People are going to complain no matter what happens. Trek fans are incredibly anal.
Yikes.
Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Kirk and Spock met when Kirk became Captain of the Enterprise, end of the Prime story. Likewise, Kirk and McCoy met the first time when McCoy replaced Dr. Piper aboard the Enterprise. It's a big universe. Not everything has to happen in some epic event.
That whole fate idea is horrible.
That whole fate idea is horrible.
But where's the fun in that?
If people want more TOS, give it to them. Remakes do not violate the Prime Directive.
I would be fine with a remake if they ever decide to make one.
Hear, hear.
But where's the fun in that?
If people want more TOS, give it to them. Remakes do not violate the Prime Directive.
If the reboot had been a novel it would likely have been lauded as genius.
Or it would have been dissected for how silly the idea and plot was. Ya never know.Hear, hear.
But where's the fun in that?
If people want more TOS, give it to them. Remakes do not violate the Prime Directive.
If the reboot had been a novel it would likely have been lauded as genius.
Was a reboot necessary?
No.
What Trek needed was to be revitalized. A reboot was not the only way to do it. However, it was the path of least resistance (I don't mean that as a fault, it's just the facts), and it most certainly worked.
Now, was the way they did it good? I'd say no - there was absolutely no need for an origin story. There was no real need for any time travel schenanagans. There was no need to destroy Vulcan. There was no real need to bother with canon, other than have the characters everyone knows - it could just be a self-contained story!
I do think it pretty much needed to be a Kirk-Spock Trek, though. The public knows Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise. They know TNG better, but the cast is old, and TNG is old. No one outside of the fans knows anything about Voyager or Enterprise, and it was far too late to do anything with DS9 (not that anyone knows about that show, either). But Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise are cultural icons. Do it right, and it's almost a license to print money, especially by 2009 when geeky retro things were OK to like.
I also think it needed to be an action film. Did it need to be brainless like Trek '09 was? No, but that obviously didn't hurt any. Plus, it's not like TOS isn't familiar with brainlessness.
No.
What Trek needed was to be revitalized. A reboot was not the only way to do it. However, it was the path of least resistance (I don't mean that as a fault, it's just the facts), and it most certainly worked.
Now, was the way they did it good? I'd say no - there was absolutely no need for an origin story. There was no real need for any time travel schenanagans. There was no need to destroy Vulcan. There was no real need to bother with canon, other than have the characters everyone knows - it could just be a self-contained story!
I do think it pretty much needed to be a Kirk-Spock Trek, though. The public knows Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise. They know TNG better, but the cast is old, and TNG is old. No one outside of the fans knows anything about Voyager or Enterprise, and it was far too late to do anything with DS9 (not that anyone knows about that show, either). But Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise are cultural icons. Do it right, and it's almost a license to print money, especially by 2009 when geeky retro things were OK to like.
I also think it needed to be an action film. Did it need to be brainless like Trek '09 was? No, but that obviously didn't hurt any. Plus, it's not like TOS isn't familiar with brainlessness.
You know, "need" may be the wrong word here, since it almost seems to imply that a reboot was only justifiable if it was absolutely necessary. As opposed to simply seeing a reboot as a good idea that did the trick.
Were there other options? Possibly. Is there anything wrong with rebooting STAR TREK? Not at all . . .
Again, reboots are not the devil. Sometimes they can be very interesting variations on a theme.
Were there other options? Possibly. Is there anything wrong with rebooting STAR TREK? Not at all . . .
Again, reboots are not the devil. Sometimes they can be very interesting variations on a theme.
Last edited:
Or it would have been dissected for how silly the idea and plot was. Ya never know.Hear, hear.But where's the fun in that?
If people want more TOS, give it to them. Remakes do not violate the Prime Directive.
If the reboot had been a novel it would likely have been lauded as genius.
IMHO, if , for whatever reason, Trek had gone straight from FC to 2009 Trek, Trek fans would have called it the stupidest thing God ever made and be clamoring for some sort of dual franchise*, ala' Thunderball/Never Say Never.
*In this alternate universe, Trek 2009 still makes bank.
I still think people would've liked the 2009 film, it had an energy that pretty much all the TNG films lacked.
You know, I always thought Never Say Never Again was underrated. I remember preferring it to Thunderball.
The notion of a "real crew of the original Enterprise" is preposterous.
Pine did an okay job as a charismatic young captain, but he didn't look, sound or act much like the Kirk of TOS. Out of all the JJ Trek characters, he's one of the ones that least resembles his counterpart IMO.
No way. If anything, it'd have been much more harshly reviewed. People accept mindless action and paper-thin plot in big-budget action blockbusters precisely in a way they don't on the printed page (garbage like the Da Vinci Code excepted). Unless the prose was insanely gangbusters or something, if Trek '09 had been released as a novel relaunch of TOS, it would've been heavily criticized in comparison to the really well-written Trek novels of the past; if it has been released as a standalone SF now, it wouldn't have even been a blip in the history of SF literature, much less "genius."
Other than Quinto and Urban to some degree, none of the actors looked or sounded like the originals. Frankly, that's a good thing, because I'm not interested in seeing a bunch of celebrity impersonators. Pine did a great job of capturing Kirk's swagger and brashness without doing a full on Shatner impression, but did subtly use some of Shatner's body language.
^
^^ Yes. Quinto did a good job imitating Spock, although I wasn't that crazy overall with his performance. He was uncannily Spock-like, but I think overall Quinto was just "OK".
Pine didn't "act like Shatner's Kirk", but I think he captured the essence what captain Kirk is supposed to be. People looking for an imitation of TOS Kirk may have been disappointed, but I wasn't.
Urban did the best job of BOTH capturing the essence of the character AND imitating the character.
^^ Yes. Quinto did a good job imitating Spock, although I wasn't that crazy overall with his performance. He was uncannily Spock-like, but I think overall Quinto was just "OK".
Pine didn't "act like Shatner's Kirk", but I think he captured the essence what captain Kirk is supposed to be. People looking for an imitation of TOS Kirk may have been disappointed, but I wasn't.
Urban did the best job of BOTH capturing the essence of the character AND imitating the character.
Similar threads
