After Star Trek 3 would you want an immediate reboot?

[fireproof78]

Hollywood seems to be rebooting or making spin offs of all their money making franchise. star wars, harry potter, batman, spiderman you name it. After star trek 3 in 2016 would you like to see the series rebooted immediately in the space of like 3-5 years?

I'm not particularly arsed, since big screen product is more or less losing me anyway. It's getting mighty hard to justify spending twenty- to twenty-five bucks a pop for what's being served up in the multiplex just generally when there's much more attractive and interesting product to be had on the small screen. Anything they do would have to be pretty special (meaning more than just having an actual plot) for me to spend money on it.

I don't know if the current crew will continue or not, though it would be nice to see them get a really interesting story to sink their teeth into before they go. But I think what's increasingly likely to happen is that CBS-Trek (which is reliant on the "domestic" market) and Paramount-Trek (increasingly reliant on the international market) are going to diverge into separate streams, one tailored to television and the other tailored to the tentpole big-screen "thrill ride" model. Which if it happens is cool by me.

(Emphasis added)

I think this is something that needs to be recognized. Part of my problem with any Trek film is similar to any problem of taking a TV series and put it in a film. TV series usually have an ensemble cast, with episodes focusing on different characters. A film usually has one or two main characters (three in TOS films' case: Kirk, Spock and McCoy), with the rest supporting the action.

I think seeing a new Trek TV series, in Abrams verse or another time period, would be interesting.

The struggle I see with Trek right now is the idea of being relevant in a manner that TOS was in the 60s. The timeless commentary that was sometimes missed due to the goofiness of the plot.

Don't get me wrong, I think Abrams films do a good job with the social commentary. I think a series will need to recognize how to do the same, in addition to telling good stores, to continue on with the show.

 

[austen_pierce]

I definitely think there is room for both, perhaps even with character overlap, but to your point not a total share. Personally, I don't want to see another reboot too soon and really don't think we'll get one before 2018-2020 and man, that seems like a hell of a long ways off, but the depressing thing is that it's not.

 

[Belz...]

No I'd like to see NuTrek continue to grow and evolve.

+1.

We're there now. Let's make the best of it. We spent a lot of time in the old timeline. No rush.

 

[dub]

After Star Trek 3 would you want an immediate reboot?

Yes, followed by the blue screen of death.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

After Star Trek 3 would you want an immediate reboot?

Yes, followed by the blue screen of death.

So, you're saying that you want Star Trek to be unable to make money in the movie theater?!?

 

[RyuRoots]

Star Trek III already happened and they made 3 more movies with the same cast/crew after it. =P

As far as Star Trek XIII, I dunno what I'd want. Really, I'd like to see it try to return to TV and maybe do something interesting again. I don't know what, but I wouldn't want another TOS/TNG/VOY kind of show. But Star Trek has a rich universe to explore regardless of which timeline we're talking about and I think there's no point in rebooting it so soon.

 

[Lance]

Hollywood seems to be rebooting or making spin offs of all their money making franchise. star wars, harry potter, batman, spiderman you name it. After star trek 3 in 2016 would you like to see the series rebooted immediately in the space of like 3-5 years?


I am mixed on this. I actually love this new cast and if TOS trek is rebooted again , it may be hard to accept the new actors playing this role over again so soon.

In a way, I feel it is coming, when star trek 3 is done. Paramount will reboot this series all over again. a new set of actors will play kirk, spock, mccoy, uhura, sulu and the rest of the characters.

only thing is most reboot to me in my personal opinion has been kind of medicore. amazing spiderman and superman: man of steel are great examples.

I might cringe a little bit if paramount makes new star trek films before the year 2020 based on the TOS Characters.

It is safe to say most fans may choose a brand new tv show in comparison to a new film trilogy based on TOS.

Something I will agree on is that Hollywood is now very comfortable with rebooting core franchises these days. They sure don't baulk at the thought like they might once have done, at restarting something so fundamentally from scratch with a whole new cast and base level changes to the leads. And as such, I think that having finally broken that barrier and seen their "soft reboot" of Star Trek in 2009 be such a relative success, I definitely don't think Paramount will have nearly as many qualms about doing a more extensive "hard reboot" on the franchise in the years going ahead (and indeed, probably a lot sooner than most of us suspect). I think they were still somewhat hesitant not to break the bond with Old Trek with the 2009 reboot, hence all the 'parallel universe' malarkey, just in case it all went balls up. But I do think they'll definitely have the confidence to go even further in rebooting the franchise next time.

 

[Timewalker]

Don't get me wrong, I think Abrams films do a good job with the social commentary.

What social commentary?

 

[SPCTRE]

Don't get me wrong, I think Abrams films do a good job with the social commentary.

What social commentary?

STID was pretty overt with its drone warfare (long-range torpedo) and targeted killing of a terrorist.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Don't get me wrong, I think Abrams films do a good job with the social commentary.

What social commentary?

STID was pretty overt with its drone warfare (long-range torpedo) and targeted killing of a terrorist.

Yup.

 

[dub]

After Star Trek 3 would you want an immediate reboot?

Yes, followed by the blue screen of death.

So, you're saying that you want Star Trek to be unable to make money in the movie theater?!?

Just a little joke! Seriously though, I'm not crazy about the idea of constant reboots in the Star Trek franchise. I'm not saying Trek is too good for reboots or is in some separate "elite" category as far as franchises go, but to me it just doesn't feel right to reboot based on the way the franchise has evolved over the decades. Something doesn't feel quite right about it. But hey, I enjoyed 2009 and some of STID. And I'm just one person. We'll get what we get. If it's good it's good, if it's not we have lots of other Trek material to read and/or rewatch as others have already said.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Star Trek: The Musical.

Totally serious.

 

[SPCTRE]

Star Trek: The Middle School Musical

 

[drt]

Seriously though, I'm not crazy about the idea of constant reboots in the Star Trek franchise.

*shrug*

It is arguable that it has been softly rebooted several times, starting with TMP, then again for TWOK, TNG, etc.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Seriously though, I'm not crazy about the idea of constant reboots in the Star Trek franchise.

*shrug*

It is arguable that it has been softly rebooted several times, starting with TMP, then again for TWOK, TNG, etc.

Quite so, though the soft reboots began with "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and "The Corbomite Maneuver". In other words, there were as many soft reboots as there could be in the first three episodes made.

 

[Wadjda]

What social commentary?

STID was pretty overt with its drone warfare (long-range torpedo) and targeted killing of a terrorist.

Yup.

Compared to a lot of the over the top preachiness of TNG they did great.

 

[Lance]

Seriously though, I'm not crazy about the idea of constant reboots in the Star Trek franchise.

*shrug*

It is arguable that it has been softly rebooted several times, starting with TMP, then again for TWOK, TNG, etc.

Quite so, though the soft reboots began with "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and "The Corbomite Maneuver". In other words, there were as many soft reboots as there could be in the first three episodes made.

Well, there's reboots, and then there's Reboots.

I'm not sure if I can classify any of the spin-offs/sequels as reboots. They're not exactly recasting the original lead roles and retelling Star Trek from scratch. Yes, the premises were altered/retconned where appropriate, but I think it would be a stretch to call them reboots. The sheer fact that they take place a century later just makes them new branches on the established tree, not reboots of the original seedling.

The same is true of 'Where No Man...' and 'Corbomite'. If Leonard McCoy had been called Dr. Piper and been a straight recast of the role previously played by Paul Fix, or if Grace Lee Whitney was playing somebody named Yeoman Smith rather than Yeoman Rand, then yes there would be some grounding in calling it out on those things. But Gene Roddenberry was very careful to rename his protagonists with each new addition to the cast. I mean, Kirk is essentially a reworking of Pike in many ways, but they aren't just the exact same guy being played by a new actor. They're established as being different people.

Alternate timeline or no, Chris Pine is playing Captain James Tiberius Kirk, a very famous, specific role that is synonymous with another actor. That's what makes it a reboot and something like TNG or 'WNMHGB' not.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

*shrug*

It is arguable that it has been softly rebooted several times, starting with TMP, then again for TWOK, TNG, etc.

Quite so, though the soft reboots began with "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and "The Corbomite Maneuver". In other words, there were as many soft reboots as there could be in the first three episodes made.

Well, there's reboots, and then there's Reboots.

I'm not sure if I can classify any of the spin-offs/sequels as reboots. They're not exactly recasting the original lead roles and retelling Star Trek from scratch. Yes, the premises were altered/retconned where appropriate, but I think it would be a stretch to call them reboots. The sheer fact that they take place a century later just makes them new branches on the established tree, not reboots of the original seedling.

The same is true of 'Where No Man...' and 'Corbomite'. If Leonard McCoy had been called Dr. Piper and been a straight recast of the role previously played by Paul Fix, or if Grace Lee Whitney was playing somebody named Yeoman Smith rather than Yeoman Rand, then yes there would be some grounding in calling it on the changes. But Roddenberry was careful to rename his protagonists with each new addition. Kirk is essentially a reworking of Pike in many ways, but they aren't just the exact same guy being played by a new actor. They're established as being different people.

Alternate timeline or no, Chris Pine is playing Captain James Tiberius Kirk, a very famous, specific role that is synonymous with another actor. That what makes it a reboot and something like TNG or 'WNMHGB' not.

The operative word here is soft reboot. Neither drt nor I were talking about reboots without that qualification. I certainly don't think all spin-offs qualify as even soft reboots, but I agree that TNG certainly does.

 

[Lance]

^ I guess we just have a different definition of the term 'soft reboot'.

I see the 2009 movie as a soft reboot, because it explicitly changes things we know from established Trek mythology, recasts the famous roles and even overwrites certain things, which makes it a reboot..... but it does so under this umbrella of actually showing how those changes were affected in relation to the original universe, in terms of Nero's (and Spock Prime's) involvement. Hence, 'soft' reboot.

I'd tend to think of a straight reboot (or 'hard reboot') as being something that does all of these things without drawing any direct relation to what went before or offering a tangential link to the past. So if the 2009 movie had been exactly the same, but hadn't featured Spock Prime and the backstory of Nero coming through time and altering the past, then it would have been a 'hard reboot'. Kind of like the way a superhero movie reboot might retell the origin story all over again, with no direct continuity link to any past interpretation of that story.

'Superman Returns' is a soft reboot, in that it retcons events of the Christopher Reeve films significantly while still pretending to be a sorta-kinda continuation of them; whilst 'Man Of Steel' is a hard reboot because it retells everything, with no regard or pretence towards what the Reeve movies did at all.

TNG, or the TOS pilots vs the series, are not what I'd call reboots, because none of them explicitly overwrite past events. They might ignore some past events, they might replace certain characters with brand new ones (not recasts of established characters, but brand new characters with new names and new backstories). But they maintain a continuity. They're a future interpretation of the same broad essay. Even the 2009 movie does this to some degree, which is why it's only a 'soft reboot' in the aspects directly pertaining to the recasting/reinterpretation of previously existing concepts and characters.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

But they maintain a continuity.

Not really. They maintain a pretense of continuity, but there are plenty of details that don't perfectly mesh.

In "The Cage", they refer to FTL speeds as "time warp factors", thereafter it's just "warp factor". They use hand lasers, thereafter they use phasers. Not even ENT returned to the hand lasers.

In WNMHGB Kirk's middle initial is R., thereafter it's T. Spock had a human ancestor, thereafter it was his mother (you don't refer to your own mother as an ancestor). Spock displays emotion and shouts, thereafter he's a different character. Replacing almost the entire crew from what they were in the first pilot is another example of softly rebooting.

& c.