Re-booting Series
- Thread starter Udat
- Start date
I voted "Other" since I'd just like to see a new show with a new crew, not another rebooting (i.e. ruining) of something.
I would like to see a reboot of Enterprise going under the name of Pheonix in a more primitive 22nd Century for a graphc novel (TPB).
Either that or I would like an explanation to Enterprise's existence spelled out more clearly so that it makes sense within the context of the other series in Trade Paper Back form.
Either that or I would like an explanation to Enterprise's existence spelled out more clearly so that it makes sense within the context of the other series in Trade Paper Back form.
Same here.
u r right
Can I have my vote back?
New series. How about a very multispecies crew. So possible with CGI.
But produced by WAY different people. But with a positive, adventurous tone still.
Same here same here.
There is so much potential for a successful Trek series. There's no reason to simply go back to the same cast of characters.
Yeah, I would agree with that.
Plus, doing a reboot of any of the other previous Trek series would be repetitive. JJ Abram's has already done it.
Plus, doing a reboot of any of the other previous Trek series would be repetitive. JJ Abram's has already done it.
Old wine in new wineskins. Star Trek was just right for the go-go Space Age Sixties and TNG somehow was right for 80s/90s. But enough. Let the 2000s produce its Lost and the Teens produce their . . . what? We'll see. But I have the DVDs of the show I love because it is great and hit me when I was a kid.
They rebooted Star Trek in the movie theater a year ago, and I'm left wondering why? "Star Trek" was one guy's brainchild, an amalgamation of a bunch of sci-fi conventions he channeled with a certain humanistic ethos. The recent movie was made to re-start a "franchise" for a huge corporation, so it could make more dough.
It's time to let it be, unless someone comes along literally possessed by some passion to do a certain kind of stories and can match up with the Star Trek universe somehow. MAYbe Ronald D Moore coulda been that guy? People put a lot of faith in him as what might have been. I'm not familiar enough with his stuff.
But another installment in a corporate franchise headed by a CEO (Mssrs. Berman and Abrams)?? Nah - let it go.
They rebooted Star Trek in the movie theater a year ago, and I'm left wondering why? "Star Trek" was one guy's brainchild, an amalgamation of a bunch of sci-fi conventions he channeled with a certain humanistic ethos. The recent movie was made to re-start a "franchise" for a huge corporation, so it could make more dough.
It's time to let it be, unless someone comes along literally possessed by some passion to do a certain kind of stories and can match up with the Star Trek universe somehow. MAYbe Ronald D Moore coulda been that guy? People put a lot of faith in him as what might have been. I'm not familiar enough with his stuff.
But another installment in a corporate franchise headed by a CEO (Mssrs. Berman and Abrams)?? Nah - let it go.
I was definitely tempted to put down ENT, but I ultimately picked "Other". I want a new series with new characters more than anything. Trek has already gone back to the well with Star Trek XI...
Yeah, to each his own -- I just feel like its resuscitating a corpse (a great one mind you). Or like hiring somebody to imitate Trek. (Oh wait -- they did!! Ha ha. No seriously, I didn't HATE XI, but it was . . . another big, hyper action movie in Trek clothing.)
Move on. "Moon." "Avatar." Let the 2010s come up with its own art. Hey wait!! Maybe derivative, imitative stuff IS modern pop art (cinema, t.v.). So a rebooted Trek done to make money for a corporation IS right in tune with the 2010s! And I'm not being sarcastic; this is occurring to me as I write.
I mean, Avatar was a retelling of "Dances w Wolves" with aMAZingly bad, corny dialog -- BUT with killer 3-d graphics. Shallowness (even in its obvious hit ya over the head with it pro-green, "primitives are good" message) personified. That IS the 2010s! I stand corrected! Again - no sarcasm, you're witnessing a conversion in print.
So, let me get this straight in my head: Rebooting a familiar, beloved '60s tv show with hyperkinetic action and effects with a recycled plot (vengeful villain -- ooh, scary) IS exactly right for the 2010s. Hmm. And again, I didn't HATE XI. Went twice in fact.
Okay, I'm a convert -- reboot away. Reboot TNG only without the '90s pluralism, pussyfooting ethos. (I like TNG; but ya gotta admit it has that vibe.) Just have the same characters, make the ship BIGGER (sweet, man), dumb down the dialog and add a lot of action.
That WOULD be right for the 2010s. Boot away.
I voted other. I don't think we need to reboot and diminish the original series, as they aired, in any way. What Trek needs, when the time is right, is an entirely new series with a new ship, new crew, and hopefully new ideas.
Not even necessarily Trek - an episodic show that dealt with issues in a scifi venue. Bring it.
I'm happy just imagining my own series. It'll never let me down.
But I would love to see more Trek on TV, something new, something different...but not too different. Although I'm not sure what is 'too different'.
But I would love to see more Trek on TV, something new, something different...but not too different. Although I'm not sure what is 'too different'.
I love your beginning!
As to "different," I THOUGHT ENT was gonna be that, and it disappointed me. It seemed more of the same ol'. Not an original statement, I know.
I desire episodes that are not so self-referential: Dominion War, long arcs in ENT, but more about issues. But that's just me.
Same here, but I disagree with one point, "rebooting" doesn't always equate "ruining".
Unless of course, we're talking Battlestar Galactica, or "Bullshitstar Garbageca" as I like to think of it.
Thatt's a mouthful. Say, I never saw the new one. Did they still say "felgercarb"?
Similar threads
