Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by Beyerstein, Aug 14, 2013.
When are they going to start?
I'm not doubting that possible outcome at this point, but their are tons of characters, like Picard, who were made to not be another variation of Kirk, but I'm not starting a Picard vs Kirk character fight. I think I lost you in your meaning of the word strongest. If you're saying the companies strongest, then yes. I thought you were saying the strongest character role. Kirk is a hot headed smart space cowboy, which is why I like him, but the character has been done.
If instead of the reboot they made a post Dominion movie, same story, new crew, Enterprise G 20ish years after a mysterious lightning storm in space ship destroys the Enterprise F (with no other tie to previous stories), 2009 Trek budget and effects, and it turned out it was 27th century Romulan that destroyed Vulcan, and Nemoy's Spock pops up because it was his blackhole theories that doomed Romulus (told to him by Nero), and he runs into a marooned hotheaded commander (kirk-like), along with the other past blackhole scientist (scotty-like), and Spock believes the half-vulcan running the Enterprise G is emotionally compromised, and so on with that 'something starfleet lost premise', IMHO, They would have made the same amount of money. It would have been new and epic and 3D upcharged rewatchable.
That's like saying Man of Steel would have been exactly as successful if it had starred a new, orange-suited superhero called Sunman.
The famous characters have an appeal. That's why reboots and prequels are so successful.
It's not, the movie I mentioned would still be Star Trek.
But it wouldn't be any Star Trek that would capture the public's imagination. I want to see the famous Trek characters again, not blatant ripoff descendants.
He's not alienating any audience that he knows of, but telling the truth as far as business realities are concerned, which you and others need to deal with.
I'm not taunting you or saying 'neener-neener-neener!' anymore than anybody else here on this board is-I'm simply agreeing with them when they say that the Prime Universe isn't coming back no matter how much you and other fans want to see it come back, and I stated it in as serious a tone as I could convey on the printed page, just like those others. That you choose to be offended is your prerogative. You and others here can choose to see the fan shows, watch all of the old episodes and movies, read all of the older novels/comic books, and play all of the video games based on the previous continuity as much as you want until you're blue in the face or your eyes bleed, but you'll all have to face facts; the old continuity is dead, gone, finished (except for fan fiction, novels and Star Trek Online) and that's it. Your dealing with this, or not, is up to you and those others.
Picard is half of Kirk. The other half is Riker. Spock was split into Data, Troi and Worf. They even tried to take some Kirk away from Riker by making Picard into a action hero.
Now do the math.
Not alot of us are saying that. Timewalker, if your eyes bleed seek medical attention.
Did you know they said the same thing about Kirk's Trek? If you believe 40 some years down the line, after the reboot craze (and that horrible 2030 fashion statement) ends, that a next gen reboot or throwback tv series is not even a possibility then try to open your mind a bit.
Einstein first published his theories in 1905, if I remember correctly. 1905 + 100 = 2005. Your math is off a little bit, Mr. Cox.
(unless you're talking about his later published work... in which case, I have no problem with your calculations )
As for time travel only being discovered in "The Naked Time"... has it been established that this was the VERY FIRST instance of time travel in the prime universe? Considering the Enterprise and Borg's visit to Earth, I think not. That episode was just the first time anyone on the Enterprise had done it.
The Guardian said the timeline was changed. It didn't say the timeline needed to be restored. It just provided the means for Kirk to do so, if he chose.
The Guardian had to be capable of storing data about multiple timelines, or Spock would never have been able to discover what would have happened if Edith had survived.
This is a huge reason why I loathe the nuTrek stuff. It is dumbed down. The characters, their motivations, their actions, even the acting... are just too much like a cartoon meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And TAS, which technically was a cartoon, was far superior to nuTrek.
Roddenberry, et. al had their faults, but they never assumed the audience was basically stupid. Abrams does. I find that insulting, no matter if it's nuTrek, nuBSG, or nu-anything else (ie. Dune; KJA/BH started out assuming their reading audience was stupid, and dumbed down their books so people wouldn't have to actually think to enjoy them).
I'd rather think in conjunction with my SF viewing/reading. Consider all the university courses and papers and discussions that have been held over the decades about Star Trek philosophy, ethics, economics, etc. Anybody here think this nuTrek crap will generate that level of thought? I sure don't.
Abrams deliberately dumbing down the stories, characters, motivations, and science is for the "good" of the franchise?
Okay. The movies are dumb. The movies were dumb, so I'm convinced that the universe Abrams created is also dumb. He's done nothing to convince me otherwise.
Yep, can't have viewers who might possibly have to exercise a couple of brain cells, at least enough to ask someone else a question or look up the answer online. I do that with some of the shows I've followed off and on over the years and am confused about. Hell, I've spent this whole summer watching 3 YEARS' worth of General Hospital because the current storyline keeps referring back to events that happened in a time when I wasn't watching. I got tired of being confused and decided to educate myself with YouTube and other sources. Are you suggesting that STAR TREK fans would be too lazy to do likewise?
Dumb down. To make smarter things more stupid, so they're not so difficult to understand or think about.
We could have more intelligent stories, and less character assassination.
They're only viable as long as there are actors capable of portraying them. These new guys can't act (in my opinion of course).
Uh-huh. TNG, as bland and PC as it was, survived for 7 seasons without Kirk. Spock was occasionally mentioned and was featured in a few episodes. He didn't walk in and eat the show, like Worf did to DS9. Star Trek does not require Kirk and Spock to be successful. It just requires the same universe, presented intelligently, respectfully, and without the character assassination that Abrams perpetrated.
They may have an appeal, but they need to follow through in a way that's respectful to the audience, the source material, and have a story that makes sense. Take the Star Wars prequels, for example. They're dumb. Sure, the guy who played adult Anakin could do a hair commercial, but his acting is subpar, and that's the kindest thing I could say about it. The story doesn't make sense to me, and from what I've gathered from SW fans who are a lot more hardcore than me, the story made no sense to them, either. And I have yet to see all 3 prequels from start to finish. They're so boring, I literally fell asleep partway through the first one. I've heard that Harrison Ford may be in the upcoming sequel; if so, I'll give it a chance. But if the story is stupid, or retcons too much in a way that doesn't make sense, that's it. I'll confine my personal SW universe to the first 3 (in production order, obviously) and ignore the rest.
^ But it won't be set in the old continuity.
The reboot craze will never die. It's been with us since before we called it a reboot.
They were merely remakes priorly, comic books were the first time they used the term. It was when they dropped the previous history and started the story afresh. They've done it many times and have gone back and continued previous stories. IMO Ultimate X-Men sucked but Astonishing X-Men (which was tied to Uncanny X-Men's earth) was great.
FFS, of course you're taunting me. You're throwing it in my face that the kind of Star Trek I like will never be professionally produced for TV or movies again. You're also being pretty damned rude.
I have the right to like what kind of Star Trek I like. I know the original actors are aging, and even if Abrams wrote intelligent scripts, the actor chosen can't act worth a soggy paper bag. So... I will indeed read my novels and fanfic and music. I'll write my own. I'll look up the fan productions some day (never saw any yet, so have no opinion on their merits or lack thereof). I've never played the video games because I'm not into that kind of computer gaming.
What you fail to understand is that my saying this does NOT mean that I expect Abrams to immediately be contrite and write better movies and characters just because I don't like the drivel he's done so far. He can keep on doing it until HIS anatomy needs medical attention. I, on the other hand, will be enjoying the work of people who do write intelligent, thoughtful stories that are true to the characters. And never again will I come out of a theatre, wanting the last two hours of my life back.
Well, they had to, because as a hero, Riker was pretty pathetic.
Bingo. Old series get restarted all the time. How many times has Zorro been "rebooted" onscreen? Or Tarzan? Or Dracula? Or Sherlock Holmes?
Hell, the old Rathbone/Bruce "Holmes" films started out in the Victorian era, but then the movie series "rebooted" itself so that it took place in the 1940s instead--just so Holmes and Watson could contribute to the war effort and fight the Nazis.
This isn't a craze. It's just standard operating procedure. No "timeline" or continuity is sacred. It's all just raw material to be reworked and reinvented every generation or so. And this applies to Trek as much as any other popular fiction.
Been reading comics since the Sixities. Reboots didn't begin them. All sorts of franchises have been rebooted ( A term derived from computing, iirc) They change actors. They redo the origin. They change the setting. They revamp the concept. Creators were doing it before many people even knew how to use computers.
Ultimate X-Men isn't a reboot. The other X-men comics are still being published. The Ultimate version exists in a different continuity.
The Robin Hood stories come to mind. I remember the black-and-white Richard Greene TV series. I used to watch it back when I was about 4 or 5 years old, and drove my mother nuts by constantly singing, "Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding through the glennnn......" and then going on to sing about other things Robin Hood was riding through, including flower beds, sandboxes, and even the ketchup on my supper plate. Then along came Rocket Robin Hood. Fast forward a lot of years and there was the '70s sitcom starring Dick Gauthier. And then came Robin of Sherwood, which I absolutely love. Kevin Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves had its good points and bad points, and as many times as I've seen Robin Hood: Men in Tights, I giggle all the way through. And it came full circle when the old Richard Greene series came back on YTV in Canada and I could enjoy it again from the perspective of an adult... but then I happened to catch the colorized version and wondered what the hell people were thinking, because NO adult male would EVER be caught dead or otherwise wearing THAT shade of green!
Some stories and characters are just timeless, and as long as whoever is producing it is respectful to the source material and doesn't twist it past repair, things are fine.
Same with Shakespeare. Some people complained when Kenneth Branagh started doing his Shakespeare movies. I loved Henry V - it was only in town for 6 days, and I saw it twice. Of course it helped that some of my favorite British actors were in it - Brian Blessed and Derek Jacobi. But there are people who will swear up and down that Laurence Olivier was the ultimate Henry V and how dare Branagh think he could do it better? I never saw the Olivier version, so can't compare them. But I do know that my grandmother and her friend - two elderly ladies who never read Shakespeare in their lives or ever saw a live performance - absolutely loved Branagh's Henry V.
I'm not saying reboots began comics, I'm saying they started in them.
You do know comics pre-date modern computers, right?
Reboots are 'different continuities', and that teen reboot Wolverine Jimmy Hudson is no James (Logan) Howlet. I'm happy he doesn't exist outside of Ultimate X-Men and that Logan isn't dead.
THe Ultimate line is rumored to be ending soon.
That doesn't answer my question: how are those things we can't do with the new timeline ?
I can think of plenty of TOS episodes where I'd ask the same question.
I has NOTHING to do with intelligence or using brain cells or not. It's simply about the amount of dedication to a franchise. Most people don't care enough about Star Trek to even know the difference. It's a fact, even if YOU personally know the difference.
No, it's not. Please explain how it was dumbed down, don't assume that everybody agrees with you.
Again, your opinion, not a fact.
It also doesn't answer my question.
Separate names with a comma.