Please Clarify. To what nice things do you refer?
Rebooting Star Trek
- Thread starter BillJ
- Start date
Please Clarify. To what nice things do you refer?
number6
Vice Admiral
This.
I have a very strong opinion about that THING that Abrams made but have I been impolite or uncivilized to anyone who disagrees with me?
Schoolyard snark? I've stated in very clear terms what I think of Abrams version of a reboot. I could go into detail to why I feel the way I do and articulate it point by point but that has already been done by many before me. No point in rehashing it here. I'm am merely responding succinctly to the claim that Abrams has already achieved the best possible reboot.
number6
Vice Admiral
No one said that exactly, but Abrams got the gig and the film made money, so in the eyes of the real world that is certainly true.
That's not what this thread is about. And yes, it would be refreshing to have a discussion about Star Trek without the constant snark about every new incarnation of Trek. It is uncivilized and unsophisticated.
That's not what this thread is about. And yes, it would be refreshing to have a discussion about Star Trek without the constant snark about every new incarnation of Trek. It is uncivilized and unsophisticated.
The fact that the film made money is irrelevant. If the faux Monroe pig made money on tour that would be small comfort to Joe DiMaggio, wouldn't it? What's he going to do with that money? Buy nice clothes and better make up? He knows he still has a pig!
I'll acknowledge that Star Trek has different appeals to different people. I'm probably a minority in this forum in that I'm not a TOS purist. But ST-09 had very little in common with any Star Trek that came before. It was superficial, resembling Star Wars more than Star Trek. That might be a good formula for making money off the drooling masses which is great for the studio but what good does that do us? It assures more superficial crap with none of the substance that made Star Trek what it is. It'll cultivate a new generation of fans that crave a pig in makeup and the real Star Trek will die. Call me snarky but I just don't see the benefit here.
I'll acknowledge that Star Trek has different appeals to different people. I'm probably a minority in this forum in that I'm not a TOS purist. But ST-09 had very little in common with any Star Trek that came before. It was superficial, resembling Star Wars more than Star Trek. That might be a good formula for making money off the drooling masses which is great for the studio but what good does that do us? It assures more superficial crap with none of the substance that made Star Trek what it is. It'll cultivate a new generation of fans that crave a pig in makeup and the real Star Trek will die. Call me snarky but I just don't see the benefit here.
number6
Vice Admiral
I am offended by those remarks. I enjoyed the film and don't believe it was a pig dressed up in lipstick.
The drooling masses drumbeat is getting tired and frankly I find it insulting and I am sick of all the people who enjoyed this film being labeled as such.
You want to discuss ways to reboot the franchise? I am happy to discuss. But if you are going to resort to petty name calling, that's where I draw the line.
It is uncivilized and unsophisticated..I might also add condescending.
Don't bother replying. I'm done.
The drooling masses drumbeat is getting tired and frankly I find it insulting and I am sick of all the people who enjoyed this film being labeled as such.
You want to discuss ways to reboot the franchise? I am happy to discuss. But if you are going to resort to petty name calling, that's where I draw the line.
It is uncivilized and unsophisticated..I might also add condescending.
Don't bother replying. I'm done.
I suppose I'm thinking in a somewhat narrower context. Sure, in the universe of Star Trek, any story can be told. That was the very purpose of setting it out in space. As I've frequently pointed out, Star Trek was rarely about the regular characters -- as an episodic show it couldn't be, and so it functioned in more of the anthology mode, as our colleague Christopher pointed out not long ago. It was more often about the guest characters and the Dramatic life-altering events in their lives.
But Star Trek as we know it is about certain characters on a military ship during relative peacetime. This is why I have no objection to the idea of re-casting Kirk, Spock et al. This is why certain movies out there, like Master & Commander, would fit so well into a Star Trek series with only the most superficial of alterations - they fit within that mold.
This would, of course, mark a sea-change (space-change?) in Star Trek. This would make the show about the characters on the ship, and not follow the episodic/anthology model. Of course, modern Trek did this to some extent (the ensemble cast approach helps), with some success and some failure.
Appreciation of art is subjective - in evaluating its success, that is. Interpretation must be informed by both individual experience (subjective) and shared knowledge (objective). But first and foremost, there must be some substance there. Some statement. Some meat. Something.
One of my teachers in art school once defined art as "anything man-made revealing a human plan." That has always stuck with me.
Go to any convention or BBS talking Trek and you quickly see how so many different people get different things out of Trek. You also see it in fanfic as different people stress the aspects they like most. But the key is to be able to see everything TOS did.
I'd be very interested in seeing a Pike era Star Trek--the road not taken--and that could be a way to stay with the established continuity. But more likely the demand would be to revisit the Kirk era and in that case then I'd ignore much of established continuity and go with a clean sheet interpretation.
I'd be very interested in seeing a Pike era Star Trek--the road not taken--and that could be a way to stay with the established continuity. But more likely the demand would be to revisit the Kirk era and in that case then I'd ignore much of established continuity and go with a clean sheet interpretation.
Why are you taking this personal? I'm not calling you a drooling idiot; I'm merely saying that that is the audience the film was aimed at.
Look, I enjoy Star Wars. It's very juvenile compared to Star Trek but it appeals to me on a different level. If it purported itself to be Star Trek, then I would be pissed. That's what Abramstrek is doing. It is something very different from Star Trek but claiming that it is Star Trek. That offends ME.
I don't think less of you because you enjoy Abramstrek but that is not Star Trek. It would have been a fun movie if they had called it something else. The fact that they pretend it is Star Trek is literary rape.
Last edited:
Doing prequels in the Trek prime universe, or in points in time where large amounts of continuity have been established is a incredibly difficult task and its too damn limiting for writers because some will flip their lids because of a passing one-liner D.C. Fontanta wrote into a script.
Are there stories to tell in this universe at this point in time...yeah--but who would want to do the endless research and suffer the limitations? Prequels have never worked before---so why would you want to make that mistake again?
If you are going to make a new Trek, it has to be either a clean slate (ala XI) or it has to be set in the future past the Dominion war, and past the destruction of Romulus.
Also I'm not sure where we this idea of Trek (especially TOS) of being smart. Sure certain episodes were cerebral, but for every one of those we get an, 'Omega Glory' or 'Spock's brain' or something that makes no sense whatsoever (The Alternative Factor).
Is Trek XI a masterpiece? No, but there isn't a Trek movie that is. It is however a damn entertaining movie that does a pretty damn good job of capturing the Trek universe, and isn't that what a reboot is suppose to be about?
Are there stories to tell in this universe at this point in time...yeah--but who would want to do the endless research and suffer the limitations? Prequels have never worked before---so why would you want to make that mistake again?
If you are going to make a new Trek, it has to be either a clean slate (ala XI) or it has to be set in the future past the Dominion war, and past the destruction of Romulus.
Also I'm not sure where we this idea of Trek (especially TOS) of being smart. Sure certain episodes were cerebral, but for every one of those we get an, 'Omega Glory' or 'Spock's brain' or something that makes no sense whatsoever (The Alternative Factor).
Is Trek XI a masterpiece? No, but there isn't a Trek movie that is. It is however a damn entertaining movie that does a pretty damn good job of capturing the Trek universe, and isn't that what a reboot is suppose to be about?
And thank god for that because the Trek that came before almost killed it for good.
And by that you surely mean the Trek since 1966? Or since 1979? Since when?
Pissing match engaged!
I would hope Sparky is referring to Enterprise and Star Trek: Nemesis. The thing that bothered me more than anything is people act like it was The Original Series that was broken, which is pretty far from the truth.
I think it would be possible to reboot Star Trek in a mild way without adhering slavishly to established continuity. Hell, it's been done in comics for decades upon decades.
If you want to stay in the established continuity then I think it's also possible, but you'd have to pick an era with some breathing room either pre TOS or post TOS such as the TMP era after TMP. Or if you don't want to do TOS then do post TNG, although I don't think there's much demand or sufficient market interest there.
The other alternative is a drastic reboot of some kind. Keep some things like some familiar names and references yet still very much a clean sheet start.
I don't think you can do Star Trek strictly as it was done with TOS. I think you can maintain many positive elements of TOS that worked, but because certain expectations and tastes are different from then you'll have to update it and do some things differently.
One thing that you have to decide is whether you're doing feature films or television series because that can affect what you want to do and how you can do it.
Firstly, I'd want it to be Star Trek as it was when TOS and TNG were at their best. That's its identity and not Trek done as Star Wars or nuBSG or what have you.
I also think it would be important to put all things on the table for discussion before finalizing how you'll proceed. Look at what came before and learn from it: what worked and what didn't work. What are the core elements that help define Star Trek's appeal?
Allow me to speculate aloud. I recall when I saw the first pics of the tumbler, the new "batmobile" for Batman Begins. My first reaction was WTF! Then I saw the film and saw how the vehicle was utilized and I changed my mind and clearly saw, "Yeah, now I get it and it makes perfect sense." And in context it made more sense than any batmobile that proceeded it. Still, other than the tumbler I still love the '60s Adam West batmobile even though it doesn't really make much sense.
And so in terms of a new Enterprise I'd either want a tweaking of the original design for a mild reboot or I'd do something drastically different for a more clean sheet reinterpretation. I don't think it has to look exactly like the original Enterprise to feel special to the crew and the audience. It's more about execution.
The appeal of a clean sheet approach is that you overcome the problems of how does it fit into established continuity simply because it isn't meant to mess with established continuity. This is what Abrams should have done openly without trying to be cute with stupid time travel and alternate timelines and whatever.
Part of the reason detractors dislike the film is the insistence of others trying to rationalize its existence in regards to established continuity. My (and some others) perspective is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the original continuity and just accept it (or not) as such and as is, it's own thing and a new start. A clean reboot avoids this issue.
If you want to stay in the established continuity then I think it's also possible, but you'd have to pick an era with some breathing room either pre TOS or post TOS such as the TMP era after TMP. Or if you don't want to do TOS then do post TNG, although I don't think there's much demand or sufficient market interest there.
The other alternative is a drastic reboot of some kind. Keep some things like some familiar names and references yet still very much a clean sheet start.
I don't think you can do Star Trek strictly as it was done with TOS. I think you can maintain many positive elements of TOS that worked, but because certain expectations and tastes are different from then you'll have to update it and do some things differently.
One thing that you have to decide is whether you're doing feature films or television series because that can affect what you want to do and how you can do it.
Firstly, I'd want it to be Star Trek as it was when TOS and TNG were at their best. That's its identity and not Trek done as Star Wars or nuBSG or what have you.
I also think it would be important to put all things on the table for discussion before finalizing how you'll proceed. Look at what came before and learn from it: what worked and what didn't work. What are the core elements that help define Star Trek's appeal?
Allow me to speculate aloud. I recall when I saw the first pics of the tumbler, the new "batmobile" for Batman Begins. My first reaction was WTF! Then I saw the film and saw how the vehicle was utilized and I changed my mind and clearly saw, "Yeah, now I get it and it makes perfect sense." And in context it made more sense than any batmobile that proceeded it. Still, other than the tumbler I still love the '60s Adam West batmobile even though it doesn't really make much sense.
And so in terms of a new Enterprise I'd either want a tweaking of the original design for a mild reboot or I'd do something drastically different for a more clean sheet reinterpretation. I don't think it has to look exactly like the original Enterprise to feel special to the crew and the audience. It's more about execution.
The appeal of a clean sheet approach is that you overcome the problems of how does it fit into established continuity simply because it isn't meant to mess with established continuity. This is what Abrams should have done openly without trying to be cute with stupid time travel and alternate timelines and whatever.
Part of the reason detractors dislike the film is the insistence of others trying to rationalize its existence in regards to established continuity. My (and some others) perspective is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the original continuity and just accept it (or not) as such and as is, it's own thing and a new start. A clean reboot avoids this issue.
One does not have to be a moderator in order to ask for a cease-and-desist of petty snarkiness that has nothing to do with the OP's topic. However, some people can't seem to stop turning any thread into a JJ Abrams bash-fest, even if it has nothing to do with that. And in my opinion, those poor, bitter people are very sad indeed. If you have a problem with what I posted, go complain to a real moderator. But I think you'll find that they'd agree with me.
Similar threads
