• 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!

Poll Do You Believe STD Is Actually a Reboot [After Seeing It]?

Is STD a Reboot?

  • Yes

    Votes: 115 39.9%

  • No

    Votes: 173 60.1%
  • Total voters
    288
Beagleman said:
In short, if the owners of Coca-Cola would piss into a coke bottle and sell it as Coca-Cola it is Coca-Cola, they own it they decide, you can put as much thought into it as you want, you don't get a say. You can criticize the product, you can buy or not buy it, still, that piss is now Coca-Cola.
Click to expand...
Umm...no. The debate isn't whether it's Star Trek or not, it's whether or not it can be argued that this latest version constitutes a reboot.

As in, does it diverge in a more fundamental way from the shared world of the previous series, or does it overwrite previous stories in a Significany way, and does it seek to reinvent Star Trek.

Batman Begins is a Reboot of the Batman films. Star Trek 09 is a reboot of Star Trek in general. Amazing Spiderman, Superman Returns, then again in Man of Steel, etc.

If we used your Coca Cola analogy, we might as well consider the word reboot meaningless, and never speak it again.
 
I grow tired of the argument that "it's the 21st century, did you really expect TOS?" No, I expected the same level of logical design that was used from TMP onward. TMP had to update the look of TOS to fit cinematic standards, and I completely understand that DSC had to do the same despite being a TV show. The issue is that there was a less over-designed approach that would have done for a new Trek series what TMP and the movies did for the TOS aesthetic. Another great example of this is what we saw on Enterprise, outside of the Enterprise itself. Those designs had to strike a balance between conveying our future but also the past of the Trek we already knew. DSC should have done the same and, in fact, should have had an easier time as it's only a decade prior to TOS. Take the movie aesthetics, update without the horrid, busy designs of the Abramsverse, and you have a modern Trek aesthetic. The communicator and phaser should have been the basis of every approach to designing this show. Those props looked sufficiently older than TOS yet modern enough to be seen as futuristic tech to 21st century eyes.

Finally, does these design flaws constitute a reboot? Perhaps, but I instead see them as representative of typical Hollywood studio idiocy. We know Fuller had more traditional uniforms in mind; it's also very likely he had more traditional interiors and ship designs in mind. DSC appears to be the product of studio edict and committee. It doesn't feel like Trek narratively, either, though I think those of us with open eyes knew this was never going to really be a show that would return to exploration like TOS, TNG, and Voyager. There may be one or two episodes like this, but that type of storytelling in Trek is over with the current regime in place.
 
Apparently, in tonight's episode, there's more evidence that this is a full-on reboot. The tech seems more advanced than TNG.
 
Prax said:
Umm...no. The debate isn't whether it's Star Trek or not, it's whether or not it can be argued that this latest version constitutes a reboot.

As in, does it diverge in a more fundamental way from the shared world of the previous series, or does it overwrite previous stories in a Significany way, and does it seek to reinvent Star Trek.

Batman Begins is a Reboot of the Batman films. Star Trek 09 is a reboot of Star Trek in general. Amazing Spiderman, Superman Returns, then again in Man of Steel, etc.

If we used your Coca Cola analogy, we might as well consider the word reboot meaningless, and never speak it again.
Click to expand...

The bolded is unequivocally false... as is the notion that Discovery is a reboot.
 
My Lord, who cares???? Go lick your Star Trek Encyclopedias to sleep, folks.

It's like the LEAST of the things worth worrying about. It's a contained Star Trek story that fits within the general Star Trek universe and history. Place it in whatever "timeline" or whatever "universe" you want.
 
DigificWriter said:
The bolded is unequivocally false... as is the notion that Discovery is a reboot.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter what people think about the issue? Isn't it more important that people like the show? Now we expect people to not only like it but like it the way we want them to like it. That's kind of like getting angry at someone who likes "Titantic" just to see the boat sink and going "NOO! You will love the romance and fall madly in love with Kate and Leo's chemistry! That's what James Cameron was going for and by God your heart will break at the end or else!!"

Jason
 
Jayson1 said:
... Now we expect people to not only like it but like it the way we want them to like it.
Click to expand...
As with a great many things these days, people are so narrow-minded in their views that they could look through a keyhole with both eyes. It would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.
 
I have no problem with the aesthetics of this show, just the angles they filmed them at.
 
Wanting people to stop using the term "reboot" to describe the Kelvin films and Discovery has nothing to do with "wanting people to like what we like the same way that we like it" and everything to do with factuality and common sense understanding of what that word actually means.
 
How are the reboot films not reboots? Are you averse to the term "reboot"?
 
The Kelvin Timeline films are not reboots because they are a direct narrative 'offshoot' of the Prime Timeline.

In order to qualify as reboots, the films would have had to treat themselves as the only Star Trek that had ever existed, as is the case with the following non-Trek reboots, which treated themselves as the only representation of their respective properties that had ever existed:
- RDM and David Eick's Battlestar Galactica

- Batman Begins

- Spider-Man Homecoming

- Casino Royale

- The 2009 version of V

- DC's universe post-Crisis on Infinite Earths

- Man of Steel
 
DigificWriter said:
The Kelvin Timeline films are not reboots because they are a direct narrative 'offshoot' of the Prime Timeline.

In order to qualify as reboots, the films would have had to treat themselves as the only Star Trek that had ever existed, as is the case with the following non-Trek reboots, which treated themselves as the only representation of their respective properties that had ever existed:
- RDM and David Eick's Battlestar Galactica

- Batman Begins

- Spider-Man Homecoming

- Casino Royale

- The 2009 version of V

- DC's universe post-Crisis on Infinite Earths

- Man of Steel
Click to expand...

For many though the word has become a way of describing a shared universe. Might not be true from a technical point-of-view but it doesn't really seem like something to fret about. I myself prefer the term of, shared universe, but even then not all terms are even 100% acurate. The Kelvin Universe movies can be seen as still being part of the shared universe because of old Spock but it also feels more like a reboot or remake. In the end it feels like remakes and reboots or re imagings all sound like different words for the same meaning.

Jason
 
In retrospect, I'm REALLY disappointed they didn't adapt a 'retro-future' aesthetic inspired by TOS and 60s Sci-Fi.

It would have made this show look visually different than anything on TV right now, and not generic sci-fi. I find 'retro-future' designs so beautiful, especially when done using modern visual effects.
 
Kane_Steel said:
In retrospect, I'm REALLY disappointed they didn't adapt a 'retro-future' aesthetic inspired by TOS and 60s Sci-Fi.

It would have made this show look visually different than anything on TV right now, and not generic sci-fi. I find 'retro-future' designs so beautiful, especially when done using modern visual effects.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have said it several times already....no one was expecting recreations of 60's sets. Just a similar design style, function and color palette. Discovery producers never even tried....EXCEPT with the communicators ,phasers and exterior of discovery.... All three of those are a great example of what I would have preferred them do. Make them appear aesthetically similar but subtlety updated. They dropped the ball (like I knew they would) and for me at least it takes me out of the story.
 
No. It's an excellent show set in the prime timeline with some continuity changes, just as previous Trek has been before it.

It's not perfect, but it's an excellent story with strong writing, good performances, and faithfully carries forward the legacy of Star Trek. TO BODLY GO!

GO! GO! GO!

Excited for tonight's episode!
 
I think Discovery is rubbing people the wrong way for much the same reason fans are so readily embracing The Orville: nostalgia.

Namely, The Orville bathes in the nostalgia of Treks past, while Discovery doesn't embrace nostalgia, but is trying to do something new, or at least modern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top