Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[JarodRussell]

No need for a continuity reboot or a remake of TOS at all.

What they also did was a stylistic change, and a change in the promotional department, and that's what made the difference.

 

[Nerys Myk]

No. But apparently reboots are the current fad in Hollywood these days. Why come up with something original when you can just take an old concept, change a few details and sell it again?

Its always been the "fad" in Hollywood, probably going back to the start of the 20th Century. They like proven properties.

Wouldn't setting a new Star Trek film or series "post-Nemesis" also be "taking an old concept, changing a few details and selling it again"?

There's a large difference between a sequel and just taking all the same players and having them play a slightly different game.

Which is what every Star Trek series after TOS did. Look at each character in TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT and you will see the "DNA" of the TOS characters. Any post-Nemesis series/movie would do the same.

A sequel is just a film set after the events of a previous film. Before some one coined the term "prequel", all it had to be was part of the same series of films, irrelevant of time frame or characters.

 

[Greg Cox]

From a business perspective, probably. A reboot instantly gives you a USP of the TOS characters back in action.

However, Trek IX with minor tweaks could've used any crew at any point in Star Trek's history. The idea that Trek was bogged down in continuity and that new stories could not be told is actual nonsense.

But, rightly or wrongly, there was a perception out there in the general public that Star Trek was too "complicated" for ordinary people, that you needed to be a hardcore Trekkie with a degree in Klingon linguistics to understand the shows. I used to run into this attitude all the time at family reunions, Fourth of July barbecues, etc.

"I like STAR WARS, but STAR TREK seems too complicated."

Now, I agree that most standalone TREK episodes and movies are actually more accessible than people think they are, but even if people just think that Trek is for Trekkies only, and that you need to have seen all five zillion movies and TV shows to understand the latest movie, you have a marketing problem. A reboot offers newcomers a chance to get in on the ground floor, as it were, which is a lot less intimidating to the average viewer.

Plus, once you decide to recast the iconic TOS crew, with newer, younger actors, you kinda need to reboot the continuity just to give yourselves a clean slate--and not be locked into forty years of "canonical" biographies for these characters. "Well, Kirk is going to be killed by Soran, and Scotty's going to get trapped in a transporter buffer, and Spock and Uhura are never going to get married . . . ."

Why force the new Kirk and Spock to slavishly follow the tracks laid down by decades of old movies and TV shows? Better to mix things up and get off to a fresh start.

 

[JarodRussell]

Now, I agree that most standalone TREK episodes and movies are actually more accessible than people think they are, but even if people just think that Trek is for Trekkies only, and that you need to have seen all five zillion movies and TV shows to understand the latest movie, you have a marketing problem. A reboot offers newcomers a chance to get in on the ground floor, as it were, which is a lot less intimidating to the average viewer.

It's only a marketing problem. With Star Trek 2009, the audience was bombarded with BAM! THIS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT! BAM! THIS IS NOT YOUR FATHER'S STARTREK! BAM! YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT! BAM! YOU CAN EVEN WATCH IT WHEN YOU HATED STAR TREK!

That is was a reboot and/or a TOS reboot didn't matter. It could have been a TNG film. With that kind of promotion, and the new style, wouldn't have been a problem.

 

[R. Star]

^
And that's mostly why I don't like the JJverse... too much bam, too little substance.

 

[BillJ]

That is was a reboot and/or a TOS reboot didn't matter. It could have been a TNG film. With that kind of promotion, and the new style, wouldn't have been a problem.

TNG had the stink of failure on it. More than that, many people thought the movies were dull.

 

[BillJ]

^
And that's mostly why I don't like the JJverse... too much bam, too little substance.

But you're judging a two-hour film vs. a series that had seven hundred episodes. I'm sure you could find plenty of episodes that had too much bam in there and I'm sure many people could use examples of single episodes/movies to claim the Prime timeline had too little substance.

 

[Set Harth]

And that's mostly why I don't like the JJverse... too much bam, too little Johnny Knoxville.

Fixed.

 

[Gojira]

Yes! Star Trek was all but dead and they needed to do something different. I am so happy they did what they did and very happy with the results.

 

[Greg Cox]

Now, I agree that most standalone TREK episodes and movies are actually more accessible than people think they are, but even if people just think that Trek is for Trekkies only, and that you need to have seen all five zillion movies and TV shows to understand the latest movie, you have a marketing problem. A reboot offers newcomers a chance to get in on the ground floor, as it were, which is a lot less intimidating to the average viewer.

It's only a marketing problem. With Star Trek 2009, the audience was bombarded with BAM! THIS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT! BAM! THIS IS NOT YOUR FATHER'S STARTREK! BAM! YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT! BAM! YOU CAN EVEN WATCH IT WHEN YOU HATED STAR TREK!.

But that's exactly what was needed at this juncture.

Speaking as someone who has written waaay too much advertising copy, sometimes you really need to go with the "brute force" technique--especially when you need to overcome preconceptions or resistance in the marketplace. Subtlety is not a virtue when you're trying to get a simple, straightforward message across to a mass audience.

In this case the message was: "Not just for Trekkies only!"

Mission accomplished.

As to whether you could do with that with a brand new crew and ship, as opposed to the iconic TOS crew, that's another issue. But you can definitely make the case that Kirk and Spock have a lot more marquee value, even among casual viewers, than Captain Fingal O'Hara of the Starship Intrepid . . . .

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Star Trek 11 essentially rebooted the franchise, do you think that was the right move?

Of course it was.

Starfleet was right to overhaul the original Enterprise, and Paramount was right to refit the original Star Trek. And they even reactivated Spock to help iron out some of their canon-design difficulties; without his assistance, the script probably would have been hugely unbalanced and the entire film would have vanished into a wormhole, never to be seen again.

 

[R. Star]

^
And that's mostly why I don't like the JJverse... too much bam, too little substance.

But you're judging a two-hour film vs. a series that had seven hundred episodes. I'm sure you could find plenty of episodes that had too much bam in there and I'm sure many people could use examples of single episodes/movies to claim the Prime timeline had too little substance.

So? What else am I supposed to judge it by? Hopes and dreams?

 

[Lord Garth FOI]

^It included a character from the original show, continuing the part he played in a Next Generation episode. By that alone it can't be a 100% clean reboot.

And golem Craig bond had Judy dench from Remington steel bond and yet that was considered a complete reboot

And your own magnificent Jjverse starship upscaling sizes, a 650 m kelvin before the Narada supposedly changed the time line

It's a reboot brother. I love ya and I will forever be greatful for your starship size upscaling (which is cannon in my personal fantasy land along with a number of the better novels, the animated series, Farragut and Exeter and the great fact that in my personal Trek canon, next gen and voyager never actually happened and were both a bad drunken dream of Scotty's)

 

[BillJ]

^
And that's mostly why I don't like the JJverse... too much bam, too little substance.

But you're judging a two-hour film vs. a series that had seven hundred episodes. I'm sure you could find plenty of episodes that had too much bam in there and I'm sure many people could use examples of single episodes/movies to claim the Prime timeline had too little substance.

So? What else am I supposed to judge it by? Hopes and dreams?

I don't think you judge the totality of J.J. Abrams work until we have it all in. It's no different than judging the collection of Modern Trek back in 1987 watching Encounter at Farpoint.

For me, Star Trek 2009 had a ton of missed opportunities and gaffes. But I understand, much like when they were making Encounter at Farpoint, that there would be growing pains in the process.

Did anyone think there'd be another six hundred plus episodes of Trek when they watched that episode in 1987?

 

[R. Star]

But you're judging a two-hour film vs. a series that had seven hundred episodes. I'm sure you could find plenty of episodes that had too much bam in there and I'm sure many people could use examples of single episodes/movies to claim the Prime timeline had too little substance.

So? What else am I supposed to judge it by? Hopes and dreams?

I don't think you judge the totality of J.J. Abrams work until we have it all in. It's no different than judging the collection of Modern Trek back in 1987 watching Encounter at Farpoint.

For me, Star Trek 2009 had a ton of missed opportunities and gaffes. But I understand, much like when they were making Encounter at Farpoint, that there would be growing pains in the process.

Did anyone think there'd be another six hundred plus episodes of Trek when they watched that episode in 1987?

So by that definition all discussion and opinions of NuTrek shouldn't happen until JJ is done making movies? That doesn't make any sense.

The 09 movie(that I wish had a name at the very least) had more of a Star Wars feel, graphics and cheap humor over substance, to it. It really didn't feel to me like I was watching Kirk and Spock as opposed to two other people pretending to be them either. That perception could change over time, ut until I've more material to go on, that's my view. The previews for Into Darkness seem like it's going to be action heavy, but maybe it'll have a good story driving it. I hope so at any rate.

 

[wissaboo]

But you're judging a two-hour film vs. a series that had seven hundred episodes. I'm sure you could find plenty of episodes that had too much bam in there and I'm sure many people could use examples of single episodes/movies to claim the Prime timeline had too little substance.

So? What else am I supposed to judge it by? Hopes and dreams?

I don't think you judge the totality of J.J. Abrams work until we have it all in. It's no different than judging the collection of Modern Trek back in 1987 watching Encounter at Farpoint.

For me, Star Trek 2009 had a ton of missed opportunities and gaffes. But I understand, much like when they were making Encounter at Farpoint, that there would be growing pains in the process.

Did anyone think there'd be another six hundred plus episodes of Trek when they watched that episode in 1987?

I always find it so amusing for people to complain about the new look and the new ship and omg it isn't star trek.

that's exactly how I felt when I heard about the plans for tng. Worst idea ever. Turned out to be not so bad. I'd even go so far as to say that stylistically this one is about as different from the tng series spinoffs as tng was from tos.

 

[StarMan]

But, rightly or wrongly, there was a perception out there in the general public that Star Trek was too "complicated" for ordinary people, that you needed to be a hardcore Trekkie with a degree in Klingon linguistics to understand the shows. I used to run into this attitude all the time at family reunions, Fourth of July barbecues, etc.

QFT.

Star Trek wasn't cool. Being a Trekkie certainly wasn't in vogue. Most people I would know would struggle to distinguish between any of the Next Generation era series. The volume of material and perceived "technicality" made for a product not easily accessible to regular folk.

When your product isn't accessible to the majority, it's not going to reach it's profit potential.

 

[BillJ]

I always find it so amusing for people to complain about the new look and the new ship and omg it isn't star trek.

The only pure Star Trek is The Cage. Everything after that made changes to the concept/characters/universe. Early TNG is different from TOS, late TNG is different from early TNG, DS9 is different from TOS/TNG, Voyager is different from DS9 and Enterprise is different from what came before. Then you add the movies to the mix and "what is Star Trek?" is always a moving target.

Star Trek 2009 is average for me, there is better Trek and there is worse. But I don't doubt that it's Trek.

 

[ROBE]

Trek needed to go back to the beginning and they needed a new cast as the originals were either too old or too dead.
Where was there to go Star Trek: The Generation after the Next Generation, Even Deeper Space 9a, Voyaging and Getting Lost Again or The Spaceship called Enterprise that existed before Enterprise?

 

[Dale Sams]

I always find it so amusing for people to complain about the new look and the new ship and omg it isn't star trek.

The only pure Star Trek is The Cage. Everything after that made changes to the concept/characters/universe. Early TNG is different from TOS, late TNG is different from early TNG, DS9 is different from TOS/TNG, Voyager is different from DS9 and Enterprise is different from what came before. Then you add the movies to the mix and "what is Star Trek?" is always a moving target.

Star Trek 2009 is average for me, there is better Trek and there is worse. But I don't doubt that it's Trek.

I don't say "It isn't Trek", I say "Where is the Trek?" a movie every 2-3 years? I'll watch the movies. They're fine for what they are. But there's no Trek.

That is not a disparagement on the movies at all, but where do they go? Bond movies are about Bond..and M a little. This is an entire cast and any emotional dynamic is built on our memories of other people, whereas they devoted the first entire two Bond movies making us care about Bond and M.

What we need it a TV series.