Yes.
Paramount spent 1982-2005 milking the same "limited pool of ideas." There's no reason to think that the next revival would be any different in that respect; no reason whatsoever.
Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Yes.
Paramount spent 1982-2005 milking the same "limited pool of ideas." There's no reason to think that the next revival would be any different in that respect; no reason whatsoever.
It never needed a reboot...
form TOS to TNG there was a minor change that was accepted very well
form TNG to VOY another minor change that was accepted but criticized
From VOY to ENT we started going backward,series cancelled,fans no very interested...
from ENT to JJTREK it was crap for me its not star trek at all its just another scifi action movie to watch,the girl characters are eye candy and stupid so sexist just like TOS i dont care that much about it.
TNG DS9 VOY era was simply the best and the most influencing.
form TOS to TNG there was a minor change that was accepted very well
form TNG to VOY another minor change that was accepted but criticized
From VOY to ENT we started going backward,series cancelled,fans no very interested...
from ENT to JJTREK it was crap for me its not star trek at all its just another scifi action movie to watch,the girl characters are eye candy and stupid so sexist just like TOS i dont care that much about it.
TNG DS9 VOY era was simply the best and the most influencing.
I must agree with you
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. There's a reason people still talk about TOS nearly fifty years after its launch. The characters still resonate with people. That cannot be said about Modern Trek.
If JJ did reboot TNG era everyone would be talking about Picard Worf Riker Data etc...people in 2009 most likely have started to forget about TOS and most new Gen viewers don't even know TNG now.yes TOS is very popular we all know that.
TOS was already being remastered for HD when the 2009 film was announced. TOS is a pop-culture phenomenon. Even people who never watched it know about things from TOS.
It doesn't mean that TNG and the other series didn't have their moments. They just didn't leave the same long-term impression on the general population that the original did.
I find TNG to be the least rewatchable of the series right now. Not because it wasn't good, but the actors do very little to surprise me, a lot of the eps are just Braga Mind-*****, and there are more than a few 'hard-headed aliens of the week'.
Or maybe I've seen them too many times.
I love TNG and am currently repurchasing the series on Blu-ray (just like I did TOS). But I think TOS simply translates better on the big screen and one of the reasons is because, as I stated earlier, Kirk is a big risk, big reward character. Those types of characters flourish on the big-screen.
Well, it's probably safe to say that, where TOS is concerned, I'm definitely on a different book . . .
Attachments
I tend to agree. I like to watch movies that are entertaining.
What about THE MUMMY?
It had been a long time since Karloff, Lon Chaney Jr., and Christopher Lee . . . .
Well, it's probably safe to say that, where TOS is concerned, I'm definitely on a different book . . .
That's a great cover. I asked Kurt Busiek once how much input he has on covers, he said "None really. Nor do I really care all that much"
How much do you have?
I dunno if it's a British thing or whatever but people my age seem to be WAY more aware of TNG than TOS. Jean-Luc Picard is an icon, no doubt about it. When people my age think of Trek they definitely think of the TNG/DS9/VOY era first. It was everywhere!
People in this thread are acting like TNG was some obscure cult show but it's actually one of the most famous TV shows ever aired. By any measure it was more successful than TOS. A genuine pop culture phenomena when it aired and still widely beloved today. Among young folk, TOS is thought of as the goofy predecessor to real Trek.
Well, it's probably safe to say that, where TOS is concerned, I'm definitely on a different book . . .
That's a great cover. I asked Kurt Busiek once how much input he has on covers, he said "None really. Nor do I really care all that much"
How much do you have?
Typically, the author has very little, especially where media tie-in books are concerned. That's something that the publisher and the licensor generally handle between themselves. I saw my (very snazzy) new cover for the first time just a few weeks before everyone else did.
(My editor gave me sneak peek over the holidays.)
Glad you like it. I couldn't resist showing it off. Plus, just to stay OT, I thought it did a good job of illustrating the continuing popularity and spirit of TOS . . . .
Burton's Batman and Nolan's Batman Begins were both very good. Batman Returns was still watchable, but that franchise went downhill fast.
Nolan's 2nd and 3rd films suffered from being bloated with unnecessary meandering during the middle part of those films, I think due to a case of self-indulgence on Nolan's part.
Then why are people in this thread acting like TNG is some show that 5 people even remember?
TNG to me is obviously the more popular show with the younger generation the movie is aimed at (NONE of my friends have ever seen an episode of TOS!). It can't even be argued that TOS is more liked by the public. William Shatner is a total joke in popular culture whereas Patrick Stewart is one of the most respected actors in the world.
People will still be fondly recalling Stewart as Picard when Chris Pine's frat boy antics are long forgotten.
Similar threads
