I've tried a few times, but as my three year old says: "I can't like that"
Maybe next season...
Poll Do You Believe STD Is Actually a Reboot [After Seeing It]?
- Thread starter Kane_Steel
- Start date
Maybe next season...
My 11 year old refuses to watch it. He'll be in the room for a minute or two, show some disgust, say it isn't Star Trek, then runs off to play.
The only one that actually held his interest was "Context is for Kings".
My kids are very sensitive to violence, so no Star Trek: Discovery for them. I don't have such sensitivities, but I just don't care for that level of "adult" content in my Star Trek. It's fine elsewhere, but just not in Star Trek.
Obviously we all have different tolerances, but I didn't see much in the way of what I would call adult content. "Context is for Kings" was about as adult as I remember it getting.
Its the ONLY way to enjoy it....
In fact, some times I pretend its just some generic sci fi show, and not even Trek at all.....
I do wonder if there are Batman fans who say that about Gotham...
I do wonder if there are Batman fans who say that about Gotham...
They probably go ‘oh, another adaptation and it’s a bit elseworldy’
Because there is no ‘original’ batman outside of comics, they’re all adaptations.
Otherwise purists would complain about the lack of wrinkles and Japanese villainy.
And what is Discovery if not an adaptation of the TOS universe, with modern visuals and sensibilities?
None of it is an adaptation. Not one of the stories, main characters or their relationships has been adapted in any way shape or form. And you cannot ‘adapt’ a text into the same medium, except in very specific circumstances (ie...adapting The Iliad into a children’s book version for example...or taking a film or tv show and remaking the exact same show in another country in a different language and location. That can sometimes lead to radical differences between two versions.) none of which is what’s happening in DSC. This is further apparent due to the fact it is set before TOS and there have already been other Trek shows, none of which were ‘adaptations’ either.
If you simply make a new version of an old film or TV show, it’s called a remake. Of course, once upon a time in Hollywood, scripts were considered more of a separate entity, so you could see those early remakes as something akin to an adaptation, but that concept hasn’t really existed for a very long time, and was nebulous at best..the industry was growing.
Words have proper meanings, even in specialised industries.
Yes, all the later series have ‘based on Star Trek’ in their credits, but it’s just a formality, as for a start, those are not based on ‘Star Trek created by Gene Rodenberry’ But are in fact ‘based on Star Trek: the next generation, created by Gene Rodenberry’.
DSC has much of its DNA from those shows also.
It’s a prequel, or if you prefer, spin off, set in the same fictional universe. Not even remotely an adaptation. It’s the same media. Nothing is being adapted. You can adapt a TV show into a movie, but that’s uncommon..though it still had some usage. You can adapt both into a stage play, radio drama, book...what have you. But those are different media, and had Trek started as one of those media, then been made into a Tv show, it would be an adaptation. But screen, specifically Tv, is the source text for Trek.
Might as well change adaptation to interpretation. Or iteration ("our iteration"), which is the term Sonequa Martin-Green has been using. Discovery is creating entirely new interpretations of characters from TOS (Sarek, Mudd, Amanda, Spock, Pike, Number One) and visuals (the Klingons, D-7, Enterprise and others).
Interpretation is closer, particularly in terms of the changes whilst trying to colour within the lines. (I am imaging Neville Page and Glenn Hetrick eating crayons now...) Iteration...yeah...kinda, but that still keeps it in the same ballpark as the other series. The thing theoretically being iterated is the core idea and ideals of Trek. In that regard, Orville is very much the more successful iteration of Trek. To be an iteration of course, it doesn’t have to be in the same franchise. MJS famously talked of the Trek DNA in Babylon 5, and Majel gets a guest shot. The nineties Rodenberry shows are also very much Trek iterations too...Andromeda particularly.
It is a new interpretation, because all the original creators (actors, writers, directors) are gone.
Some are still about, for a given definition of ‘original’. Michael Westmore is all but retired, but could be tempted I am sure (I bet he was in the room when the new Klingons were sculpted in fact.) and the make up guys work with Vee (who did TMP earlier in her career)
A fairly large number of the actors are still with us, as fan films show, and a few of the writers, including prominent ones until recently.
To be honest, only the enterprise and her crew will truly be reinterpreted TOS, with a slight waiver for Mudd and Sarek. They are very literally the actors giving a new interpretation of existing characters, however, it stops slightly short unless we see perhaps actual scenes being recreated...for instance, if we were to get an episode with a different perspective on Journey to Babel which requires existing scenes to be reshot and extended. That would certainly be...interesting, shall we say.
I don't know, when is a movie or series an reboot?
If for example Star trek 11 is a reboot even thoug Leonard Nimoy is in it as prime Spock, then the TFA is also a reboot because it's almost the same story as ANH.
So for now I don't see Discovery as a reboot
If for example Star trek 11 is a reboot even thoug Leonard Nimoy is in it as prime Spock, then the TFA is also a reboot because it's almost the same story as ANH.
So for now I don't see Discovery as a reboot
Leonard Nimoy believed he was playing Spock from TOS in the Abrams Films. For that reason alone, I'm not going to call those films a total reboot, even if Spock Prime and Nero traveled into the past of another universe. I call it a partial reboot.
For DSC: I'm sticking to my word and not getting back into this argument. I like the show as is. If the creators say it's Prime or Something Else, it doesn't effect my enjoyment one way or another.
For DSC: I'm sticking to my word and not getting back into this argument. I like the show as is. If the creators say it's Prime or Something Else, it doesn't effect my enjoyment one way or another.
I do wonder if there are Batman fans who say that about Gotham...
There are legit theories that Gotham is a prequel to the '60s Batman show.
There are legit theories that Gotham is a prequel to the '60s Batman show.
Suddenly the election of Donald Trump makes more sense.
Do they involve climate change?There are legit theories that Gotham is a prequel to the '60s Batman show.
Nah, I enjoy it just fine as part of the Prime Universe.
I agree it is a partial reboot, but this has nothing to do with what the actor believed, it has to do with what was explained in the film, comics, etc. Nimoy was playing Prime Spock in Star Trek (2009). I wonder how the new Picard series is going to deal with Romulus going supernova, or will it just ignore it?