mada101 said:
Easiest way to bring Kirk back? Reboot the franchise
scotthm said:
The main desire to have Shatner in this film (IMO) is to help give it a sense of continuity with existing TOS. Having Nimoy in the film does this, and having Shatner in the film would add to that.
Hopefully. On the other hand, just having some of the same actors it in but changing everything else is pointless. Why bother having Nimoy and Shatner in it if its a re-imagining? That would just be an attempt to 'settle' the hardcore fanbase with a wink and a "
See? They're in it! That should make it canon, right? What's wrong with you people? Pay for a damn ticket and buy the new merchandise! Screw your well-developed forty year universe: we want money! We wouldn't have had this problem had we done Star Wars
like we wanted...".
Here's what I've always seen in the "let's have a reboot" crowd seem to be saying.
They're saying that they like one or two "root ideas" in the original series, but they DISLIKE much, much more.
They want to see new characters, with new and different characteristics. They want to see new ships, new alien races, new situations, new stories. And they want to see them in a way that doesn't require intimate knowledge of 40+ years of Trek history to enjoy.
Ya know what? I think EVERYONE wants to see those things.
The problem... THE ONLY PROBLEM... between the "pro-reboot" and "anti-reboot" crowds is this. Those of us who don't like the idea as being proposed think that the new ship, which looks different and has different capabilities, should be portrayed as A NEW SHIP. Not as "The USS Enterprise, NCC-1701."
That ship, that name, already exists. Same for all the characters and situations and so forth.
This is where the "toss it all out and start over" argument always falls flat, I think. They claim that "audiences aren't all that familiar with the originals, so they won't care if we change everything." Yet, in the same breath, they'll claim that the reason that audiences will tune in is because the audience is familiar with these designs, names, and situations and will want to see them for that reason.
It always goes back to TOS-BSG versus nuBSG when you get to this. Or, alternatively, TOS-Godzilla versus nuGodzilla... or any other "reboot" which was done.
Actually, to break from tradition here, I'll address Godzilla instead.
We ALL KNOW that the Japanese Godzilla movies were cheesy, campy, and generally bad. But they were still enjoyable at a certain level, weren't they?
We also know that when Emmerich redid Godzilla, he created something that rectified all of the shortcomings of the original series. Unfortunately, in the execution, he created something every bit as excreble as the originals, just with a totally DIFFERENT set of flaws and defects! Yes, you had awesome new special effects, and a certain degree of pseudo-scientific validity to the concept. But you also had horrific characterization, god-awful dialog and "humor" and so forth. Plus... considering how big this monster was supposed to be, and how destructive, the majority of the damage done to the city was done by the MILITARY... sheesh...
THIS is the danger of a "reboot." You call it the same thing as the original, and you "fix" things you think are "broken," but in the process you break a whole new set of things.
What was the biggest single complaint about that movie, though? Was it the horrible acting, characterization, dialog, "humor," etc, etc?
NO. The biggest complaint was that "Godzilla looks wrong!" This movie was recent enough that most of you will be able to remember it, so you know what I'm saying is accurate.
The audiences saw this big monster and immediately said "that's not Godzilla." It may have been a REALLY REALLY COOL LOOKING MONSTER, it may have been convincing, but it didn't even RESEMBLE the original, and audiences hated that.
Godzilla NEEDED a "reboot." But they tossed out the few really good parts along with the bad, and created a lot of new bad parts to go along with it.
THAT is the danger of a "reboot" mentality.
For nuBSG, people tend to like quoting that one because it's a fairly good program overall... and, overall, is somewhat better than the original. But again, they threw out the GOOD parts of the original, not just the bad ones, and created a whole series of entirely new "bad parts."
Oh, yeah, and the show is almost totally unrelated to the original series... it's unrecognizable. If they hadn't reused the series name, the ship name, the antagonist race name, and (BARELY) reused original character names, few people would even make the connection between the two at all.
It was a "bait and switch" thing... we got a decent new show, but it tried to fake us out by telling us we were gonna see "Battlestar Galactica" to bring in an audience.
It would have been better had it called itself something else, and not reused the various terms. Hell, it would have made a LOT more sense had it been played as a continuation of the "Blade Runner" world than as a remake of BSG, I think.
The ending doesnt make any sense. 
