After Star Trek 3 would you want an immediate reboot?

[dub]

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.

Wow! Finally, somebody else gets it! You made my day!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Here's a definition of "soft reboot" from an io9 article that might better explain what I'm talking about. I won't speak for what drt means, except to say that his remarks at least so far agree with what I had in mind.

But what about "soft reboots" — movies or shows that take place in the original universe, but strategically ignore or downplay previous stories to push the franchise in a different direction without radically violating "established" continuity? The reboots can do this in a number of ways — by altering the style, introducing new major characters, or introducing new concepts to the core mythology that subtly — or radically — alter what the franchise is supposed to be about.

The article goes on to cite TWOK as an example.

 

[Newspaper Taxi]

Think carefully before you answer this question, as another reboot series would mean the possibility of another Khan movie.

 

[wulfio]

Think carefully before you answer this question, as another reboot series would mean the possibility of another Khan movie.

and more TOS homages to be like "hey I'm star trek".

 

[fireproof78]

Think carefully before you answer this question, as another reboot series would mean the possibility of another Khan movie.

And I would be ok with that.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

After the Abramsverse finishes after the 4th or 5th movie I'd bet that whoever comes in next will do a hard reboot and we'll see some gender and race changes for some of the characters.

 

[Wadjda]

Think carefully before you answer this question, as another reboot series would mean the possibility of another Khan movie.

And I would be ok with that.

Come, not even DC reboots it's universe at this rate.

 

[drt]

Here's a definition of "soft reboot" from an io9 article that might better explain what I'm talking about. I won't speak for what drt means, except to say that his remarks at least so far agree with what I had in mind.

But what about "soft reboots" — movies or shows that take place in the original universe, but strategically ignore or downplay previous stories to push the franchise in a different direction without radically violating "established" continuity? The reboots can do this in a number of ways — by altering the style, introducing new major characters, or introducing new concepts to the core mythology that subtly — or radically — alter what the franchise is supposed to be about.

The article goes on to cite TWOK as an example.

Nope, we're on the same page.

To continue with TWOK, my bet is if they had an unlimited budget, ILM would have built an entirely new Enterprise model (as they reportedly hated the exisiting one), which would have made the rebootieness a bit more obvious, since I doubt Meyer or Bennett really cared if it matched the TMP model or not. Same with going beyond a simple redressing of the sets, as they probably could have even better illustrated Meyer's "Age of Sail" Starfleet.

 

[Ithekro]

It is odd that, if they hated the model so much, and blew up the ship in Star Trek III, they didn't replace it with the ILM built Excelsior.

 

[fireproof78]

Think carefully before you answer this question, as another reboot series would mean the possibility of another Khan movie.

And I would be ok with that.

Come, not even DC reboots it's universe at this rate.

I am open to the possibility of another Khan storyline because there is a lot that could be done with that character or that type of character.

Also, as has been discussed earlier, there is difference between soft and hard reboots. I personally would not mind a harder reboot, separate from current continuity.

Regardless, I think the concept of Augmented Humans, such as Khan, could be explored more beyond the plots of TWOK or ID.

 

[Wadjda]

Maybe they should do a comic that you will really like about Khan, but 2 reboots for a franchise with as much history as Trek sounds like asking for a huge financial loss.

Fans of the old universe are relatively well of because they still get catered to with the books.

 

[fireproof78]

Maybe they should do a comic that you will really like about Khan, but 2 reboots for a franchise with as much history as Trek sounds like asking for a huge financial loss.

Fans of the old universe are relatively well of because they still get catered to with the books.

Well, what would you like to see?

This may sound like a double standard, but I would prefer they stay in Abrams verse for a while but, unless Trek 13 blows the doors off, I don't see it happening. The fan opinion is too mixed that a reboot seems inevitable. Also, there have been few Abrams' books, to my disappointment.

So, I am optimistic for a reboot because there is potential there that I can see being done and done well. Yes, even with Khan, or Augmented humans, or a story about the dangers on genetic engineering. All are potential lead-offs from Khan's story. It doesn't have to be about revenge.

 

[xavier]

Maybe they should do a comic that you will really like about Khan, but 2 reboots for a franchise with as much history as Trek sounds like asking for a huge financial loss.

Fans of the old universe are relatively well of because they still get catered to with the books.

Well, what would you like to see?

This may sound like a double standard, but I would prefer they stay in Abrams verse for a while but, unless Trek 13 blows the doors off, I don't see it happening. The fan opinion is too mixed that a reboot seems inevitable. Also, there have been few Abrams' books, to my disappointment.

So, I am optimistic for a reboot because there is potential there that I can see being done and done well. Yes, even with Khan, or Augmented humans, or a story about the dangers on genetic engineering. All are potential lead-offs from Khan's story. It doesn't have to be about revenge.

I agree as well. I do not understand why there are no Abrams universe novels. I enjoy the ongoing comics every now and then but I would like to read some trek novels and imagine chris pine, zoe saldana , alice eve, karl urban and zachary quinto in my head when I read. tos novels are great but I would not mind a brand new imagination in my head for the characters.

It will also help cement the Abrams universe is also taken seriously and it is not just a cash cow for trek because the actors are really pretty. I hope JJ Abrams universe will start geting the same treatment as TOS. To me, it as earned it and novels will be a good start.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Maybe they should do a comic that you will really like about Khan, but 2 reboots for a franchise with as much history as Trek sounds like asking for a huge financial loss.

Fans of the old universe are relatively well of because they still get catered to with the books.

Well, what would you like to see?

This may sound like a double standard, but I would prefer they stay in Abrams verse for a while but, unless Trek 13 blows the doors off, I don't see it happening. The fan opinion is too mixed that a reboot seems inevitable. Also, there have been few Abrams' books, to my disappointment.

So, I am optimistic for a reboot because there is potential there that I can see being done and done well. Yes, even with Khan, or Augmented humans, or a story about the dangers on genetic engineering. All are potential lead-offs from Khan's story. It doesn't have to be about revenge.

I agree as well. I do not understand why there are no Abrams universe novels. I enjoy the ongoing comics every now and then but I would like to read some trek novels and imagine chris pine, zoe saldana , alice eve, karl urban and zachary quinto in my head when I read. tos novels are great but I would not mind a brand not imagination in my head for the characters.

It will also help cement that the Abrams universe is also taken seriously and it is not just a cash cow for trek because the actors are really pretty. I hope JJ Abrams universe will start geting the same treatment as TOS. To me, it as earned it and novels will be a good start.

From comments at the recent Shore Leave convention, it would appear that it's just a licensing issue preventing JJ-Trek novels from being published.

As much as I love Trek novels, they're read by approximately 2% of the TV/movie audience. And I'm sure there are comic book fans saying the exact opposite, craving classic Trek to get some comic book treatment the new movieverse is!

 

[Wadjda]

Maybe they should do a comic that you will really like about Khan, but 2 reboots for a franchise with as much history as Trek sounds like asking for a huge financial loss.

Fans of the old universe are relatively well of because they still get catered to with the books.

Well, what would you like to see?

This may sound like a double standard, but I would prefer they stay in Abrams verse for a while but, unless Trek 13 blows the doors off, I don't see it happening. The fan opinion is too mixed that a reboot seems inevitable. Also, there have been few Abrams' books, to my disappointment.

So, I am optimistic for a reboot because there is potential there that I can see being done and done well. Yes, even with Khan, or Augmented humans, or a story about the dangers on genetic engineering. All are potential lead-offs from Khan's story. It doesn't have to be about revenge.

Fan opinion is mixed about the JJverse based on what evidence? We have no idea what the majority thinks. i don't talk about my every hobby on message boards.

 

[urbandefault]

It is odd that, if they hated the model so much, and blew up the ship in Star Trek III, they didn't replace it with the ILM built Excelsior.

I'm glad they didn't. That model, in its TMP colors, was and still is the most beautiful ship in the franchise.

Too bad ILM couldn't make the original paint job work. It was still a great design after the repaint, but I think it looked much better before.

 

[fireproof78]

Maybe they should do a comic that you will really like about Khan, but 2 reboots for a franchise with as much history as Trek sounds like asking for a huge financial loss.

Fans of the old universe are relatively well of because they still get catered to with the books.

Well, what would you like to see?

This may sound like a double standard, but I would prefer they stay in Abrams verse for a while but, unless Trek 13 blows the doors off, I don't see it happening. The fan opinion is too mixed that a reboot seems inevitable. Also, there have been few Abrams' books, to my disappointment.

So, I am optimistic for a reboot because there is potential there that I can see being done and done well. Yes, even with Khan, or Augmented humans, or a story about the dangers on genetic engineering. All are potential lead-offs from Khan's story. It doesn't have to be about revenge.

Fan opinion is mixed about the JJverse based on what evidence? We have no idea what the majority thinks. i don't talk about my every hobby on message boards.

Not to drag this in to a "Into Darkness Sucks!/No it doesn't" debate, but several forum polls (not just this one, but back on the official boards), as well as a convention poll put Into Darkness reception among the community as mixed, if not lukewarm or downright hostile, depending on the community.

One story on it: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/aug/14/star-trek-into-darkness-voted-worst

Sure, every film has its detractors and I won't make any arguments against that. I happen to enjoy Abrams films but that is not true of every one. The negative reception and subsequent backlash by Lindelof has not helped matters.

Like I said, I personally like it and several people do. But, the mixed reaction and negative press has not helped matters.

 

[Devon]

Not to drag this in to a "Into Darkness Sucks!/No it doesn't" debate, but several forum polls (not just this one, but back on the official boards), as well as a convention poll put Into Darkness reception among the community as mixed, if not lukewarm or downright hostile, depending on the community.

One story on it: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/aug/14/star-trek-into-darkness-voted-worst

Sure, every film has its detractors and I won't make any arguments against that. I happen to enjoy Abrams films but that is not true of every one. The negative reception and subsequent backlash by Lindelof has not helped matters.

Like I said, I personally like it and several people do. But, the mixed reaction and negative press has not helped matters.

No. I think we've talked about this with you before. If it's mixed.. then its 2 parts against it... 8 parts for it?

IMDB - 7.9/10 user rating
Amazon.com - 4.3/5 user rating
Rotten Tomatoes - 87% Fresh Rating - 93% User Rating (304,475 Rating)
Fandango - 5/5 user rating

Devin Fararci supposedly measuring applause from a room of 100 convention goers is not something I would hang my hat on to.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

^ This a thousand times.

Star Trek is enjoying a cultural and financial popularity it hasn't seen in quite some time or before the JJ reboot. Star Trek is a mega success again, and for some reason that is a problem for some fans?

 

[xavier]

Not to drag this in to a "Into Darkness Sucks!/No it doesn't" debate, but several forum polls (not just this one, but back on the official boards), as well as a convention poll put Into Darkness reception among the community as mixed, if not lukewarm or downright hostile, depending on the community.

One story on it: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/aug/14/star-trek-into-darkness-voted-worst

Sure, every film has its detractors and I won't make any arguments against that. I happen to enjoy Abrams films but that is not true of every one. The negative reception and subsequent backlash by Lindelof has not helped matters.

Like I said, I personally like it and several people do. But, the mixed reaction and negative press has not helped matters.

No. I think we've talked about this with you before. If it's mixed.. then its 2 parts against it... 8 parts for it?

IMDB - 7.9/10 user rating
Amazon.com - 4.3/5 user rating
Rotten Tomatoes - 87% Fresh Rating - 93% User Rating (304,475 Rating)
Fandango - 5/5 user rating

Devin Fararci supposedly measuring applause from a room of 100 convention goers is not something I would hang my hat on to.

ratings are in inconsistent and there are a lot of factors that can help ratings. I personally believe that the reason why the ratings are so high is because of JJ Abrams masterful directing.

I find the script of this film quite lacking. if any director directed this film woth the same script. the ratings will not be that high. the script of Into darkness , I find very shallow, forced,unoriginal, mashed up and lazy but Abrams makes up for it as a director.