Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
The distinction between a reboot and a remake is fuzzy at best; I can't help but think you are drawing arbitrary lines.
As Trelane never introduced an enemy from Doctor Who to captain Kirk, it's safe to say that Q-who is not a reboot or remake or borrowed concept from the original series, no matter the providence of the borg concept.
You have spectacularly missed the point of my remark there -- which was that "Q Who?" was just as derivative of earlier works as "The Naked Now." And "Q Who?" did not have the excuse of being only the very second episode.
In terms of the Star Wars novels, I never expected them to be accepted as 'canon' by the new movies, regardless of the old Lucas approach, I also did not expect them to be raided while the grave earth was still loose
the idea of Han and Leia's son falling to the Dark Side
came from, if it originated from the books or if Abrams and company arrived at that idea independently. But even if it did come from the novels -- so what? It was well-executed.
Into Darkness was an interesting film right up until Nimoy showed up (God rest his soul) but after that it does what I describe, depending on a another source entirely for its emotional weight and a large chunk of dialogue.
Not particularly. The threat posed by Khan was made pretty clear when he single-handedly beat up a squadron of Klingons. Nimoy is there to ratchet up the tension just a bit more. Most of the dramatic weight of the final act comes from thinly-veiled visual allusions to the 9/11 attacks. Again, there is only one scene that can reasonably said to derive from an earlier film; it has merely eclipsed the rest of the film in people's memories.
Which is a shame, because for a moment there, I thought it was going to live up to its promise. There is a character on screen basically saying 'yeah, it's a whole new universe and everything will unfold differently....except him. No matter what has changed he's going to be a villain.
It was coming out and the writing was on the wall that it would be a success.
and X Men films did a fairly decent film lately where they changed the timeline, not to mention it's one character who was a part of an earlier film. I don't think it's a reboot any more than the changes to different versions of the White Queen or Cyclops are in those films. Besides which....they are adaptations once again.
I'm not sure you wanna be comparing yourself to the Talosians.
The distinction between a reboot and a remake is fuzzy at best; I can't help but think you are drawing arbitrary lines.
You have spectacularly missed the point of my remark there -- which was that "Q Who?" was just as derivative of earlier works as "The Naked Now." And "Q Who?" did not have the excuse of being only the very second episode.
You know, I don't know where
the idea of Han and Leia's son falling to the Dark Side
came from, if it originated from the books or if Abrams and company arrived at that idea independently. But even if it did come from the novels -- so what? It was well-executed.
You're missing out on an excellent movie.
Not particularly. The threat posed by Khan was made pretty clear when he single-handedly beat up a squadron of Klingons. Nimoy is there to ratchet up the tension just a bit more. Most of the dramatic weight of the final act comes from thinly-veiled visual allusions to the 9/11 attacks. Again, there is only one scene that can reasonably said to derive from an earlier film; it has merely eclipsed the rest of the film in people's memories.
Well of course Khan will be a villain no matter what timeline he's in. He's TOS's version of Lex Luthor or the Joker.
It was coming out and the writing was on the wall that it would be a success.
You start out by referencing Talosians and I was referencing the Bajoran Prophets. It's downhill from there.
There's nothing arbitrary about the distinction between a remake and a reboot. Reboots can only apply to series of a thing. Remakes are of an individual text. Though Galactica could be argued as either by the time it was finished, and due to some of its themes and events could even be argued as a continuation (though that's less obvious.)
Body Snatchers has several versions, each being remake. There was only ever one story, being told in slightly different ways with each generational copy. I don't think even characters were copied, just concepts. A more stringent remake would be something like Psycho, however, since the original ended up as a franchise, it's possible it could have become a reboot.
There's a difference that's obvious.
You might have heard every last thing n about Deadpool, I hadn't, I had barely noticed it. But then, I was never a fan of the character even when I was a die hard x men fan and comics reader. Either way, it's an adaptation, and the days of future past film happened, so it's not a reboot either. For certain.
The spoiler you mention is indeed lifted wholesale from the books. In fact the reason I mention the name (and being aware I have not seen the film, it is possible I may be mistaken as to his actual name) is because they rather literally nameswapped that character with his cousin. There are other bits of the film that seem heavily influenced by the books, but then we have been here before when Trek09 was influenced by reading some of novels.
It's almost a pattern. 'take over franchise/read books for ideas as film goers will likely not have read those/add shock and awe events/homage to original design or visuals'
Which, having guessed at some of the films content, having had it confirmed, and learning other things since its release mean....no. I am not missing out on an objectively excellent film, and it's unlikely to be one I enjoy when I eventually do see it. I am old fashioned enough that I like happy endings not to be unravelled for the sake of new toys, and think there are better ways. Not least as we are talking basic 'heroes journey's stuff here.
I think the antagonism here becomes almost political. Communist year zero 'constant revolution' stuff at one extreme, and extreme small c conservatism at the other, with both sides professing superiority when at the extreme.
Human nature eh.
Oh...there are some reboots I prefer to the original. But it's rare. Galactica. I may have preferred the new V if it continued. But then....I am barely old enough to have firm fandom feelings to the originals
Which probably has a lot to do with it for many other people too.
Oh, and I almost forgot, Khan is absolutely not the Joker of Star trek. Not only because it's apples and oranges as far as the types of story each franchise is, but also because Khan is in precisely two stories. About 3 hours out of several hundred, plus 2 more for the reboot.
There is no Joker for star trek. Closest you will get is Q or the borg Queen, or possibly any of ds9s recurring antagonists in its last few years.
I nominate Weyoun.
He's the closest thing TOS has to the Joker. The only other recurring 'villain' was Mudd. Unlike Mudd, he has the whole 'foil of the hero,' 'outwitted the hero', and 'managed to get at least part of what he wanted' thing going on.
Oh, and Khan is in three stories. In addition, they tossed around an appearence for TNG that was rejected, and he had at least a mention in every series except TAS (duh) and VOY (which still referenced TWOK as a whole).
As for consequences...even if there was some major overhaul, how long would it usually take to implement? Not that I'm worried, just curious.
He's the closest thing TOS has to the Joker. The only other recurring 'villain' was Mudd. Unlike Mudd, he has the whole 'foil of the hero,' 'outwitted the hero', and 'managed to get at least part of what he wanted' thing going on.
Oh, and Khan is in three stories. In addition, they tossed around an appearence for TNG that was rejected, and he had at least a mention in every series except TAS (duh) and VOY (which still referenced TWOK as a whole).
What's the third?
Did kor kang or koloth make another appearance before ds9?
Khan made only one appearance in Tos, then TWOK, then the reboot as I mentioned.
The borg Queen is in what...8 episodes of voyager? One film? Is inferred to have been present by the magic of retcon in at least two tng episodes and one ds9 episode, and through the borg collective is an inferred presence in every borg episode apart from descent 1 and 2 and the episode dealing with the collective?
I still would never ever argue she is the Joker of the ST universe, because trek isn't about a hero/villain set up nor about an individual hero at all.
Khan's legendary status is fan myth build up, not an in universe occurrence. Love him or hate him, he's not the same kind of character as the Joker at all.
He's the closest thing TOS has to the Joker. The only other recurring 'villain' was Mudd. Unlike Mudd, he has the whole 'foil of the hero,' 'outwitted the hero', and 'managed to get at least part of what he wanted' thing going on.
Oh, and Khan is in three stories. In addition, they tossed around an appearence for TNG that was rejected, and he had at least a mention in every series except TAS (duh) and VOY (which still referenced TWOK as a whole).
As for consequences...even if there was some major overhaul, how long would it usually take to implement? Not that I'm worried, just curious.
Heck. While I am asking funny questions...when was this tng appearance mooted? Khan went boom in TWOK. And when did voyager reference TWOK? Augments come up in Ds9 and enterprise, but I missed anything in Voy.
No. They were all meant to be Kor at different points.
TWOK is a TOS film (at least according to my old DVD boxset.) Hence, two appearences in TOS
What's the Borg Queen got to do with TOS?
I outlined his appearences and references in the rest of the franchise. None of its made up. I also left out his EU stuff (he's been in the ongoing comics as recently as the last few months.)
A Holodeck episode involving him was apparently pitched for TNG. My memory is a bit fuzzy on the exact details, as well as how far it got in development and why it was rejected. Harvey would probably know. VOY mentioned Genesis and Carol at one point.
No. They were all meant to be Kor at different points.
TWOK is a TOS film (at least according to my old DVD boxset.) Hence, two appearences in TOS
What's the Borg Queen got to do with TOS?
I outlined his appearences and references in the rest of the franchise. None of its made up. I also left out his EU stuff (he's even been in the ongoing comics in the last few months.)
Erm. Ok.
My point (aside from why does trek need a Joker figure anyway) is that if his inclusion in the reboots is justified by him being the Joker of Star trek, or even of just Tos, why does two appearances make him that? I referenced the reboot as his third appearance when totting up his screen hours.
The borg Queen has nothing to do with TOS, but with star trek as a whole. She would be more qualified for Joker position by amount of time spent dealing with her etc. She even has a fascination with two of Treks 'hero' captains.
All the Klingons are one Klingon? Portrayed with different names and faces? Not sure about that.
If we are going to go EU the whole thing gets diffused even more. Though probably with the Borg Queen and Q coming out on top again as 'most recurring antagonist in Star trek', though Q is not by any shades a villain much of the time even on TV.
A lot of people love TWOK. A lot of people love Khan because of TWOK. The character becomes mythic in trek fandom, but fundamentally clocked up 3 hours before his inclusion in the reboot, where he apparently has to remain a moustache twirling villain despite his motivation for the first half of the film, and his status as victim of big admiral bad chops. Because no matter the universe, he is Treks Joker and has to be the villain, allegedly.
This, reboots and remakes and quality aside, makes no sense based on what I see on screen. He's not the biggest, he's not the baddest, and Kirk probably had more fights with Spock when one or the other was under some influence than anyone else in TOS.
Am not sure why Khan's lack of appearance in TAS would be any kind of duh moment either. Love it or hate it, canonised or not, TAS at the time of its production was a straight continuation of TOS. If Khan had been the fan love figure he was later then, he would have been there on screen looking like Bravestarr in pyjamas.
Khan is in fans minds as Kirk's greatest adversary, by virtue of being the baddie in Trek's most popular movie. Resurrecting Khan was as much a certainty for a Trek reboot as bringing back Klingons was.
Khan is in fans minds as Kirk's greatest adversary, by virtue of being the baddie in Trek's most popular movie. Resurrecting Khan was as much a certainty for a Trek reboot as bringing back Klingons was.
Yes. But bringing him back in the way they did, and having to be a villain in that second half of the story, is sort of against half the point of the alleged creative freedom a reboot brings.
And being a 'joker' figure off the back of only two appearances? Mythic figure, favourite villain in fandom...sure. But nothing like a Joker figure, he just doesn't have enough time or impact in the overall story. Even his killing of spock is undone.
Re. The Klingons. Originally, they wanted to get Kor back for repeat appearances in TOS. Koloth and Kang were originally written to be Kor in their respective episodes, but casting problems meant they ended up new characters.
And that's how Kor missed out on being Kirk's arch nemesis. Do Kang and Koloth even count as recurring villains when they weren't the 'bad guys' in their DS9 ep? Kang wasn't even the villain the first time around.
If you look at the Batman series as a whole, Joker (comparatively) doesn't have that many appearences. He recurs more than others, but Bat's has quiet the large Rogues gallery to cycle through. Joker's notable for his impact and relationship with Batman, rather than the sheer amount of 'screen' time he gets. For eg, The League of Shadows and Scarecrow actually had more appearences in Nolan's Batman trilogy than Joker. Yet Joker still kept his special nemesis spot.
Technically, Khan's actions lead to the death of David and the original Enterprise. Definitely the latter.
Re. The Klingons. Originally, they wanted to get Kor back for repeat appearances in TOS. Koloth and Kang were originally written to be Kor in their respective episodes, but casting problems meant they ended up new characters.
And that's how Kor missed out on being Kirk's arch nemesis. Do the latter two even count as recurring villains when they weren't the 'bad guys' in their DS9 ep?
I would go with no. No they don't.
And yeah, I recall the intent, I think even a line ends up implying Kirk's met one of the second two before because of being an overhang. But the intent and what happens are two different things in this case.
The whole nemesis thing, particularly in regards to trek is fiddly, as a nemesis requires a pretty much totally oppositional viewpoint combined with traditionally an element of being made by the hero to whom the character is a nemesis (hence the title in the tng film, though it's a bit of a fumble...and hence many of the retellings of the jokers origin making him and Batman literal nemesis of each other exemplified in Burton's adaptation.) and such characters are pretty rare in Trek. Khan is Kirk's nemesis in TWOK, to the extent that Kirk is responsible for sticking him on the planet and introducing him to his wife. But since Khan was already an enemy by virtue of trying to take the enterprise in that earlier episode, he isn't really Kirk's nemesis, just an enemy.
The Klingons have te oppositional viewpoint, but no huge personal stakes when it comes to kirk.
The only one that comes to the top of my mind for actual nemesis status is Moriarty and Data.
(for the record, I think a plain or garden antagonist can be upgraded to nemesis through events occurring that make the enmity personal, traditionally, usually through suffering at the hands of their opposition. Harry Potter is absolutely Voldemorts nemesis, but so is Neville, and Voldemorts choice made them that way, the same choice does not apply in reverse, nothing Harry or Neville did would make Voldemort their Nemesis. Unless all three are back in the stage play. Voldemorts later choices are what absolutely make Harry his Nemesis, whereas Neville is merely collateral damage. It's a clever part of that particular story, the use of that tradition.)
Re. The Klingons. Originally, they wanted to get Kor back for repeat appearances in TOS. Koloth and Kang were originally written to be Kor in their respective episodes, but casting problems meant they ended up new characters.
And that's how Kor missed out on being Kirk's arch nemesis. Do Kang and Koloth even count as recurring villains when they weren't the 'bad guys' in their DS9 ep? Kang wasn't even the villain the first time around.
If you look at the Batman series as a whole, Joker (comparatively) doesn't have that many appearences. He recurs more than others, but Bat's has quiet the large Rogues gallery to cycle through. Joker's notable for his impact and relationship with Batman, rather than the sheer amount of 'screen' time he gets. For eg, The League of Shadows and Scarecrow actually had more appearences in Nolan's Batman trilogy than Joker. Yet Joker still kept his special nemesis spot.
Technically, Khan's actions lead to the death of David and the original Enterprise. Definitely the latter.
I think Nolan's Joker keeps his Nemesis spot because he is explicitly written as being a reaction to Batman. It keeps his genesis in line with being a result of the hero's choices. The comics are an evolution that happens because of popularity leading to the outright writing of him as a Nemesis, but my familiarity with Batman comics is...sketchy and old.
Khan is not responsible for David's death or the enterprise destruction, he's just part of a chain of events. Ultimately it's David himself that is responsible for that chain of events. The Klingons would have had the same reaction to Genesis with or without Khan's involvement after all, and David's death is the narrative payment for him cheating and using protomatter and the cost to kirk for regaining spock. It's all very classical.
Again, I have no argument with Khan or TWOK, but speaking from a narrative cause and effect perspective, he isn't the big bad, and Trek in all its forms doesn't really have a dynamic that suits that idea.
It's too much of a group dynamic.
The Genesis planet wouldn't have ever existed without Khan. It was made to terraform planets, not create them from parts of ship and dead people. No Genesis planet, no plots of the third or fourth movies at all. Except for the probe showing up anyways.
Likewise, he's the reason the Enterprise was in such bad shape before going into battle. The lack of crew was bad, combining that with the ship being shot to shit was fatal.
Bed time for me I think. I swore I'd try to stop this iPad from stealing more of my precious sleep with its easy-to-use-in-bed-ness.
I am really happy this argument about if reboots are Good or Bad was stirred up again days later after both sides had essentially ended up agreeing to disagree. It is a Good Thing that that happened.
I am really happy this argument about if reboots are Good or Bad was stirred up again days later after both sides had essentially ended up agreeing to disagree. It is a Good Thing that that happened.
The Genesis planet wouldn't have ever existed without Khan. It was made to terraform planets, not create them from parts of ship and dead people. No Genesis planet, no plots of the third or fourth movies at all. Except for the probe showing up anyways.
And also, very likely, no TNG or 24th Century human civilization either -- without Khan doing what he did in the second movie, the third movie would never have even taken place, and Kirk and his crew more than probably wouldn't have been in position outside the Probe's sphere of influence to take action against it and resolve the crisis the way they ultimately did.
And also, very likely, no TNG or 24th Century human civilization either -- without Khan doing what he did in the second movie, the third movie would never have even taken place, and Kirk and his crew more than probably wouldn't have been in position outside the Probe's sphere of influence to take action against it and resolve the crisis the way they ultimately did.
And all that wouldn't have happened if kirk and Carol hadn't had a son who invented the Genesis device so chekhov could go and count planets wrong. So...who introduced kirk to Carol? So we can elevate him to godhood too. Honestly. Lol.
. In addition, they tossed around an appearence for TNG that was rejected, and he had at least a mention in every series except TAS (duh) and VOY (which still referenced TWOK as a whole).
