Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[Greg Cox]

I once pointed out to some people saying "Come on! everyone knows Kirk slept with every girl he saw!" When it was like two, maybe three. Mayyyybe four.

Well, given the constraints of sixties TV, it's really hard to tell how far things went every time the camera discreetly faded to black while Kirk was sharing a passionate moment with a sexy female guest-star. True, we can only verify a few instances of actual SEX, but, given how often Kirk ended up in clinch with the SFGS, I think people can be forgiven for assuming that there was plenty of fire to go with the smoke--even if the producers couldn't actually show Kirk in bed with anyone.

As even Carol Marcus said, Kirk was no Boy Scout!

Plus, of course, there's the fact that he kept running into old flames all over the galaxy: Ruth, Areel Shaw, Janet Wallace, Janice Lester, Carol Marcus . . . .

That's a lot of long-lost loves for "a stack of books with legs," let alone an obsessive, workaholic loner! One can only wonder how many others there were.

No wonder Kirk has a reputation . . .

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Well you could say Doctor Who has been rebooted 10 times.
Everytime the Doctor regenerates it is a sort of reboot within the same universe.

Why I suggested merely having a new crew post-TNG/DS9/VOY. A Doctor Who-esque reshuffle while still being core Star Trek.

Except with doctor who its a new actor in the role, same backstory and generally cares about the same people. What you're proposing is using new people who I would not necessarily give a flying crap about.

 

[Cartoonist]

You have lost me. How will "weeding out" or "exposing" Star Trek universe fans* save you from becoming one of them? Is it like homosexuality, where some people are afraid of it being made compulsory? Now if your intention is to stone them to death, I could see how the so-called "reboot" might be helpful in identifying them.

The distinction is of course ridiculous anyway. I doubt there are many fans of TOS who would not want to see those characters back on screen, provided they were indeed faithful to the originals, as opposed to just getting the names right. Sure there are probably some fans who don't like Star Trek divided up in to neat little commercial packages, but if the latest film did anything, it showed us how to avoid that. Where is the problem?

Besides, there was room in the old universe for more stories with TOS characters (I doubt most causal viewers even realised this was a new one, as I think has been said). What they probably couldn't have done, and didn't succeed doing convincingly* in ST09, was make them ten years younger. That was the main goal of course.


* Yes, I know some will claim to be "convinced".

I can't agree with any of that. First of all, as far as I know, the actors were all about ten years younger (with the glaring exception of Pike); so I'm not sure why you weren't convinced they were ten years younger. Their age is just a fact, it doesn't require convincing.

Secondly, most of the reaction I saw (and the reaction I had, as a TOS fan first and foremost) was that Abrams and the cast DID get the characters right. They NAILED them without seeming like they were doing an impersonation. That was the consensus among Trekkies, from what I saw at the time.

And lastly, since nobody's conducted a scientific study about the efficacy of rebooting the franchise... all we have to go on is anecdotal evidence. Mine is this: I saw the film five times in the theaters, to accompany Trek-hating friends of mine who were interested in seeing it. I don't evangelize Trek, but when someone I know expresses an interest in it I don't waste any time. Every last one of them expressed interest in seeing it because they'd heard (not from me) that it was a reboot. I tried to get them all into watching the shows afterward. A few gave them a chance, but only one kept watching. Yet we're ALL going to see Into Darkness. Just going from my small sampling, I'd say Paramount made the right decision.

Can I repectfully say, IMHO, that the Kirk character pandered to the non-fans perception of him, and not 'a stack of books with legs', or a guy that teachs a class wherein 'you either think or sink'*. And also I didn't think Pine 'nailed' Kirk, but rather came up with his own fine completly useful interp.

Seriously, if that were a brand new series and you renamed him, not for one second would I think he was supposed to be Captain Kirk (minus the obvious historical refs, and his fun "Bones!" at the very end)

Again, this is in no way a slam on Pine or the interp he came up with.

I am worried about the future of the character though. You take away his relationship with Spock and inflate the ladies man/cowboy diplomacy stuff and I'm afraid he's going to come off as a little shallow.

*Yes, I know the timeline changed.

I see what you're saying, but as someone else alluded to, he never actually appeared to be "a stack of books with legs" onscreen. Also, since you know the timeline changed, you know Kirk's upbringing was different. Without his dad's influence, dealing with a stepfather he didn't like... he became more of a smartass and less grim. That's not really a fundamental change that destroys his character, it's just the same guy with more swagger. But more importantly: when he said he was "a stack of books with legs," he was referring to himself as he was at the academy. Not how he was while serving on the Farragut, and not how he was as Captain of the Enterprise. When I saw Trek '09, and saw how he went from a nobody to graduating from the Academy (well, he WOULD have if he hadn't cheated on the KM test) in what may have been record time, I assumed he must've been pretty diligent. And we saw glimpses of his intelligence throughout the film. As one of my non-Trek-versed friends whispered to me during the movie, "so he's a genius?"

I don't think you have to worry too much about the future of the character. For one thing, they're not going to remove the Kirk/Spock relationship. For another, this is made by the same people who made Fringe (one of Abrams' best TV efforts), and after watching five seasons of that, shallowness is not something I'd attribute to any of the major characters in their work. And their '09 Trek gave both Spock and Kirk more emotional depth than anything other than Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country.

This isn't about Kirk or Spock, but about the writers' attention to character: through script and direction, they even added depth to Kirk's dad in just a few minutes of screen time. It's easy to forget now, but a lot of Trekkies were literally crying after just the first five minutes (in a good way).

 

[Shazam!]

Also, since you know the timeline changed, you know Kirk's upbringing was different. Without his dad's influence, dealing with a stepfather he didn't like... he became more of a smartass and less grim.

?

More grim, surely?

 

[Greg Cox]

I am worried about the future of the character though. You take away his relationship with Spock and inflate the ladies man/cowboy diplomacy stuff and I'm afraid he's going to come off as a little shallow.

II don't think you have to worry too much about the future of the character. For one thing, they're not going to remove the Kirk/Spock relationship. For another, this is made by the same people who made Fringe (one of Abrams' best TV efforts), and after watching five seasons of that, shallowness is not something I'd attribute to any of the major characters in their work. And their '09 Trek gave both Spock and Kirk more emotional depth than anything other than Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country.

This isn't about Kirk or Spock, but about the writers' attention to character: through script and direction, they even added depth to Kirk's dad in just a few minutes of screen time. It's easy to forget now, but a lot of Trekkies were literally crying after just the first five minutes (in a good way).

Plus, the new movie, because it had to reintroduce the entire cast to a new generation of moviegoers, was bound to sketch them in broad strokes. Now that the heavy lifting has been done, they can flesh out the characters and deepen the relationships over the course of the next few movies.

Which is generally how it works. It's not like Kirk and Spock were fully fleshed out as early as "Where No Man Goes Before." Shatner and Nimoy and the writers added shades and nuances to the characters, who also evolved over the course of forty years or so.

 

[Bob Karo]

I think a reboot was probably the best option. Whether they rebooted the continuity or not, a stylistic reboot was necessary. I believe a continuation of the original continuity could have worked if done extremely well and in a way that was sufficiently open to new audiences. A new direction of sufficient quality could make questions of continuity moot. The reboot was easier and had much better chance of success. You can't really blame them for choosing that direction.

There's still a lot of things about Trek 09 I wish they had done differently. I think the plot is kind of a mess. Others have talked about Nero seeming to just sit around for 20 years. I guess he could have been repairing his ship. I know there's an off screen mention of a fleet of Klingon ships being destroyed, but it doesn't do much to justify his absence for 20 years. I know the comics explain this, but I'd prefer the plot stand on its own.

I was kind of disappointed that there was less focus on the "Big Three" characters taking their traditional roles. I love Urban's portrayal of Bones. I wish he'd had more of a focus. In the end, I think they are positioning Uhura as more the "Heart" of the core cast, replacing McCoy to some extent.

I thought the visual effects were great. I would have preferred the design have proportions closer to the original. The new ship design just doesn't work for me. It's purely subjective and has little to do with me enjoying the film.

 

[F. King Daniel]

NERO: We wait. We wait for the one who allowed our home to be destroyed. That's what we've been doing for 25 years.

It's explained right there. Since when is a guy having patience considered a flaw in the movie?

 

[ROBE]

Wasn't Nero in a Klingon prison?

Slightly off topic just because the 9th Doctor looks in a mirror and makes a comment about his ears is not proof he just regenerated, I am sure we all make comments every morning about our appearance.
The 11th Doctor looks in the mirror in the Christmas special, what does that prove.

Sorry, back to topic..

 

[Awesome Possum]

He also has this subtle look between the time where they attack the Kelvin and when he appears 20 years later. Just a completely detached look, he's forgotten how to do anything but want revenge.

 

[Dale Sams]

He also has this subtle look between the time where they attack the Kelvin and when he appears 20 years later. Just a completely detached look, he's forgotten how to do anything but want revenge.

But he still does that casual "Hey, how ya doin. How's your mother? Tell her I said hello." thing over the viewscreen.

 

[Kevin W.]

Trek needed something new. I don't know if a reboot was the answer, but I do know that if a reboot was the answer, Abrams' work wasn't it.

 

[DalekJim]

Except with doctor who its a new actor in the role, same backstory and generally cares about the same people. What you're proposing is using new people who I would not necessarily give a flying crap about.

Well, unless you only like TOS then I'd say you've given a crap about another crew since so step outside your comfort zone once more and take a risk.

 

[DalekJim]

Slightly off topic just because the 9th Doctor looks in a mirror and makes a comment about his ears is not proof he just regenerated, I am sure we all make comments every morning about our appearance.

The production team and actor have both said in outside interviews that it's a reaction to the regeneration (See Eccleston on Jonathan Ross). Also, why would he be acting like he wasn't used to his new face? It couldn't be anything else but a regeneration reference.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Except with doctor who its a new actor in the role, same backstory and generally cares about the same people. What you're proposing is using new people who I would not necessarily give a flying crap about.

Well, unless you only like TOS then I'd say you've given a crap about another crew since so step outside your comfort zone once more and take a risk.

It took a few years before Picard and the crew were accepted by audiences, something the other spin-offs couldn't come close to. Even then, they had seven seasons before getting a movie. You weren't just introduced to them in a new movie without any prior introduction.

 

[Noname Given]

Can I repectfully say, IMHO, that the Kirk character pandered to the non-fans perception of him, and not 'a stack of books with legs', .

On the other hand, we never actually saw "the stack of books with legs" onscreen. That was one line of dialogue in one episode, as opposed to 79 episodes and 7 movies in which Kirk was a dynamic, swashbuckling leading man. So, yeah, when you think of Kirk, does anybody really think of him as a "stack of books with legs." The "fact" that Kirk used to be a book worm is a bit of trivia, not the essence of the character in the popular imagination. It has nothing to do with the character we actually grew up watching.

So, yeah, I think the movies should feature the Kirk the audience expects to see, regardless of some obscure bit of trivia from one old episode.

"When the legend becomes the truth, print the legend."

Worse - the lined referred to appeared in the second pilot - where they hadn't even had time to develop the characters, hell, Spock is practically smiling in that same second pilot episode when he states;

"Ah, one of your Earth emotions."

There's also the fact that in that articular pilot it was stated one of Spock's ancestors had human blood - which TPTALLY
contradicts what was shown in Season 2's "Journey to Babel" - where we see it ISN'T an ancestor (meaning passed on person); it's Spock's living mother.

Just gooes to show how much you can cherry pick out of 79 eps. and 6 feature films if you want to hate on a well done reboot where the DID in fact, really capture the essence of these characters (particularly Karl Urban as Doctor leonard McCoy).

 

[UFO]

I can't agree with any of that.

So you also believe thumbtack was in grave danger of becoming a "Star Trek universe fan" had their insidious subculture not be "exposed".

First of all, as far as I know, the actors were all about ten years younger (with the glaring exception of Pike); so I'm not sure why you weren't convinced they were ten years younger. Their age is just a fact, it doesn't require convincing.

Sorry, I was imprecise, but I would never have anticipated your interpretation of my comments in a million years. Certainly they were ten years younger, that’s the problem. I meant the idea of putting the entire crew on the bridge of a capital ship, combined with the way they did it, ten years before it happened in TOS was unconvincing. Kirk himself was the most prominent example of course, but in addition, the original cast were made the ages they were for a reason.

Secondly, most of the reaction I saw (and the reaction I had, as a TOS fan first and foremost) was that Abrams and the cast DID get the characters right. They NAILED them without seeming like they were doing an impersonation. That was the consensus among Trekkies, from what I saw at the time.

Those were Trekkies who liked the movie I take it? To me only Bones seem more or less the same person and I believe there was some criticism because of that (as well as praise of course). Sulu and Chekov didn’t register much one way or the other from my point of view. Spock started well enough but got "nobbled" (in more ways than one). Kirk, Uhura and Scotty were just unrecognisable, except for a glimpse of "Kirk" at the end.

… I saw the film five times in the theaters, to accompany Trek-hating friends of mine who were interested in seeing it. I don't evangelize Trek, but when someone I know expresses an interest in it I don't waste any time. Every last one of them expressed interest in seeing it because they'd heard (not from me) that it was a reboot. …

Well I might be too restrictive when it comes to definitions but reboot to me means "To discard all previous continuity and start anew". That didn’t happen. OK, most seem to feel that "reboot" is close enough. More likely it is just the currently fashionable term and is used for everything.

What I am more interested in is how your friends found out it was a "reboot" as opposed to a "prequel", which was the impression I got before I saw the movie? The official promotion came across as a prequel, though I doubt anything actually stated that. Was there anything in official publicity to say it was a reboot, or even mention the new universe? My guess is your friends found some entertainment sites that may have been speculating along those lines but I never bothered with those. Heck, I’m not even the sort of fan who would immediate start worrying about how they could fit such pretty young things into the original time-line! But despite being a fan of all past Trek, I could tell from official material this was likely a major departure in substance as well as style, and almost didn’t see it. I had no idea at that point it would promote a relatively "pessimistic" version of Trek from a number of pionts of view. In any event I doubt your friends wanted to see it simply "because" it was a reboot or a prequel. More likely they just though it looked good (ie. more "mainstream").

I tried to get them all into watching the shows afterward. A few gave them a chance, but only one kept watching. Yet we're ALL going to see Into Darkness.

Hmmm. And that doesn’t tell you anything? No, I suppose not.

It took a few years before Picard and the crew were accepted by audiences, something the other spin-offs couldn't come close to. Even then, they had seven seasons before getting a movie. You weren't just introduced to them in a new movie without any prior introduction.

However Trek fans are now used to that idea and new motives have the same problem all the time. Its all about whether the characters can "grab" an audience which in this case managed to overcome any resistance to these "interlopers".

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Star Trek is a series of movies and tv shows, not a "universe," and the people running Paramount would have to be dimwits to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at trying to satisfy the relatively few folks who take the "Star Trek Universe" seriously.

I mean, if you care what Sarium Krellide is you're nobody's target audience.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

I mean, if you care what Sarium Krellide is you're nobody's target audience.

Sounds like the Hollywood mindset: passionate people with attention to detail are not nearly as important as butts in seats that pay lots of money...

 

[Greg Cox]

Can I repectfully say, IMHO, that the Kirk character pandered to the non-fans perception of him, and not 'a stack of books with legs', .

On the other hand, we never actually saw "the stack of books with legs" onscreen. That was one line of dialogue in one episode, as opposed to 79 episodes and 7 movies in which Kirk was a dynamic, swashbuckling leading man.

Worse - the line referred to appeared in the second pilot - where they hadn't even had time to develop the characters, hell, Spock is practically smiling in that same second pilot episode when he states;

"Ah, one of your Earth emotions."

Good point. Did the show ever describe the young Kirk in those terms again, or was that just an odd artifact from the pilot that was largely forgotten as the show found itself--like Dr. Piper and the phaser rifle and "Jame R. Kirk"?

 

[Awesome Possum]

However Trek fans are now used to that idea and new motives have the same problem all the time. Its all about whether the characters can "grab" an audience which in this case managed to overcome any resistance to these "interlopers".

Paramount isn't in the business of making a minority of Trek fans happy. They want to make money from the widest possible audience. Given that Kirk and the rest of the crew are known all over the world and by far the best known crew, they went with them. Even fans didn't care for the crews as time went on, especially when it got to Voyager and Enterprise. If the fans aren't buying it, no one will. Maybe a whole new crew could have worked with the right conditions despite all evidence pointing to the opposite conclusion. But using Kirk was a better bet and Paramount did extremely well with it.