter this movie i would like it to go to ncc1701 c for a movie then jump to the 'f'.

The advantage of going to the future is you have new crew, new ship, new technology, new enemies, new challenges, and you don;t run the risk that 'enterprise' did of rewriting history and pissing people off.

 

[Classic Fan]

Well, it depends on your personal out look if its a mistake or not.

But from a marketing and proffit stand point, its a good move. Make a movie (again )out of one the (at one point in its life anyway) succesful franchises EVER and base it around the most iconic characters/costumes/ship of the 20th century (Kirk, Spock and McCoy and The Enterprise and lovelly sexy velour.)

People will flock to the theatre regardless just to see what they have done to it. Much the same as Indy 4, Terminators 3 and 4, Star Wars prequels, Serenity etc etc.

Mistake or not, itll rake in the dollars.

 

[ST-One]

Would a movie set in the future, continuing what we know of the 24th century+ have been a better move?

No.

Indeed. The Kirk-era was always the most fun.

 

[ST-One]

Honestly I think a TOS era movie could have been good without a reboot.

Yeah.

No.

 

[Sky]

I think it was the right decision. I don't think people would've gotten excited about a yet another new crew of unknowns somewhere in the 24th, 25th or whatever century.

 

[ClayHefner]

^That bridge still looks pretty awesome imo. The new one is shit in comparison.

TOS is the way to go. If you made a 24th century movie, but without all the technobabble and forehead aliens and stuff, it would be just as radical as what we're getting now, only without the convenient new timeline explanation.
A 22nd century movie (with a new timeline and a good concept) could have been cool a few years back maybe, if ENT didn't exist.
Like a brand-new franchise with a little bit of Trek.

The 24th century? Gimme a break. Another Janeway cameo?
We saw old Captain Picard phasering a squad of Romulan warriors like Rambo in the last movie, we saw fucking dune buggies and Wesley Crusher's return... LMAO. They messed up the 24th century and there's no way back now.

On the other hand, they could have remade TNG- but it's too early for that. It might work just as well as nuTOS in a few years, though.

 

[SalvorHardin]

No, it wasn't a mistake...

I know some are probably going to label me a plant or something similar for this, but I believe that surprisingly and for once Paramount did everything that had to be done and did it right.
From firing the old guys, giving it a huge badget, hiring Abram's team,the fantastic marketing campaign.

If this attempt doesn't revive Trek and bring in new, fresh audiences nothing will.

 

[Franklin]

Honestly I think a TOS era movie could have been good without a reboot.

If no one would've griped about changes in the sets and style of the look to fit an early 21st century vision of the mid-23rd, I'd honestly agree.

If no one would've griped if they decided to mess a bit with continuity to suit the story when necessary (as happened in TOS), I'd honestly agree.

Do I wish they'd have done that? In my heart of hearts, yes.

As it is, they didn't go in those directions, so the argument is moot. I will credit them with a clever (well, not clever, but contrived) way of keeping the past and not making this a true "erase the board" reboot. They didn't have to do that.

 

[Cheebo]

Honestly I think a TOS era movie could have been good without a reboot.

If no one would've griped about changes in the sets and style of the look to fit an early 21st century vision of the mid-23rd, I'd honestly agree.

If no one would've griped if they decided to mess a bit with continuity to suit the story when necessary (as happened in TOS), I'd honestly agree.

Do I wish they'd have done that? In my heart of hearts, yes.

As it is, they didn't go in those directions, so the argument is moot. I will credit them with a clever (well, not clever, but contrived) way of keeping the past and not making this a true "erase the board" reboot. They didn't have to do that.

Exactly, they could have gone the BSG route, but they instead made it so it is still connected to the old universe to keep us, the fans, happy. And while it is somewhat contrived the fact they went out of their way when they didn't need to to do this earns them some serious kudos.

 

[Hambone]

A reboot was inevitable in order to keep the franchise alive. TOS was the only way to go. The way they rebooted...well, it remains to be seen whether I'll be convinced. I haven't seen the movie yet.

I found everything post-TOS to be dull, duller, dullest. The "Man on the Street" only cares about one kind of Star Trek...the kind with Kirk and Spock and the Enterprise in it.

Hopefully this movie will put the "spark" back in Star Trek.

 

[indranee]

Would a movie set in the future, continuing what we know of the 24th century+ have been a better move?

no.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^That bridge still looks pretty awesome imo. The new one is shit in comparison...

For those who think the old bridge is good enough for a feature film NOT made in the 60s, I ask this: why don't you also bemoan the fact that TBTB didn't think that TOS TV bridge was good enough for TMP, TWoK, and TSfS?

I do like the TOS bridge in the context of the TOS TV show, but I had no problem with the artistic team for TMP wanting to update it for 1979, nor dor I have a problem with Abrams wanting to update it for 2009 (although I don't think Abrams' bridge is perfect, either).

As for the re-boot...
Abrams wanted to do a "Star Trek" movie, and to most people "Star Trek" is about Kirk, Spock, and crew -- not about some extended fictional universe.

 

[Sky]

The bridge is not that important. Even the look of the Enterprise is not that important. It's about the characters, and the story, not about the ship.

 

[superdeluxe]

Not really. I think Enterprise/Kirk/Spock has pretty good name recognition, and will sell this movie very well.