Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[lurok]

I think setting it 100 years after TNG and having Will Smith or whoever as the new captain could have been a big enough success. It'd still have to be an action movie though I admit.

I think that's potentially interesting idea but could also be seen as Will Smith/Whoever generic SF action movie-but-with-Trek-branding (unless got some cameos/nods in). Heck, they could even have done VOY/DS9/ENT movies; just recast them with box office names. I still think Paramount took the best/wisest route, even if safest. For all its faults, '09 is a Trek movie first and foremost. And I suspect the sequel moreso.

 

[Dale Sams]

I have no time for hecklers and internet white knights, address my points intelligently and maturely or I won't respond. If you want to spend your time spouting inane, blunt, irrational aggression then take your posts to the YouTube comments section where they belong.

Moreover, couldn't they just have uh... made a story that doesn't require knowledge of continuity to understand instead of erasing all the continuity?.

Think of it as tearing off the bandaid in one fell swoop rather than suffering a dozen little stings and winces. Once you decide you want a fresh start, it's better to dispose of all the old "canon" quickly and efficiently rather than subject your new cycle of TREK movies to years of nitpicking and plot constraints . . . .

("But wait, Kirk can't meet the Borg now. That never happened in the original timeline. Canon violation!")

Now they have a clean slate to work with . . .

That's better .

I guess it depends where they go with this. The alt. timeline angle does open up some interesting story possibilities. It's just that despite the destruction of Vulcan, the last film soon rushed the situation to the status quo. I have a similar issue with the last X-Men movie rushing things to the status quo at the end.

Killing Kirk instead of Spock would be a pretty cool move .

It's a good thing the last movie, and upcoming one appears to be, so well filmed and done...because I maintain, the premise is built on a house of cards. I care about NuSpock some because of the time spent on his backstory (on the flipside he's really an asshole). I care even less about NuKirk and his death would have even less resonance with me than the crappy send-off they gave Shatner.

But I would be 100% behind a TV series with the NuCast. It's not like they're huge stars, and they'll all probably be doing TV series in five years anyway.*

*This is in responce to the suggestion that the cast would be too expensive to pay.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I have no time for hecklers

That's understandable and I'm sure you realize that it's something we all have in common.

I reject the idea that Nuverse is a canon-free Valentine's card for new viewers. The movie ITSELF doesn't even make any sense unless you get on the internet/buy the related comics/read what scenes were cut.

It made perfect sense to me, and I haven't read any comic or seen any cut scenes.

 

[BillJ]

I have no time for hecklers and internet white knights, address my points intelligently and maturely or I won't respond. If you want to spend your time spouting inane, blunt, irrational aggression then take your posts to the YouTube comments section where they belong.

You simply turned yourself into a joke. Not because you had a change of heart about a movie but because you talk down to those who still do like it.

 

[Dale Sams]

I have no time for hecklers

That's understandable and I'm sure you realize that it's something we all have in common.

I reject the idea that Nuverse is a canon-free Valentine's card for new viewers. The movie ITSELF doesn't even make any sense unless you get on the internet/buy the related comics/read what scenes were cut.

It made perfect sense to me, and I haven't read any comic or seen any cut scenes.

So what happened to Nero between his encounter with Thor and the destruction of Vulcan?

Anyway, I admit I conflated the truth, that you don't get a full explanation until the film is halfway over (Meeting Old Spock) with the idea that you don't get a full explanation at all. My bad.

So I'm changing from 'it doesn't make any sense' to 'it's got a deleted scene plot hole and is kind of confusing until you meet Old Spock'*

*Unless, like most people (IMO) you have some idea of the plot just from stumbling across it.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

But I would be 100% behind a TV series with the NuCast. It's not like they're huge stars, and they'll all probably be doing TV series in five years anyway.*

*This is in responce to the suggestion that the cast would be too expensive to pay.

They may not be huge stars but they're all working movie actors. You could afford one or two of them for your series but not all of them. Zoe Saldana, to name just one, was in Avatar and Pirates of the Caribbean, she's been appearing in movies for twelve years and has a net worth of several million dollars.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Are you even capable of making relevant points in a debate beyond inarticulate mud-slinging?

What debate? Your having an opinion with which I choose to disagree is not a debate so much as simply disposing of the matter at hand.

Reminding you that you absolutely loved Abrams's first Star Trek movie and stated as much doesn't constitute "mud slinging" by any rational use of the phrase; it's not as if you're being accused of something deplorable or that some terrible untrue allegation is being made.

It is, however, entirely relevant to evaluating how seriously one ought to regard your unequivocal and rather strident statements of opinion at any given moment. When you assert that various aspects of the movie are clearly objectionable on their face or that it's being directed at an audience of some sort that you regard as unimportant or less perceptive than yourself, then you're contradicting the fact that when you watched it none of that was part of your own initial aesthetic response to the movie. As one minor example, complaining about stuff like the use of lens flares as distracting or on some other grounds makes no sense at all when it clearly didn't bother you a bit in the summer of 2009.

 

[nightwind1]

Yes

Okay but lets go into why you think Star Trek needed a reboot or not.

Now Star Trek had two bad movies in a row and two rather bland TV series, was there no way to get past besides a reboot?

Because to MOST people- the general audience the new movie was trying to reach- Star Trek IS Kirk, McCoy, Spock, Scotty...

So if they showed up at a theater for a STAR TREK movie, and there was no Kirk, no Spock, no McCoy, the majority of the audience would just wonder where the Star Trek was they paid good money to see.

 

[Dukhat]

Are you even capable of making relevant points in a debate beyond inarticulate mud-slinging?

What debate?

Reminding you that you absolutely loved Abrams's first Star Trek movie and stated as much doesn't constitute "mud slinging" by any rational use of the phrase; it's not as if you're being accused of something deplorable or that some terrible untrue allegation is being made. It is, however, entirely relevant to evaluating how seriously one ought to regard your unequivocal and rather strident statements of opinion at any given moment.

I've already stopped taking him seriously.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

So what happened to Nero between his encounter with Thor and the destruction of Vulcan?

We don't know what happened, it's a loose end. But loose ends are not plot holes.

 

[Dale Sams]

So what happened to Nero between his encounter with Thor and the destruction of Vulcan?

We don't know what happened, it's a loose end. But loose ends are not plot holes.

I could argue that it becomes a plot hole when he could have done whatever it is Nero's want to do at anytime in the next 20 years....but I see your point.

The loose end also becomes loosier because we're wondering why the hell Nero is fighting a Klingon fleet of 50 ships.

edit: For myself, I thought him being in a Klingon prison (and ESPECIALLY having a psychic connection with the borgified* Narada) was dumb, and since it didn't make it to the screen...my fanwank was he just tooled around waiting for Spock to appear**

*Just being future tech is better

** There's your TV series!!

 

[nightwind1]

... cheap humor over substance...

Yes, because TOS didn't ("I, Mudd") have ("The Trouble with Tribbles") humor ("The Squire of Gothos") over ("Shore Leave") substance.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

edit: For myself, I thought him being in a Klingon prison (and ESPECIALLY having a psychic connection with the borgified* Narada) was dumb, and since it didn't make it to the screen...my fanwank was he just tooled around waiting for Spock to appear**

As it stands, that's the explanation the movie leads us to believe, in my opinion.

 

[DalekJim]

I've already stopped taking him seriously.

Good, now both of you kindly stop talking to me as you will never have anything interesting to add to this or any discussion beyond blunt heckles.

As it stands, that's the explanation the movie leads us to believe, in my opinion.

I think it would have made sense for him to have been waiting for Spock if he didn't also have the ultimate goal of destroying Earth. Surely he'd have got that over with first? If only to pass the time .

 

[Balrog]

I think setting it 100 years after TNG and having Will Smith or whoever as the new captain could have been a big enough success. It'd still have to be an action movie though I admit.

So, your answer to saving Trek, instead of the JJverse, is to make Star Trek a Will Smith franchise?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I think it would have made sense for him to have been waiting for Spock if he didn't also have the ultimate goal of destroying Earth. Surely he'd have got that over with first? If only to pass the time .

I guess he could have done that, but he didn't. We can't really form an opinion on a hypothetical alternate version of the movie.

 

[Greg Cox]

But I would be 100% behind a TV series with the NuCast. It's not like they're huge stars, and they'll all probably be doing TV series in five years anyway.

Actually, Quinto is doing AMERICAN HORROR STORY now.

 

[DalekJim]

So, your answer to saving Trek, instead of the JJverse, is to make Star Trek a Will Smith franchise?

No. My point was that making Star Trek a dumb action franchise set 100 years after TNG would have had the same result as setting one the generation before. Both would be a success with the general public who prefer action to sci-fi.

This ties in with the premise of this thread, and my view that a continuity reboot wasn't necessary.

Anything else you're unable to understand?

 

[Greg Cox]

... cheap humor over substance...

Yes, because TOS didn't ("I, Mudd") have ("The Trouble with Tribbles") humor ("The Squire of Gothos") over ("Shore Leave") substance.

Don't forget "A Piece of the Action" . . . .

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

No. My point was that making Star Trek a dumb action franchise set 100 years after TNG would have had the same result as setting one the generation before. Both would be a success with the general public who prefer action to sci-fi.

This ties in with the premise of this thread, and my view that a continuity reboot wasn't necessary.

I think you're grossly underestimating the stigma that Star Trek had to overcome in order to be accepted by the general public. "Back to basics Star Trek" felt like an interesting proposition for most people, who remembered Kirk and Spock and understood that they, not unlike James Bond, could be updated for the 21st Century. "More Star Trek", which is why you recommend, doesn't have the same ring to it.