Re-Boot the Re-Boots?

Spiderman, anyone?

https://cnet2.cbsistatic.com/img/7d...6f33/patrick-new-old-tech-detail-2246-002.jpg

[Hotlinked image converted to link. Pics posted as embedded images should be hosted on an image-sharing account registered to you. - M']

 

...what is the topic about...?

Are they going to reboot the Kelvin-timeline, and start TOS all over again with the original crew in their first adventure on the starship Enterprise?

The link just shows a picture of a Nintendo.

?

 

Of course they'll reboot TOS again. They've already done so to an extent in DSC with new versions of Pike and Spock.

...if that's what this is about. I'm guessing the NES is a reference to Nintendo releasing versions of the same games (Mario, Mario Kart, Zelda etc) on each system they release.

 

They should go back to 2245 with the launch of the Enterprise and the five-year adventure of Robert April.

 

A.) There are no plans to re-boot, at least not to the general public's knowledge, and I am not an insider.
B.) The Nintendo has a re-set button.
C.) As fans, would you like to see Captain Kirk, again, with a different actor and no references to a Kelvin Timeline.

I didn't realize I caused confusion. For that, I am sorry.

 

If they reboot it again they should make a clean break and not this alt-timeline nonsense. And don't feel obligated to play over the same plots. The new Planet of the Apes movies are a good example of how to do that right.

 

So the whole point of the Kelvin films was to have stories that take place with the original TOS crew but were set in a new universe so that adhering to 50+ years of canon wouldn't be a problem anymore. If there were new movies that took place in the actual TOS timeline at the time of TOS, everyone would be bitching that it doesn't look like TOS or adhere to canon, just like DSC doesn't. The alternative would be to set the films in yet another universe (the 'reboot of the reboot'), but I think that's getting tiresome now. They could always keep the Kelvin timeline films going but set the stories on another ship with another crew, but would moviegoers be as enthused by seeing that?

If all that's needed to continue the films is to recast Pine, then there's still opportunity there. Pine was great as Kirk, but he's by no means the only actor who could pull off the role.

 

The main reason for a reboot should be an update to the backstory so it doesn’t have to be swept under the rug any longer, but otherwise no writer should have to follow up on the original work of others: they must be free to create the next Vulcans, the next Klingons, the next Borg. Yes, the recent Planet of the Apes films are a great example in that they maintain core concepts, not specific characters or backstory. Some of the names are the same, but there is never a 1:1 mapping, not even with Caesar. Kirk and Spock may be far more iconic, but why not fly in the face of that and create new icons?

 

Or starting another timeline with Archer being played by someone else. I think ENT suffered mainly from a casting problem.

 

No more reboots please. And we never near hear from the Kelvin timeline again...

 

That’s a bit like imagining that an executive can’t wait to reboot Superman III. Archer isn’t part of the Star Trek myth the way Kirk/Spock/McCoy are, but the franchise is flexible enough to allow for expansion as opposed to mere revision and elaboration of the good-old.

 

Naw that is getting boring. Time to move forward. First with Picard then a new crew in the 25th century.

 

Maybe they can get someone else to play data if brent doesn't want to play him. As he is holding star trek hostage if only Brent Spiner can play him.

 

ENT is dead and buried. We won't be going back to that again.

Data has nothing to do with the reboot movies.

 

No, since Star Trek needs to have interchangeable crews for the core concept to flourish. Seeing more of Data is optional.

 

No Abrams timeline, and while we're at it, no Discovery timeline either. A actor (and writers) who can capture Shatner's Kirk during TOS's first season. Definitely don't want a completely different character merely labeled as "Kirk."

Doubtful it would be "everyone." With a fan base the size of Trek's some aren't going to get what they want. On the other hand if a significant percentage of the fans have well founded problems with a new production it might be a indication that legitimate problems exist.

Respect what came before, that big fan base came from somewhere.

Patrick Stewart created a character who resonated with the audience, it is possible to create new characters.

I think it was more creative problems. There was nothing wrong with the group of actors chosen, it's what was done with them.

 

I would think that the whole point of swiping the Discovery, its crew, and the spore drive under the rug and sending them 1,000 years into the future is an indicator that the producers realized the show had legitimate problems.

 

Excellent opportunity to switch the focus of the show to the adventures of Pike, Spock and Number One.

 

As well as possibly wanting to put their own unique mark on it, rather than dealing with leftovers from two prior show runners.

 

How's that going to happen? Are Pike, Spock and Number One still alive 1,000 years in the future? The focus of the show is going to be on the Discovery crew, not them.