Disillusioned
Commander
Most people I know don't call it "booting up" anymore, they just say "turn on" or "start up". And instead of "reboot" more people tend to say "restart". After all, that's what it says in most computer menus anyway.
Should it have been a straight reboot?
- Thread starter Ssosmcin
- Start date
My point about Nero is that his presence shakes things up and jumpstarts the story in a way another villain couldn't have.
Yeah I suppose they could have started with Khan (or some other villain) attacking the Enterprise, and then flashed back to Kirk and Spock as kids and later at the Academy, but that probably would have been even MORE tired and predictable a device.
And just like with SR, you would have had a lot of people wondering how much of a reboot/sequel/reimagining they were really watching, and why some things adhered to canon and others didn't.
With Nero, it's a lot clearer from the start that we're watching a different timeline where anything can happen.
Then there are a whole lot of people on this BBS alone who are wrong, yet disagree with each other (often vehemently) about just what rebooting involves. I know the definition you've just given, and there are others here who understand a reboot to be thus, but how is the term useful in discussion with those who insist upon giving it other meanings? (And if moderating this forum for the last 18 months has taught me anything, it is that there are a wide variety of opinions held about just what constitutes a reboot.) There are plenty who have stated in complete seriousness that Star Trek -- the movie which opened in early May of this year -- was a complete reboot. This, both before and after the movie hit the screens.
Clearly, the term is problematic.
Not to belabor this point (I have been avoiding this discussion), but a definition of a term taken from Wikipedia because no actual dictionary of the English language includes this term is pretty weak evidence of a term's meaning. Moreover, the definition does not permit for secondary definitions. Moreover, it may very well be some dude writing his opinion on Wikipedia. Forgive me if I hold out for the OED on this one. If the scholarly consensus is the solitary definition presented in Wikipedia, then I'll eat crow on this one, but I won't assent to being called abnormal and incorrect by provocateurs on a BBS.
If they want to live in their own special world with their own special definition of reboot they can do.
Let them be special.
Meanwhile, everyone else will manage just fine defining reboot to mean what it actually means.
Last edited:
Yeah, if you don't want to believe Wikipedia, because it happens to be catching up to today's fast changing world better than any dusty encyclopedia, and because it happens to disagree with you, you still have the definition of a reboot of the computer.
Close the last session, clear all memory and restart the system.
Close the last session, clear all memory and restart the system.
Have you ever heard of a secondary definition?
I do believe Wikipedia. I just believe that there is an alternate but equally valid meaning for the word, and since the argument for the singular definition seems to rest on consensus, if there is another group of people who have an additional understanding for the word's meaning, then this group has a consensus of its own.
In addition, the point was not to argue the meaning of reboot but to argue that the wholesale changes in the new Trek are commensurate to the wholesale changes in every trek series before, a point that has been lost in this imbroglio over the use of the term "reboot."
If you wish to adhere to a singular definition of "reboot," then you can understand my original use of the term in a figurative sense, as in a "reboot" is just as much of a change as the "spin-offs" we've already had.
Yes, but they usually aren't slightly tweaked primary definitions employed because some people are having problems grasping the concept.
Why do you keep insulting me? Your use of "special," "normal," and "some people" is a thinly-veiled jab at me. What have I done to provoke your insults?
I have no trouble grasping the primary definition. I was using the word "reboot" as a metric to describe the amount of change in the new movie vis-à-vis the previous Star Trek movies and series. Are we on the same page here?
Shazam!, knock off taking jabs at other posters. At least as far back as your post here, you've been implying that anyone who doesn't agree with the definition you've cited is somehow deficient. Disgree with them if you like, and explain why you disagree, but stop with the insults.
But it's so crushingly obvious what the definition of reboot is in regards to serialized fiction. I've posted a definition from a [relatively] reputable* (albeit unofficial source) whereas I've had nothing in return save for "I think it means something else"
*Say what you will about Wiki but they're actually pretty decent at correcting errors and picking up on mistakes.
I like Wiki, myself, and agree that they're generally quite reliable.
That you see something as being "crushingly obvious", however, does not excuse insults. It's a good definition, but experience has taught me that it's not the only one out there; "reboot" comes in a lot of shades and flavors, and I didn't see a problem with the way urbandk used it here -- it was quite clear what he meant. Less clear is what you meant by "nonce-sense" in responding to his post, but I'm not interested in making a big deal of it. In fact, I think this whole side-discussion has preempted the original topic for quite long enough.
Disillusioned
Commander
Of all the arguments about this movie (wrong font! canon violation!), arguing over the definition of the word "reboot" has to be simultaneously the most pointless and amusing of them.
Reboot = Restarting a computer by powering it down, then powering it back up.
The analogy of a Reset switch used to perform a fast reboot of a computer is probably where the term Reboot is used for a story.
The analogy of a Reset switch used to perform a fast reboot of a computer is probably where the term Reboot is used for a story.
Star Trek (2009) is an in-continuity reboot.
Hindsight is 20/20. If they had gone with a straight reboot, the boards would have been flooded for months before with "this is a mistake," "They have no respect for what came before!" and other such nonsense. My guess is that older, casual fans would have been less likely to see it without the Nimoy stamp of approval (seriously, this was a major factor for some of the 40+folks I know who saw it), and entertainment reporters may have very well cast it in a more skeptical light. Yeah it would have circumvented a lot of the minor quibbles, but its doubtful that would have really satisfied the hardcore fanboys. In the end, for the vast majority of the community, it worked as presented, and that's what matters.
Yeah like it or not, having Nimoy in there (and tying him in with time travel and the original universe) made the movie much more of a big, summer movie "event".
Otherwise it would have been just a straightforward story about how young Kirk and Spock went to the Academy, got good grades, and eventually made their way to the Enterprise, which probably wouldn't have been quite as exciting to see. lol
Otherwise it would have been just a straightforward story about how young Kirk and Spock went to the Academy, got good grades, and eventually made their way to the Enterprise, which probably wouldn't have been quite as exciting to see. lol
IMO,
STXI was a nice action flick, but it was as close to a reboot as using explosives to collaspe the Kindgome in Seattle and calling it a refurbishment.
They dumped anything close to reality or the original series for a new thing called Star Trek in a comic-book universe. It was early 21st century entertainment, loaded with nice graphics, a decent story, and tons of special effects. It made no attempt to build a coherent universe or time line to build a series on. It is as chaotic as the Harry Potter series is consistent in its literary trajectory.
And it worked, made a ton of $$$$$, and that's what it was meant to be. Like it or not, accept it for what it is.
STXI was a nice action flick, but it was as close to a reboot as using explosives to collaspe the Kindgome in Seattle and calling it a refurbishment.
They dumped anything close to reality or the original series for a new thing called Star Trek in a comic-book universe. It was early 21st century entertainment, loaded with nice graphics, a decent story, and tons of special effects. It made no attempt to build a coherent universe or time line to build a series on. It is as chaotic as the Harry Potter series is consistent in its literary trajectory.
And it worked, made a ton of $$$$$, and that's what it was meant to be. Like it or not, accept it for what it is.
I still think the fact that a total reboot worked for BSG, proves that it would also work for Trek.
nuBSG did include a few table scraps tossed at the feet of old BSG fans, but this didn't mean the remake was a literal sequel or prequel - obviously it's not. Same story could always apply here.
nuBSG did include a few table scraps tossed at the feet of old BSG fans, but this didn't mean the remake was a literal sequel or prequel - obviously it's not. Same story could always apply here.
Considering the failure of the last two TNG movies as a whole, I would think a Harry Potter comparison would be a compliment
Similar threads
