Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[The Doctor]

I've only seen the latest one in theaters. I was a combination of being too young and having parents who didn't like seeing movies in theaters.

I was ten when TUC came out and was so very excited to see it on the big screen. My nitpicky ten-year-old-brain was irritated by the reuse of the TNG warp core and transporter room but I really loved the final battle sequence and the uncharacteristic score from Cliff Eidelman. It remains my favourite movie featuring the original cast.

I like the arc of Kirk's character from TOS through TWOK, TSFS and TUC. Seeing him used up and embittered really felt real and right: an old man weighed down by all the sacrifices he made for 'king and country.'

 

[Franklin]

I've only seen the latest one in theaters. I was a combination of being too young and having parents who didn't like seeing movies in theaters.

I was ten when TUC came out and was so very excited to see it on the big screen. My nitpicky ten-year-old-brain was irritated by the reuse of the TNG warp core and transporter room but I really loved the final battle sequence and the uncharacteristic score from Cliff Eidelman. It remains my favourite movie featuring the original cast.

I like the arc of Kirk's character from TOS through TWOK, TSFS and TUC. Seeing him used up and embittered really felt real and right: an old man weighed down by all the sacrifices he made for 'king and country.'

I had a ten year old corn on my right foot when TUC came out. My wife still laughs about how I teared up at the end of that movie.

The way each character was allowed to age and change throughout the movies was one of the interconnected beauties of all of them. The entire "family" idea that Abrams stresses didn't come from TOS. That feeling developed in the movies.

At the end of TUC, I'm not sure Kirk finds himself embittered so much as he realizes the irony of how the final major success of his career (or at least the military part of it) was about contributing to making himself and the Cold War atmosphere he thrived in obsolete. After all, only Nixon could go to China.

 

[The Doctor]

Well sure, at the end. He starts out pretty bitter, tho.

 

[Dale Sams]

I've only seen the latest one in theaters. I was a combination of being too young and having parents who didn't like seeing movies in theaters.

I was ten when TUC came out and was so very excited to see it on the big screen. My nitpicky ten-year-old-brain was irritated by the reuse of the TNG warp core and transporter room but I really loved the final battle sequence and the uncharacteristic score from Cliff Eidelman. It remains my favourite movie featuring the original cast.

I like the arc of Kirk's character from TOS through TWOK, TSFS and TUC. Seeing him used up and embittered really felt real and right: an old man weighed down by all the sacrifices he made for 'king and country.'

I had a ten year old corn on my right foot when TUC came out. My wife still laughs about how I teared up at the end of that movie.

The way each character was allowed to age and change throughout the movies was one of the interconnected beauties of all of them. The entire "family" idea that Abrams stresses didn't come from TOS. That feeling developed in the movies.

At the end of TUC, I'm not sure Kirk finds himself embittered so much as he realizes the irony of how the final major success of his career (or at least the military part of it) was about contributing to making himself and the Cold War atmosphere he thrived in obsolete. After all, only Nixon could go to China.

You tell your wife I said there's nothing wrong with crying at the end of TUC damnit!!

As for "The universe needs the Enterprise crew to come together" seen upthread...I *think* that was born out of interviews with Nimoy. I understand the reflexive distaste for those Gaimanesque notions, but i had no problem with it.

 

[Greg Cox]

As for "The universe needs the Enterprise crew to come together" seen upthread...I *think* that was born out of interviews with Nimoy. I understand the reflexive distaste for those Gaimanesque notions, but i had no problem with it.

Well, we don't have to see that in mystical terms. One could just say that disrupted timestreams tend to correct themselves by making small course corrections. Seems to me that I've seen that concept--that small changes in the timeline tend to sort themselves out--in any number of classic time-travel stories by Poul Anderson or Fritz Leiber or whomever.

Think of it as a purely natural phenomenon. Like a river that returns to its original course even if its path is temporarily diverted . . ..

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Well, we don't have to see that in mystical terms. One could just say that disrupted timestreams tend to correct themselves by making small course corrections. Seems to me that I've seen that concept--that small changes in the timeline tend to sort themselves out--in any number of classic time-travel stories by Poul Anderson or Fritz Leiber or whomever.

Think of it as a purely natural phenomenon. Like a river that returns to its original course even if its path is temporarily diverted . . ..

That's very nicely put. Plus it explains the Mirror Universe.

 

[Greg Cox]

Well, we don't have to see that in mystical terms. One could just say that disrupted timestreams tend to correct themselves by making small course corrections. Seems to me that I've seen that concept--that small changes in the timeline tend to sort themselves out--in any number of classic time-travel stories by Poul Anderson or Fritz Leiber or whomever.

Think of it as a purely natural phenomenon. Like a river that returns to its original course even if its path is temporarily diverted . . ..

That's very nicely put. Plus it explains the Mirror Universe.

Well, I can't really take credit for it. It's an old scifi idea. Let's just call it "temporal inertia" to make it sound more scientific!

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

As for "The universe needs the Enterprise crew to come together" seen upthread...I *think* that was born out of interviews with Nimoy. I understand the reflexive distaste for those Gaimanesque notions, but i had no problem with it.

Well, we don't have to see that in mystical terms. One could just say that disrupted timestreams tend to correct themselves by making small course corrections. Seems to me that I've seen that concept--that small changes in the timeline tend to sort themselves out--in any number of classic time-travel stories by Poul Anderson or Fritz Leiber or whomever.

Think of it as a purely natural phenomenon. Like a river that returns to its original course even if its path is temporarily diverted . . ..

That is almost, but not quite, like some people's solution to the "Grandfather Paradox".

In this twist to the classic Grandfather Paradox, some people solve the problem outlined in the paradox by saying that EVEN IF you went back in time in an attempt to kill your grandfather, the very fact your grandfather originally lived long enough to sire one of your parents proves that there would be no way that you would succeed in killing him. You would fail every time you tried, because that's the way the timeline was "meant to be".

This "it was meant to be" isn't necessarily a mystic event, as you concur with your post, but rather it is just the way the timeline happens (that he lives) and there is nothing that can change the timeline. The failed attempt on his life by you is just part of the timeline.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Interesting. Is it just me or, despite our differences regarding the reboot, are all these lists pretty similar, with the same films clustered around the top and bottom--with the notable exceptions of TMP and 2009, which are all over the place?

Well, people who like the reboot aren't untypical Star Trek fans so a certain degree of consensus about the Franchise overall isn't unreasonable.

 

[Ovation]

As for "The universe needs the Enterprise crew to come together" seen upthread...I *think* that was born out of interviews with Nimoy. I understand the reflexive distaste for those Gaimanesque notions, but i had no problem with it.

Well, we don't have to see that in mystical terms. One could just say that disrupted timestreams tend to correct themselves by making small course corrections. Seems to me that I've seen that concept--that small changes in the timeline tend to sort themselves out--in any number of classic time-travel stories by Poul Anderson or Fritz Leiber or whomever.

Think of it as a purely natural phenomenon. Like a river that returns to its original course even if its path is temporarily diverted . . ..

Not to mention that Spock says as much in City on the Edge of Forever (the exact quotation escapes me at the moment--something about why they should expect McCoy to end up in NYC rather than Mongolia or something like that). It even makes for a "canon" reason for the crew coming together in the new timeline--an attempt for things to unfold in a roughly analogous, though hardly identical, fashion (that is when I bother to think about popcorn entertainment like Star Trek movies beyond "that was fun and entertaining" or "well, that could have been better").

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

We can argue this "how did the crew come together in alternate timelines" question using TOS and TNG as examples...

In "Mirror Mirror", how did the Mirror universe crew just happen to come together as roughly the same contingent as the "prime universe"?

In "Yesterday's Enterprise", how did the Enterprise-D's crew come to be together when obviously the history of each crew member was very different than in the "prime universe" up to that point?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Not to mention every single timeline in "Parallels"!

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Not to mention every single timeline in "Parallels"!

I tried to argue that one once, but someone pointed out that there could have been an infinite number of possibilities we DIDN'T see in "Parallels" where the crew NEVER came together. We just happened to see the hundred's of thousands where they DID happen to come together.

I can buy that. But still, that means it is possible for the same crew to all come together in another timeline.

 

[Franklin]

It was really a series of coincidences and twists of fate that led to the seven being on the Enterprise. Instead of time "making things right," it may make one think of how little control we may really have over our fate.

For example, things would've turned out very differently if McCoy had not been assigned to the Enterprise, and had taken Kirk aboard, say, the Farragut.

Considering the theories that say that there are infinite universes that unfold in infinite ways, there may be many where Kirk, Spock, and McCoy never met or were never even born. Of course, those universes wouldn't be as much fun as the others.

 

[Ryan8bit]

It even makes for a "canon" reason for the crew coming together in the new timeline--an attempt for things to unfold in a roughly analogous, though hardly identical, fashion.

I don't know if it really implies that. If anything, that just sets a precedent for Nero and Spock to have arrived in the same past (when they probably shouldn't have).

I think there are plenty of other examples where this can be deduced though. One that I can remember from DS9 was in "Accession" where the prophets sent a Bajoran back in time, and Kira remembered the guy's book as being unfinished, yet now it clearly was finished. It showed that changes could be made in the past without significantly altering the future, all while the people in the present retained memories of the previous time.

Of course, none of those other examples had anything major like Vulcan imploding. Usually when those would happen, that's when we'd see the alternate universes. The one in "Yesterday's Enterprise" managed to pull the crew together in a similar way, although there were the notable exceptions of Yar/Worf/Troi.

That at least implies that in one version of Trek, time travel was a little bit more deterministic. However, time travel in Star Trek has seldom been consistent, so basically anything goes.

 

[Ryan8bit]

In "Yesterday's Enterprise", how did the Enterprise-D's crew come to be together when obviously the history of each crew member was very different than in the "prime universe" up to that point?

It's true that the changes could have greatly affected each of the people who were there. But at least they gave it a minute of thought as to who should be there and who shouldn't. Worf and Troi were cut since it didn't make sense for them to be there, and Yar was put back. If the writers of the movie thought the same way, they probably would have eliminated Chekov. But they didn't really care if it made at least some sense, and to a certain degree we have to accept that writers are just going to put in what they want. All that really matters is that they maintain the illusion that it makes sense.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

In "Yesterday's Enterprise", how did the Enterprise-D's crew come to be together when obviously the history of each crew member was very different than in the "prime universe" up to that point?

It's true that the changes could have greatly affected each of the people who were there. But at least they gave it a minute of thought as to who should be there and who shouldn't. Worf and Troi were cut since it didn't make sense for them to be there, and Yar was put back. If the writers of the movie thought the same way, they probably would have eliminated Chekov. But they didn't really care if it made at least some sense, and to a certain degree we have to accept that writers are just going to put in what they want. All that really matters is that they maintain the illusion that it makes sense.

They didn't put in "what they wanted". They put in the "Big 7" regulars from the TV show and the films.

Eliminating Chekov would have raised a terrible ruckus. There would have been throngs of fans saying "this is Star Trek; we would have created ways in our own minds by which Chekov could be part of the crew! That's what we have always done with canon."

And please don't tell me that it makes logical real-world sense that Wesley ended up as part of the "Yesterday's Enterprise" Enterprise-D crew, sitting in the chair next to Data. I'm okay with it, because it is only Star Trek (a fictional story), but it doesn't really make that much sense in reality. It's quite the coincidence.

 

[Franklin]

In "Yesterday's Enterprise", how did the Enterprise-D's crew come to be together when obviously the history of each crew member was very different than in the "prime universe" up to that point?

It's true that the changes could have greatly affected each of the people who were there. But at least they gave it a minute of thought as to who should be there and who shouldn't. Worf and Troi were cut since it didn't make sense for them to be there, and Yar was put back. If the writers of the movie thought the same way, they probably would have eliminated Chekov. But they didn't really care if it made at least some sense, and to a certain degree we have to accept that writers are just going to put in what they want. All that really matters is that they maintain the illusion that it makes sense.

They didn't put in "what they wanted". They put in the "Big 7" regulars from the TV show and the films.

The seven, plus an allusion to Nurse Chapel.

 

[F. King Daniel]

No Randi, though. So not an exact recreation - and the next movie adds Carol Marcus to the crew and Chekov becomes a redshirt. Things aren't going quite the same.

 

[Ryan8bit]

They didn't put in "what they wanted". They put in the "Big 7" regulars from the TV show and the films.

Uh yeah, that's exactly what I mean by them putting in what they wanted. There was no "Big 7" on the TV show, just the movies, and that's what they wanted to do. They had the freedom to change it up a little if they wanted to.

Eliminating Chekov would have raised a terrible ruckus.

I highly doubt that. At the very least, it wouldn't have been any more of a ruckus than the "Chekov is the wrong age" stuff. I would have been perfectly fine if they had waited to put him in a later movie, as I'm sure most would.

And please don't tell me that it makes logical real-world sense that Wesley ended up as part of the "Yesterday's Enterprise" Enterprise-D crew, sitting in the chair next to Data. I'm okay with it, because it is only Star Trek (a fictional story), but it doesn't really make that much sense in reality. It's quite the coincidence.

I think the writers, when they sat down and figured out who should and shouldn't be there, probably at least rationalized it in some way. Probably something like Picard still choosing Dr. Crusher, Wesley still having a fast track to becoming a full officer, and Starfleet being in desperate need of officers straight from the academy. I don't personally buy it that much, but mostly just because I think it probably would have been unlikely for Wesley to even be born.

Obviously to some extent they were going to put in just what they wanted as well. We were unlikely at that stage to get an alternate universe show which only had a couple of the regulars. They probably could have rationalized Troi or Worf as well, but they just decided that it would have stretched credibility too much. It gave the illusion that there were workings to the universe, rather than it appearing like writers are pulling the strings.