You completely missed the context, there.
Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
You completely missed the context, there.
Watch the video BillJ linked.
Nice casual homophobia there.
Have you been hacking my account and looking in my PM box?
Yes.
A
Amaris
Guest
I don't remember if I posted in this thread or not, as it's 57 pages, so I'm answering (possibly again).
Yes, the reboot was necessary. Star Trek had become stolid and mired in back breaking canon that left no room for innovation, save to head further into the future, and further away from the relatability that the near future had to offer. By rebooting, a fresh, new lease on the franchise was given, and the end result was a drastic increase in the mainstream popularity of Star Trek. We also got some nice, updated technology, and some updated characters while still making homages to the originals.
All in all, great move.
Yes, the reboot was necessary. Star Trek had become stolid and mired in back breaking canon that left no room for innovation, save to head further into the future, and further away from the relatability that the near future had to offer. By rebooting, a fresh, new lease on the franchise was given, and the end result was a drastic increase in the mainstream popularity of Star Trek. We also got some nice, updated technology, and some updated characters while still making homages to the originals.
All in all, great move.
Well I always think that it's the Directors mark and not the fact that it's a reboot that defines the look and feel of the movie. I think we could have got away with updating the sets and having more action even if it was kept within continuity/canon. Since Kirk and Spocks early days are pretty much unexplored there was space to still play around and "update" Star Trek while still saying 'This is what the Star Trek world looked like then'. JJ Abrams is talented enough to do that. Obviously he can since he will be continuing the Star Wars story in the same Universe.
Story-wise it's difficult to blow up Vulcan in continuity without hitting the reset button. So if the story really required it then I guess they needed to reboot. But still, to me (as a Trek fan only) there is some kind of feeling that it's not really our Vulcan since it's in an alternate Universe and the other one is safe and sound.
Story-wise it's difficult to blow up Vulcan in continuity without hitting the reset button. So if the story really required it then I guess they needed to reboot. But still, to me (as a Trek fan only) there is some kind of feeling that it's not really our Vulcan since it's in an alternate Universe and the other one is safe and sound.
Of course, infinite versions of Vulcan can live on in our imaginations.
I'm not sure when it happened, but as I grew older I became far less precious about what 'really happened' in an imaginary continuity and got far more invested in whether or not the story I was watching/reading/playing was about real and relateable people. To see Spock taunted as a youth about his mother and then have him witness her death had a real impact, far more than the destruction of his made-up planet.
That being said, I'll probably raise holy hell when (or if) Bryan Singer's Battlestar Galactica movie gets made. There's only one Adama, and it's Edward James Olmos.
Yeah, it's called "growing up." 
All that matters is whether you're enjoying the show you're watching right now.
All that matters is whether you're enjoying the show you're watching right now.
Like the various versions of Oz, Wonderland, Krypton, Mongo, etc.
Last edited:
Like that version of Vulcan where the deserts are not sand but ice-cream. That's an awesome one.
Similar threads
