But changes are made to erase that continuity with Spock being all that is left. If history remains changed, then its a reboot.
Can everyone agree now that this is indeed a REBOOT?
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
But changes are made to erase that continuity with Spock being all that is left. If history remains changed, then its a reboot.
On May 9th 2009 I'm burning all my old Trek DVD's and VHS in the back garden, Fahrenheit 451 style.
There will be no need for all the old stuff.
I'm also thinking of scratching "J.J. ABRAMS FOREVVA" into my chest with a knife.
Yeah, right now Abrams and Co. are sitting back watching the internet furor, grinning.
I predict (these are not spoilers, just speculation) that the film is going to be a tortured time travel tale in which many things seem all wrong for most of the film, including the ship. Fanboys sit in the darkened theater, incensed and in tears until, after many 'splosions, the movie ends on a ship we haven't seen, a design much closer to the TOS Enterprise, and Trekkies, so relieved that all the things they thought were going to be changed aren't going to be changed, won't even notice the things that are changed.
Much as I hate the idea of a time travel story that is all about Trek continuity, because such a story is likely to just be bad (even though a very tiny bit of Hollywood buzz I've heard here in LA has non-Trekkies saying its good - 'course a lot of people think Lost is good too), I have to admit it'd be a clever strategy. Not that I care in the slightest, even though I'd have preferred a straight reboot and tense adventure story (ala Master and Commander).
So long as the story is good, the characters are interesting and true to their essence and the spirit of Star Trek is there - I'll be happy. And of course we've yet to have any information about whether any of that will be in the movie. I'm curious to see the trailer where it will be possible to get a little more of the sense of the things that are actually important.
If History is changed it will still be the changed History of the Star Trek universe we were brought up on.
At the risk of losing your respect, Lapsis, (as I am a fan of Lost), I agree with you. I would have preferred a straight start again/reboot/etc. without the weight of canonical baggage (and as a 41 year old, been a fan since I was 6, seen every on-screen iteration of Trek--I'm fully aware of "the baggage") but I'm prepared to wait and see the actual film before I declare it to have "raped my childhood".
P.S. You're "running battle" with 3-D Master has been quite entertaining (and you are correct on all points, of course). Keep fighting the good fight.
P.S. You're "running battle" with 3-D Master has been quite entertaining (and you are correct on all points, of course). Keep fighting the good fight.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aVnFcNRIzk8
A vid I have made of the new Enterprise and a modification based on comments over in the other thread. Take a look, make a comment on there if you feel inclined. Would be nice if it got some attention outside of this forum!
A vid I have made of the new Enterprise and a modification based on comments over in the other thread. Take a look, make a comment on there if you feel inclined. Would be nice if it got some attention outside of this forum!
At the risk of losing your respect, Lapsis, (as I am a fan of Lost), I agree with you. I would have preferred a straight start again/reboot/etc. without the weight of canonical baggage (and as a 41 year old, been a fan since I was 6, seen every on-screen iteration of Trek--I'm fully aware of "the baggage") but I'm prepared to wait and see the actual film before I declare it to have "raped my childhood".
Eh, I'm bagging on Lost mostly on the information provided by a few friends who've watched it all these years. I've seen about three episodes of it. That's my issue with Abrams, nothing with his name on it has ever held my attention.
Paramount can't possibly do anything to rape my childhood.
They can however continue to put out the flaccid excuses for stories they've been calling Trek for the last ten years. If they do *shrug*. It's not like there isn't lots of other good entertainment out there.P.S. You're "running battle" with 3-D Master has been quite entertaining (and you are correct on all points, of course). Keep fighting the good fight.
Glad to know someone else has found that as fun as I have. Don't know if I can keep it up though. I can only spin so much off of "Nuh-uh, you're wrong!"
It is close. I should have said almost exact.
Its scaled larger to the main body. But after a close look it even has the same markings, except the colors different and they appear to be at the scale used on TMP saucer. Instead of yellow and red they have now used black(for the yellow squares on the bottom and grey for the arrow markings along the rim of the saucer. In general the saucer has been scaled larger while the markings and windows have appeared to remain the same. It even had the same lights on the bottom of the saucer and the bridge dome looks the same to me.
I think its both a "reboot" and a continuation.
Sharr
Sharr
I look at it as similar to "Batman Begins."
It's a prequel in the sense that it comes early in the internal history of Batman/Star Trek lore, but it's also a reboot/remake/re-envisioning/whatever in that it keeps what it likes and changes the rest.
No one would try to place "Batman Begins" in front of Burton's "Batman" or the Adam West "Batman."
I think, looking back, we will have an equally difficult time placing Abram's Trek in front of TOS. But that doesn't mean it won't succeed or fail on its own merits.
It's a prequel in the sense that it comes early in the internal history of Batman/Star Trek lore, but it's also a reboot/remake/re-envisioning/whatever in that it keeps what it likes and changes the rest.
No one would try to place "Batman Begins" in front of Burton's "Batman" or the Adam West "Batman."
I think, looking back, we will have an equally difficult time placing Abram's Trek in front of TOS. But that doesn't mean it won't succeed or fail on its own merits.
ST begins at the end of the current timeline, (Old Spock.) Watching it first would be removing it from its proper context. All TOS canon has to be first experienced before getting to this part of [past] history.
I agree and vote NO for sake of these reasons. I'm thinking all these "changes" have something to do with a "Yesterday's Enterprise" kind of storytelling only done here the Nth degree.
That's pretty much my thinking, too.
Even if the title were The Star Trek Reboot: JJ Abrams's Donkey-Punch to Continuity, we'd have fans working out how to tie it all together.
Sit back, watch the movie and hope it's good, rather than squinting at a checklist in a darkened theater to see if it matches up with an already screwy fictional history.
I know for me, that'll be tough. Paramount to my concerns are the hope that they basically get the characters right and that the story's good. I really don't care too much if it follows canon.
But, even viewing the film from that point of view, I know I'm gonna be going be sitting there mentally noting stuff that doesn't fit. It won't bother me, but I'll be doing it all the same.
So while I don't understand why people would get up in arms about little canon differences, I can certainly appreciate the mindset given I'm going to be noticing the same discrepencies they will.
Q
What these gentlemen have said....
Besides, the sun will go nova before everyone can agree to something in here
F
T
!
I was hoping it wasnt. I could suspend by disbelief and rationalize some visual continuity changes, and consider this the past of everything that came before. I loved the new uniforms and even didnt mind the interior of the E. But the new ship, I just cannot rationalize into OLD continuity. Its just TMP saucer rescaled with the same marking(in different colors) glued onto a new engineering hull and nacelles. It just doesnt have anything remotely TOS about it. The 1701 has been redone nicely by others in a more beleivable way. So I now consider this a total reboot with Nimoy now the M,Q or Moneypenny
That all said I will still see it and judge it for what it it.
After reading there wasn't a minor role of the Enterprise-E in this and Spock traveling back in time, oh yeah reboot was on my mind. Which is no a bad idea, if a rebooted TOS series is successful on tv, a reboot TNG series is right behind, especially with updated Fx, new writers to bring new energy to Trek, even thou a reboot wasn't completely necessary but since it let's see how it looks.
But can't it be thought about simply as differences rather than discrepancies?
I can see Superman: The Movie, read The Man of Steel, and watch Smallville making note of the different ways they handle details of the Superman's origin and early days and just find the differences sort of interesting. I can see Errol Flynn's Adventures of Robin Hood, read Lawhead's Hood and watch the BBC Robin Hood and just make note of where they've done something "traditional" and where they've invented something new, see how they've influenced each other and form opinions of which things I like best, but I don't see why there has to be any hand wringing over the fact that different versions are, you know, different.
No, I do not agree that it is. They've yet to call it a continuity reboot. Why, for instance, did they not include Shatner? Oh, yes, they said it was due to Kirk dying in Generations. I mean, not only do the writers have a firm grasp on continuity-I recall Abrams saying one of the writers had encyclopedic knowledge of every Trek episode-they even know the novels really well and are going to work some of them in as canon.
I really do not think this is a reboot. I do however think that the guy playing Kirk is horribly miscast, and if anything that's affecting my view of the film more than continuity issues. I hate most continuity reboots-I do not consider film franchises adapted from comics (Batman) or novels (James Bond) or whatever to be true reboots if they restart, instead just being a new series of adaptions-besides the new Battlestar Galactica, though, and believe the best approach to reviving a series is the Doctor Who approach-have it set in the same universe, but try to add new things to it and make it so newcomers to the series aren't confused.
Also? New Enterprise design does not a reboot make. The differences will probably not even be noticeable to the casual viewer. Hell, as a fan not into the technical elements of Trek I really only care if a ship looks cool, not if it works. I could care less how the ships work or what each part does; as long as the capabilities are consistent and the ship looks good, I'm happy. Hence why I like the NX-01, even if it looks a ton like a ship that appeared briefly in the background of a few shots in the opening scenes of First Contact and was not even named on screen or featured in anyway. :P
I really do not think this is a reboot. I do however think that the guy playing Kirk is horribly miscast, and if anything that's affecting my view of the film more than continuity issues. I hate most continuity reboots-I do not consider film franchises adapted from comics (Batman) or novels (James Bond) or whatever to be true reboots if they restart, instead just being a new series of adaptions-besides the new Battlestar Galactica, though, and believe the best approach to reviving a series is the Doctor Who approach-have it set in the same universe, but try to add new things to it and make it so newcomers to the series aren't confused.
Also? New Enterprise design does not a reboot make. The differences will probably not even be noticeable to the casual viewer. Hell, as a fan not into the technical elements of Trek I really only care if a ship looks cool, not if it works. I could care less how the ships work or what each part does; as long as the capabilities are consistent and the ship looks good, I'm happy. Hence why I like the NX-01, even if it looks a ton like a ship that appeared briefly in the background of a few shots in the opening scenes of First Contact and was not even named on screen or featured in anyway. :P
I would definitely agree that its a reboot. It begs the question of whether or not Older Spock will act differently as well. If its a reboot then it most likely won't be the Spock we know going back to his past, It'll be the rebooted older Spock going back to his own past, even though its still Nimoy playing the role. It would be like Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne going back in time to help his younger self, Christian Bale, who is in a totally different interpretation of the concept. Michael Keaton would have to act more like Christian and also act more in line with the new story. Make sense? Thats the best way I can put it.