Can everyone agree now that this is indeed a REBOOT?

[steveman]

I think the reason we're all on edge about whether it's a "reboot" or not is simply because we percieve the act of rebooting to be akin to "taking a shit" on Star Trek; the act of rebooting effectively states "Hey, Star Trek wasn't good enough the way it was. We're changing it. F--- you!"

I mean, if ever the term "raping my childhood" were to be bandied about, it would be in regard to the aforementioned. And I think that's why we're so edgy about it.

Because it's personal.

Thing is, I don't think there's any reason why we should be that way. The people running things obviously care. There's no Kool-Aid drinking on behalf of the fans; these people do care. Everything we've seen and heard shows us they do.

Bottom line: The personnel involved make all the difference in the world. If it was Michael Bay involved, I'd call it a reboot in a heartbeat; after all, it's difficult to believe that he'd actually care. But since it's the meticulous Abrams, to borrow from an earlier point I made, I think it's a re-telling... the formulation of a second Trek timeline to run alongside the one we already know of; the formulation of a world already familiar where things simply have the potential to unfold differently. I'm fine with that.

 

[number6]

The exact definition of re-boot needs to be agreed upon before I can answer that.

Since there exists no "exact definition of re-boot" that everyone can agree upon, the point is moot.

The point is moot because the writers of the film have already stated time and again that this story will "honor" what has come before.

Failing that, why is it such a big deal?

The only way to tell a Kirk and Spock story in that era means recasting.

The "new blood" fans have been clamoring relentlessly for since season 5 of VOY is here and they are certainly entitled to bring their vision of Trek to the screen.

With this "new blood" inevitably comes new ideas. We can either embrace or reject them. To do so with the extreme prejudice I've seen here is very unTrek. I would prefer to see the film before I decide to "condemn" it. To do otherwise seems like a terrible waste of angst and energy, especially knowing next to nothing about the story of this film.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

One thing it certainly is not is a canon prequel. Unless it starts or ends as a canon prequel and then takes some other twisty path along the way.

Why do you say that?

Have you seen the ship? Or the bridge?

Visual cues are just as relevant as story points or lines of dialog. Since those don't match, it ain't canon.

It may be that they are going for some sort of 'visual reboot' that still respects the rest of the canon (stories, etc.).

But the visuals are a major part of the show. I just don't see how you can jettison those and still call it canon.

In my book, you can't.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The point is moot because the writers of the film have already stated time and again that this story will "honor" what has come before.

Not at all.

The writers and producers have said a great many things, and what they've delivered does not satisfy every single fan's interpretation of their words - words and promises are just that.

What the folks making the film say interests me a lot, but their words are not the film itself.

 

[BenRoethig]

I dont think most minded a visual reboot BUT the ship is just to much a departure to try to suspend "visual continuity" belief. There have been much better designs on the net that were much closer to what should have been done. AGAIN this ship has the EXACT same saucer as TMP ship. This is more a reimagining of that ship than TOS.

I think this ship makes the refit a little more believable. The refit as initially
imagined would involved effectively building a brand new ship and giving its the same registry as the old one. There is very little of the original ship that could have been reused. This ship would only need a new deflector, new nacelles and a bunch of internal changes.

 

[Shawnster]

I don't think it's a reboot as much as it's a second version of what we know to be Star Trek.

Then what, in your opinion, is a definition of reboot if not this?

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

One thing it certainly is not is a canon prequel. Unless it starts or ends as a canon prequel and then takes some other twisty path along the way.

Why do you say that?

Have you seen the ship? Or the bridge?

Visual cues are just as relevant as story points or lines of dialog. Since those don't match, it ain't canon.

It may be that they are going for some sort of 'visual reboot' that still respects the rest of the canon (stories, etc.).

But the visuals are a major part of the show. I just don't see how you can jettison those and still call it canon.

In my book, you can't.

Fair enough -- Tomāto, Tomahto

To me, the visuals are not as important as the characters and over "history". Like C.E. Evans said several posts back: if they made a novelization of this movie, would it fit in with the rest of Star Trek?

I say if it does, then it's not a reboot.

 

[BenRoethig]

One thing it certainly is not is a canon prequel. Unless it starts or ends as a canon prequel and then takes some other twisty path along the way.

You are right as it takes place in an altered timeline. Whether its a reboot or not depends on if the original timeline is restored by the defeat of Nero.

 

[number6]

The point is moot because the writers of the film have already stated time and again that this story will "honor" what has come before.

Not at all.

The writers and producers have said a great many things, and what they've delivered does not satisfy every single fan's interpretation of their words - words and promises are just that.

What the folks making the film say interests me a lot, but their words are not the film itself.

I agree, but again the proof would be in the viewing of the film and no one here has done that to be able to make a determination one way or another.

I would rather just go see the film and enjoy it for what it is. If it fits, great, but if it doesn't, it will come down to the storytelling. Obviously these guys want to bring something new and fresh to this universe and I am curious to see what and how.

I do like the visual facelift overall from what I've seen. I would have loved to see the original E on the big screen, but this looks cool and I do like what this team has done in the past. With that, and the notion of a new Trek film, my interest and curiosity is piqued. Can't really ask for more than that.

 

[DeafPoet]

Visual cues are just as relevant as story points or lines of dialog. Since those don't match, it ain't canon.

Then I guess at this point it's just a disagreement over a matter of degree.

I agree that visual cues are important, but only insofar as you stick to the basic structure. The bridge has a chair and some stations and a viewscreen. The Enterprise has its basic shape. I don't find myself getting completely hung up on how they accomplish this. So if Abrams wants to make the bridge shinier than the one seen in TOS, I don't see any reason to de-canonize the whole production.

So, where one classifies this with regards to 'reboots' or 're-imaginings' (if those are even relevant) is strictly a personal call at this point until we see the film or the creators take a stand on the subject.

I think the fact that nobody on the production has said definitively where this fits in existing continuity, if at all, is very telling. Probably means that revealing it would compromise the secrecy of the plot in some way. So, I have no idea what it's going to be, but I'll wager that by the time the credits roll, it won't be up for debate.

 

[Shatterhand]

One thing it certainly is not is a canon prequel. Unless it starts or ends as a canon prequel and then takes some other twisty path along the way.

You are right as it takes place in an altered timeline. Whether its a reboot or not depends on if the original timeline is restored by the defeat of Nero.

I'd think it would depend on when Nero is defeated. Assuming that the timeline skewed at the moment the Kelvin was attacked, if the altered Enterprise crew returns to just before that moment and defeats Nero, the attack would never take place and the timeline would reset itself. Though, I'm thinking the Enterprise and its crew would have be destroyed along with Nero in order not to create a paradox.

If Nero is defeated after the attack on the Kelvin, the timeline won't get altered because the damage is already done. This new, altered reality will continue to exist parallel to every other timeline, not unlike the mirror universe.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Keep in mind, I don't care if it's a canon prequel or a reboot.

But absent some magic time-travel or in-story explanation for the changes, there's no way I'm going to watch Star Trek XI on DVD and then follow it up with my TOS DVD's without feeling like I got hit in the head with a brick.

 

[SalvorHardin]

In my opinion a reboot would be if they kept the names of Kirk and Spock but made Kirk awkward around women or Spock a ladies man for example.
If they gave the Enterprise 5 nacelles,no deflector and laser cannons.
If they had Uhura be a man and Sulu a cute Asian hottie.

In other words a reboot in my eyes is keeping some names and a general premise intact but feel free to mess with anything else.

I've seen nothing like this so far in Trek XI but still I haven't seen the movie.

 

[Garth Rockett]

Based on the information available, I still cannot conclusively say this is a reboot and I don't think I can make that determination until I've seen the film.

Changes in visual details alone won't be enough for me to classify it as one, however. Otherwise, we'd have to consider this a reboot from the point the roles were recast.

 

[Saul]

The have Nero destroy the Kelvin and severely alter the timeline in the opening scene from what we know now.

So yes, they are going back to about 2245 or so and making Trek very different thereafter.

So this is a totally new branch of Trek that (in universe) over writes what we previously saw.

Reboot.

Actually I define reboot as completely new and in no way related to what came before. But this film is related to our current Star Trek Continuity and even has our old Spock in it.

So i'm saying it's not a reboot until I actually see this film and pick it apart.

 

[steveman]

I don't think it's a reboot as much as it's a second version of what we know to be Star Trek.

Then what, in your opinion, is a definition of reboot if not this?

Easy. It's a re-telling.

I hold that a reboot takes all the elements of something, save for the essential skeletal structure, and tosses them to the wind. All it's got left, for instance, is a guy named "Kirk" and a ship called the "Enterprise." That's it.

But this movie would seem to be something more than that. It's something that would seem to start out in the established Trek universe, but thanks to the actions of a certain party, things change and a second timeline is created. All the same players and places are there, (plus the "visual reboot" aspect, which I think is necessary) but in a slightly re-organized manner, opening up the potential for things to unfold a little bit differently.

There's one Star Trek timeline (the events witnessed in TOS - Ent) and now a second (Trek XI and beyond); at least that's what I'm willing to conjecture at this point. Both timelines are valid, though uniquely different.

 

[ManOnTheWave]

Reboot?

Nah.

 

[Ovation]

What else could it be? To imagine that they'd make a movie with exactly the same technology and design as TOS is ludicrous. Of course it's a re-boot. It's about damn time, too.

That's a refresh. Updating the design of something while otherwise keeping continuity. It happens when real life technology meets or exceeds that used in SciFi. Lets face it, in 1968 nobody could comprehend what we have in 2008, let alone the mid 2250s.

A reboot is starting over from scratch and ignoring everything that came before it while keeping a general premise. Think Casino Royale, the New BSG, or the Lost in Space Movie.

I'm glad to see someone else understands this. Clearly this is NOT the case (based on what little info we actually have at hand) with the Trek movie. It could prove to be so in the final analysis (AFTER the COMPLETE film has been seen by people other than the select few who will do so before its release) but could we at least wait to see the COMPLETE film first?

 

[seigezunt]

How much of a reboot is the question. I'm thinking not like NuBSG, but playing more with details that only the most ravenous (and we are legion) will notice.

"Come, come, Mr. Scott. Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant."

 

[BenRoethig]

One thing it certainly is not is a canon prequel. Unless it starts or ends as a canon prequel and then takes some other twisty path along the way.

You are right as it takes place in an altered timeline. Whether its a reboot or not depends on if the original timeline is restored by the defeat of Nero.

I'd think it would depend on when Nero is defeated. Assuming that the timeline skewed at the moment the Kelvin was attacked, if the altered Enterprise crew returns to just before that moment and defeats Nero, the attack would never take place and the timeline would reset itself. Though, I'm thinking the Enterprise and its crew would have be destroyed along with Nero in order not to create a paradox.

If Nero is defeated after the attack on the Kelvin, the timeline won't get altered because the damage is already done. This new, altered reality will continue to exist parallel to every other timeline, not unlike the mirror universe.

With time travel and divergent realities is that you can more or less have the resolution be what you want it to be. In star trek alone had Predestination paradoxes (First Contact), we've had times where you could alter time (too numerous to count), and we've had stories where destroying the time travel device restores the original timeline (year of Hell).