Bryan Fuller showrunner for new trek...consequences?

[jaime]

But I think you can have that same sort of cross-generational connection without having to literally adhere to the continuity of days gone by. It was my dad who introduced me to Tarzan, Godzilla, and the old Universal monster movies, but we enjoyed any number of the various remakes and reboots together, including, say, the various Hammer Film reboots of the classic monsters.

In other words, my Dad grew up on Bela Lugosi, but that didn't stop him from enjoying Christopher Lee or Frank Langella with me. And, if I can get personal for a moment, he was thrilled whenever I wrote Superman or The Green Hornet or Godzilla or whomever, even if they weren't necessarily in the same continuity as the movies or radio shows of his generation.

You can get the same experience without clinging religiously to the "canon" of previous eras.

The closest any of those get to having the sheer mass of relatively in continuity stuff to trek is superman. And only for the first x years of continuity. All the others are different media adaptations and already reboots when you came to them.

Trek was 30 plus years across a thousand hours. Again. Trek is unique.

 

[Greg Cox]

Ironically it's fans of that era whose primary entry point into fandom is the one usually 'at risk', and sometimes it seems the biggest pro reboot arguments, are an echo from the days of anything post Tos just not counting. That's just based on my experience though, limited as it may be.

Backtracking a bit . . . that's not my experience. I do lots of public appearances promoting my books (schools, libraries, book signings) and, prior to the reboot, there was a perception out there among the general public that Trek was for Trekkies only.

"Oh, STAR TREK always seemed too complicated for me."

"Oh, I'm sure I don't know about enough about STAR TREK to understand your book, but I have a nephew who knows ALL about it. I'm sure he would love to read it."

Etc.

Heck, look at most of the mainstream newspaper reviews for NEMESIS when it first came out. As I recall, they're were mostly along the lines of "Well, I suppose hardcore Trekkies will like it . . . ."

(As it turned out, even that was overly optimistic . . . )

"30-plus years over a thousand hours" is a double-edged sword at best, and not necessarily a selling point to the general audience.

 

[Idran]

The closest any of those get to having the sheer mass of relatively in continuity stuff to trek is superman. And only for the first x years of continuity. All the others are different media adaptations and already reboots when you came to them.

His point, though, is that he had exactly the same experience with his dad over those franchises that you describe having with your dad in Star Trek. That his cross-generational connection was not less than yours, and that continuity isn't necessary to have that connection nor does not having it make the connection weaker.

I'm not even sure why you think having a reboot inevitably leads to arguments about quality? That most certainly isn't inevitable, you can just...not argue.

 

[jaime]

His point, though, is that he had exactly the same experience with his dad over those franchises that you describe having with your dad in Star Trek. That his cross-generational connection was not less than yours, and that continuity isn't necessary to have that connection nor does not having it make the connection weaker.

I'm not even sure why you think having a reboot inevitably leads to arguments about quality? That most certainly isn't inevitable, you can just...not argue.

Oh I am not devaluing the connection, just saying it is different. And part of what I value about my connection is exactly that thing that is different...the continuity. Not a valuation.

And literally all that a reboot can bring is a discussion of differences, argument or not, which for me, is not the same as the discussions I personally value around trek.
I spend every other week explaining why new thunderbirds is just as good as the originals to my dad, basically on behalf of my little ones tastes. Grandad will not hear it however.
So again, yes, personal, anecdotal, not of greater value, but it is part of why I hold my opinions.
I do not see the need to take away something unique on a gamble. Even the 2009 reboot hedges it's bets with Nimoy and the countdown comic.

 

[Greg Cox]

But comparing and contrasting different versions can be fun and entertaining, as long as you don't fall into the trap of insisting that "your" version is the only definitive one or that it's necessary to choose one over another.

I prefer to treat reboots the same way I'd treat a new production of "Hamlet" or "Carmen"--as an intriguing new take on an old property that will be fun to compare to all the other versions I've seen.

 

[Christopher]

But comparing and contrasting different versions can be fun and entertaining, as long as you don't fall into the trap of insisting that "your" version is the only definitive one or that it's necessary to choose one over another.

Yes. It's paradoxical that a franchise built on the principle of "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations" has been so monolithic for so long. Maybe that's because it's treated all the different series and movies and interpretations as parts of the same big melting pot -- but when it leads fans to think in terms of building exclusionistic walls and saying that difference and novelty are things to be condemned, then it's gone wrong.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yes. It's paradoxical that a franchise built on the principle of "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations" has been so monolithic for so long. Maybe that's because it's treated all the different series and movies and interpretations as parts of the same big melting pot -- but when it leads fans to think in terms of building exclusionistic walls and saying that difference and novelty are things to be condemned, then it's gone wrong.

To be fair, it's not just Star Trek fandom that insists that there can be only one definitive version of any given property and that any new version has to respect the previous continuity or the audience will rise up in revolt. Look at the initial response to the BSG remake, the new GHOSTBUSTERS, etc.

And yet Hollywood has been in the reboot business since the silent era. You'd think people would be used to the idea by now, regardless if you're talking SINBAD or STAR TREK . . ..

Somebody once wrote that half the arguments on the internet come down to "my nostalgia trumps your nostalgia" and, boy, does it sometimes seem that way.

 

[jaime]

Yes. It's paradoxical that a franchise built on the principle of "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations" has been so monolithic for so long. Maybe that's because it's treated all the different series and movies and interpretations as parts of the same big melting pot -- but when it leads fans to think in terms of building exclusionistic walls and saying that difference and novelty are things to be condemned, then it's gone wrong.

Triggers Broom syndrome.
At which point, having changed things so much, is still referring to it as the original stupidly inaccurate?

Idic is sonething from trek, and to extant applied in trek, but not everywhere, and really doesn't apply in this case...not least as it runs into the brick wall here. If Idic applies to the idea I must accept the opinion that a reboot is a positive, then the logic of applying Idic also means that you must accept that it is not, since these two options cancel each other out, than can exist only as opinions, they can never be verifiable as 'right' opinions or objectively true because they are opinions, formed because of differing reactions and experiences.
Idic also doesn't work very well in warp reactors. Or too well, since the combination of matter and antimatter go boom.

My point is probably closer to Idic anyway...as it is suggesting you can have those new things and novelty, without throwing out those other things that also have value to people (the continuity)
Since a reboot by its nature devalues the original in the eyes of no matter how small a group, or from a certain point of view, destroys it, then the diversity is not there.
Basically...whilst a great ideal, Idic is just that, an ideal, when applied to certain scenarios. This would be one of them. The only way to balance it is to be something entirely new, whilst still star trek, without tossing out the old continuity. Which has been done repeatedly for about 40 years, and as I said, even 2009 hedged it's bets.

 

[jaime]

To be fair, it's not just Star Trek fandom that insists that there can be only one definitive version of any given property and that any new version has to respect the previous continuity or the audience will rise up in revolt. Look at the initial response to the BSG remake, the new GHOSTBUSTERS, etc.

And yet Hollywood has been in the reboot business since the silent era. You'd think people would be used to the idea by now, regardless if you're talking SINBAD or STAR TREK . . ..

Somebody once wrote that half the arguments on the internet come down to "my nostalgia trumps your nostalgia" and, boy, does it sometimes seem that way.

As a big ghostbusters fan when I was little, I am waiting to fully develop my opinion. It's looking like a lazy gender flop from the stills though, so I don't hold out much hope. But again...it doesn't have the sheer mass star trek does.
I liked 'the heat' but that plays with a genre rather than one specific film.

 

[Greg Cox]

I don't think a reboot or remake necessarily devalues the original. You can like and enjoy both versions of TRUE GRIT, for example. And I still enjoy reading old Silver Age comics even if they don't necessarily fit into whatever the current DC continuity is.

I guess it comes down to whether you think that preserving a solid block of continuity is a virtue in its own right, or just a means to an end. If the latter, then it's just a matter of weighing the pros and cons and deciding at what point preserving "the canon" becomes more trouble than it's worth. Which is a judgment call every franchise has to make occasionally, particularly if it wants to remain accessible to newcomers.

Like I said before, continuity can be a double-edged sword. And, ultimately, pragmatism trumps purism.

 

[Idran]

And, ultimately, pragmatism trumps purism.

Ehh...I wouldn't go so far as to say that as a generalization. I mean, saying that as a truism runs in direct contradiction to what you just said in jthe paragraph just before that, that it comes down to what you think as a creator of the worth of preserving a solid block of continuity and it comes down to how much you value accessibility. If a creator doesn't care much about accessibility and do see continuity as an end in and of itself, then to them purism would trump pragmatism. And it's a perfectly valid choice for a creator to make, it's just one that doesn't work for the goals that most people involved with wide franchises hold.

 

[Greg Cox]

Ehh...I wouldn't go so far as to say that as a generalization. I mean, saying that as a truism runs in direct contradiction to what you just said, that it comes down to what you think as a creator of the worth of preserving a solid block of continuity and it comes down to how much you value accessibility. If you as a creator don't care much about accessibility and enjoy continuity, then to you purism would trump pragmatism. And it's a perfectly valid choice for a creator to make, it's just one that doesn't work for the goals that most people involved with wide franchises hold.

Well, maybe I was being overly glib there. What I meant was that the pragmatic choice would be to value accessibility over purism. And, as you noted, practical makes more business sense when you're managing a multi-million dollar franchise.

 

[Idran]

Well, maybe I was being overly glib there. What I meant was that the pragmatic choice would be to value accessibility over purism. And, as you noted, practical makes more business sense when you're managing a multi-million dollar franchise.

Fair enough!

 

[Greg Cox]

And from a more creative perspective, I doubt if rebooting timeline is really all that much of a deal-breaker for most viewers.

I mean, I doubt if many moviegoers are going to boycott BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN just because it's not set in the same continuity as GOTHAM . . . or the Christian Bale movies . . . or the Burton/Schumacher movies . . . or the Adam West series . . . .

These days, I suspect that even the most casual viewer gets how reboots work.

 

[Christopher]

To be fair, it's not just Star Trek fandom that insists that there can be only one definitive version of any given property and that any new version has to respect the previous continuity or the audience will rise up in revolt. Look at the initial response to the BSG remake, the new GHOSTBUSTERS, etc.

Yeah, but usually those are franchises that don't have a fraction as much content as Trek does. Remember, there were people back in the '70s and '80s who reacted that same way to the animated series and the movies and TNG. Every new incarnation of a franchise, whether it's in a new continuity or not, will inevitably be denounced and rejected by some people. (I used to post on a local BBS back when those were still a thing, and there was one poster there who was so incredibly, vehemently, fanatically hateful toward the 1996 Doctor Who TV movie that when the board finally closed down -- something like 2-3 years after the movie had come and gone -- he came online in its final hours just to denounce the movie one last time.)

I'm not surprised that such purists exist in fandom. It's been a sad, tedious reality for a long time. I'm just saying I reject their assumption that all Trek fans would be as closed-minded as they are -- let alone the assertion that Trek fans, of all people, should be more intolerant of diversity than other fans.

I don't think a reboot or remake necessarily devalues the original. You can like and enjoy both versions of TRUE GRIT, for example. And I still enjoy reading old Silver Age comics even if they don't necessarily fit into whatever the current DC continuity is.

I guess it comes down to whether you think that preserving a solid block of continuity is a virtue in its own right, or just a means to an end.

What I don't get is the assumption that it has to be a zero-sum choice. A new version of a continuity won't destroy the old one. The original work will still exist. There will just be something else added alongside it.

I mean, heck, every reader of my work knows that I love making use of the intricacies of established Trek continuity. But I also quite enjoyed the opportunity to write my (cancelled) Abramsverse novel and explore an alternative version of the universe. They were both satisfying creative exercises in their own ways. And by the same token, they can both be satisfying to viewers and readers in their own ways. They complement each other rather than conflicting.

 

[DimesDan]

Well I'm just going to wait and see what happens, fuck, it's been what three days since this news was broken and nothing is really known but there does seem to be a lot of noise over it.

 

[Greg Cox]

What I don't get is the assumption that it has to be a zero-sum choice. A new version of a continuity won't destroy the old one. The original work will still exist. There will just be something else added alongside it..

Exactly. There often seems to be this weird idea that a new version will somehow "replace" or "ruin" the previous version, which isn't really the case.

Hitchcock's PSYCHO is not going away or being ruined in any way just because we had a bad remake a few years ago. Nor is BATES MOTEL (which I'm liking so far) going to stop people from enjoying the Hitchcock movie--or the original novel--for years to come.

And as for GHOSTBUSTERS . . . I like to point out that the original movie was more than thirty years ago. To put that in perspective, that's the same amount of time between the 1950s and the 1980s versions of THE THING, or of THE FLY. We're not even talking the same audience even more. And does anybody really think that the Cronenberg FLY should have picked up where the previous FLY movies left off three decades earlier? .

Rule of thumb: if you fondly remember the previous version of something, you are probably not the target demographic for the reboot. And, no, that's not a "slap in the face" to us old-school fans. That's just reality.

 

[Christopher]

Rule of thumb: if you fondly remember the previous version of something, you are probably not the target demographic for the reboot. And, no, that's not a "slap in the face" to us old-school fans. That's just reality.

The idea of "I am being deprived if other people are allowed to have something of their own" is the worst kind of entitlement and egocentrism.

 

[TheAlmanac]

I do lots of public appearances promoting my books (schools, libraries, book signings) and, prior to the reboot, there was a perception out there among the general public that Trek was for Trekkies only.

"Oh, STAR TREK always seemed too complicated for me."

"Oh, I'm sure I don't know about enough about STAR TREK to understand your book, but I have a nephew who knows ALL about it. I'm sure he would love to read it."

Etc.

The market seems to have changed significantly in the past few years, however, as franchises are increasingly favouring continuations over reboots. Having continuity that's "too complicated" and "not accessible" didn't stop Heroes or The X-Files from coming back as continuations in their original continuity, for instance.

I've started to think that this is because TPTB are discovering that reboots use up a lot of creative energy that isn't necessary (from a business perspective) in order for the franchise to work (i.e. make money). I mean, what's the best-case scenario for a reboot? Audiences like it enough that they want...a continuation. The worst-case scenario is that you get something like Jem and the Holograms--a product that misses what was appealing about the original in the first place.

 

[Christopher]

The market seems to have changed significantly in the past few years, however, as franchises are increasingly favouring continuations over reboots. Having continuity that's "too complicated" and "not accessible" didn't stop Heroes or The X-Files from coming back as continuations in their original continuity, for instance.

It's not a war. There have always been both. There will always be both. It's artificial to cast it as a competition. A difference does not require a winner and a loser.