Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[Greg Cox]

This is an entire cast and any emotional dynamic is built on our memories of other people, whereas they devoted the first entire two Bond movies making us care about Bond and M.

I don't know. Seems to me that the 2009 film went to a great deal of effort to make us care about Kirk and Spock and the rest, just like CASINO ROYALE reintroduced Bond. Both films work as successful reboots of a decades-old property.

Heck, Uhura got more screen time in the new movie than she had in most of the previous films combined!

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I'd like a tv series but if it never happens I won't be surprised or particularly disappointed. There are many fantastic sci fi series out there, and still being made. I have enough Trek to last me a few lifetimes and that's with multiple rewatches.

I never expected a reboot or new movies and I'm extremely thrilled with what we have.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I don't say "It isn't Trek", I say "Where is the Trek?" a movie every 2-3 years? I'll watch the movies. They're fine for what they are. But there's no Trek.

That is not a disparagement on the movies at all, but where do they go? Bond movies are about Bond..and M a little. This is an entire cast and any emotional dynamic is built on our memories of other people, whereas they devoted the first entire two Bond movies making us care about Bond and M.

What we need it a TV series.

I don't think this crew's emotional dynamic relies on memories of other people at all. There's a lot more to it than "pretend this is Shatner", "pretend this is Nimoy" etc. The characters were familiar but different. I didn't like the last movie because I'm a TOS fan, I liked it because I engaged with the new versions of Kirk, Spock, Uhura and the rest and cared about what happened to them.

Where do they go? Anywhere. That's the fun of this new timeline. Anything can happen. Anyone can die. This isn't "scenes before TOS" - it's a new beginning. And I hope that when this film trilogy is complete the characters' adventures will continue in the novels, as those of Kirk (prime), Picard, Sisko, Janeway, Archer and their crews all have.

 

[Dale Sams]

I don't say "It isn't Trek", I say "Where is the Trek?" a movie every 2-3 years? I'll watch the movies. They're fine for what they are. But there's no Trek.

That is not a disparagement on the movies at all, but where do they go? Bond movies are about Bond..and M a little. This is an entire cast and any emotional dynamic is built on our memories of other people, whereas they devoted the first entire two Bond movies making us care about Bond and M.

What we need it a TV series.

I don't think this crew's emotional dynamic relies on memories of other people at all. There's a lot more to it than "pretend this is Shatner", "pretend this is Nimoy" etc. The characters were familiar but different. I didn't like the last movie because I'm a TOS fan, I liked it because I engaged with the new versions of Kirk, Spock, Uhura and the rest and cared about what happened to them.

Where do they go? Anywhere. That's the fun of this new timeline. Anything can happen. Anyone can die. This isn't "scenes before TOS" - it's a new beginning. And I hope that when this film trilogy is complete the characters' adventures will continue in the novels, as those of Kirk (prime), Picard, Sisko, Janeway, Archer and their crews all have.

Well, I was certainly engaged with Spock's story.

 

[NuFan]

To say that Trek '09 could have played out the same 'with a new crew' misses the point entirely. People care about Kirk and Spock. Star Trek, not so much.

A Star Trek Universe fan will never be able to understand this.

But a Star Trek fan will always be able to understand a Star Trek Universe fan. They are like little kids.

 

[JarodRussell]

To say that Trek '09 could have played out the same 'with a new crew' misses the point entirely. People care about Kirk and Spock. Star Trek, not so much.

People care about how the characters are presented on screen, and that's independent from what the characters are called. If the actors are lame and the characters are stupid, people wouldn't have cared even if they are called Kirk and Spock.

 

[DalekJim]

I love Kirk, Spock and McCoy but they're not all Star Trek is and can be. Two of those characters aren't even in The Cage. Star Trek is more than those characters to me and many others. Not to the general audience sure, but they always think most famous = best and should be ignored if we're talking quality and not ticket sales.

I want Trek to evolve and be progressive. Not to be set back 40+ years. I wanna see where the Trek universe was a generation after Nemesis .

 

[Nerys Myk]

Kirk and Spock have marquee value. Captain Smith and Commander Jones, not so much.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I love Kirk, Spock and McCoy but they're not all Star Trek is and can be. Two of those characters aren't even in The Cage. Star Trek is more than those characters to me and many others. Not to the general audience sure, but they always think most famous = best and should be ignored if we're talking quality and not ticket sales.

I want Trek to evolve and be progressive. Not to be set back 40+ years. I wanna see where the Trek universe was a generation after Nemesis .

Sure they were, they just called them "Pike" and "Boyce".

 

[DalekJim]

Kirk and Spock have marquee value.

Chakotay and B'Elanna have Maquis value.

I'll get my coat .

 

[Shazam!]

Kirk and Spock have marquee value. Captain Smith and Commander Jones, not so much.

I'm fairly sure Luke Skywalker had little to no marquee value when Star Wars was released but that did okay.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Kirk and Spock have marquee value. Captain Smith and Commander Jones, not so much.

I'm fairly sure Luke Skywalker had little to no marquee value when Star Wars was released but that did okay.

There's a difference between the eleventh movie in a series and the first. Kirk and Spock's marquee value was built up over decades. To many people they are synonymous with Star Trek. If this was the first Star Trek movie ever made, with no TV series proceeding it, you might have a point.

 

[BillJ]

I want Trek to evolve and be progressive. Not to be set back 40+ years. I wanna see where the Trek universe was a generation after Nemesis .

Simply not enough people care what happens after Nemesis to make it worth the studios while. That's why those stories have been relegated to the novels.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I want Trek to evolve and be progressive. Not to be set back 40+ years. I wanna see where the Trek universe was a generation after Nemesis .

Simply not enough people care what happens after Nemesis to make it worth the studios while. That's why those stories have been relegated to the novels.

Most people didn't care what happened during Nemesis.

 

[DalekJim]

Eh, it wouldn't be directly tied to Nemesis or anything. I just want something set 100 years after the TNG/DS9/VOY era. It'd essentially be a reboot as the world would have to be re-introduced to fans and casuals alike.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Continuing down the path set by Nemesis is not "evolution" in any positive sense of the word.

Look, the audience voted with their wallets and their TV remotes, and declared oldTrek to be over. That's just the truth.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Eh, it wouldn't be directly tied to Nemesis or anything. I just want something set 100 years after the TNG/DS9/VOY era. It'd essentially be a reboot as the world would have to be re-introduced to fans and casuals alike.

That would just be TNG redux. All TNG did was peal the labels off of TOS and put them on different bottles and then change the dates. Why use the knock off when you can use the originals?

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Eh, it wouldn't be directly tied to Nemesis or anything. I just want something set 100 years after the TNG/DS9/VOY era. It'd essentially be a reboot as the world would have to be re-introduced to fans and casuals alike.

That would be great but not anywhere near as marketable to the public. I would prefer it, but I'm not the public.

 

[DalekJim]

Well, I don't care about the public and more importantly, they don't care about Star Trek. I'd be fine with Star Trek being a modest string of good movies that made alright money than a series of mediocre action films that made loads of money.

All TNG did was peal the labels off of TOS and put them on different bottles and then change the dates.

Strongly disagree. TOS and TNG are very, very different shows. Both excellent though.

 

[UFO]

Kirk and Spock have marquee value. Captain Smith and Commander Jones, not so much.

I'm fairly sure Luke Skywalker had little to no marquee value when Star Wars was released but that did okay.

There's a difference between the eleventh movie in a series and the first. Kirk and Spock's marquee value was built up over decades. To many people they are synonymous with Star Trek. If this was the first Star Trek movie ever made, with no TV series proceeding it, you might have a point.

Marquee value with who? If they are synonymous with Star Trek, is that good, or just something else the marketing department had to overcome? Personally I think he has point anyway.

Simply not enough people care what happens after Nemesis to make it worth the studios while. That's why those stories have been relegated to the novels.

And they won't care until you show them stories and people they can or want to care about, just like any other movie or TV show etc. Even marquee value will only take you so far.

... I just want something set 100 years after the TNG/DS9/VOY era. It'd essentially be a reboot as the world would have to be re-introduced to fans and casuals alike.

That would probably have worked just as well, given the same treatment.

Continuing down the path set by Nemesis is not "evolution" in any positive sense of the word.

Look, the audience voted with their wallets and their TV remotes, and declared oldTrek to be over. That's just the truth.

No-one declared anything to be over. They just didn't like the more recent versions of it. But give it the same styling as ST09, with more (well some) substance and there is no reason to believe you wouldn't be good to go. Hell people like you would probably hail it's success and criticise any suggestion of a reboot with those TOS has-beens!

That would just be TNG redux. All TNG did was peal the labels off of TOS and put them on different bottles and then change the dates. Why use the knock off when you can use the originals?

So instead of doing TNG, they should have just remade TOS, back in the day? What I think is being suggested is it would be a Trek for our time, as presumably TNG was when it came out.