Amen, Brother Cawley! Hallelujah, praise the Lawd!
Editorial on ST:IX (James Cawley)
- Thread starter T'Aerwynd
- Start date
Because Star Trek is not Batman. Besides the fact that, in the case of Batman, the source material had already been "rebooted" about fifteen times before Tim Burton even signed the contract (so what was done in those two movies wasn't all that better or worse than when Columbia did those two serials in the 40's), it's a different matter when you're doing a movie based on a pre-existing property. Michael Keaton didn't originate the character of Batman, nor did Adam West, or the guys in the aforementioned serials. Sean Connery did not originate the character of James Bond.
Star Trek IS the source material. There were no Star Trek novels prior to September 8, 1966, so there was nobody to complain about how the ship didn't look right, or how William Shatner is completely wrong for Kirk, what was on screen is the source material from which all other Star Trek related material is derived, including the look of the ship, interiors, uniforms, weapons, equipment, etc.
Frankly, this highly polished turd shouldn't even have a "Based on Star Trek" credit. At best, "Inspired by Star Trek", at worst, "Any resemblence between the characters and situations presented and Star Trek is purely coincidental."
Star Trek IS the source material. There were no Star Trek novels prior to September 8, 1966, so there was nobody to complain about how the ship didn't look right, or how William Shatner is completely wrong for Kirk, what was on screen is the source material from which all other Star Trek related material is derived, including the look of the ship, interiors, uniforms, weapons, equipment, etc.
Frankly, this highly polished turd shouldn't even have a "Based on Star Trek" credit. At best, "Inspired by Star Trek", at worst, "Any resemblence between the characters and situations presented and Star Trek is purely coincidental."
After reading the article, I have decided that Cawley is no more brilliant or retarded than the rest of us here.
With all due respect to Cawley I think The Batman comparison isn't a good one. Since the DC comics have rebooted themselves, the TV series was a product of it's era and only two movies of every Batman Director has kept it's own continuity.
Star Trek has been doing it's best to keep the continuity for 40+ years.
Star Trek has been doing it's best to keep the continuity for 40+ years.
Its was always going to be a some type of reboot. Even if not called that. Everyone was been speculating about sequels and reviving the franchise. Which means a reboot! Because sequels will take place during the 5 year mission or equivalent period of time. It would need to be a one off film to really fit into the old continuity seemingly. Any notions that future sequels would take place between episodes, the way the novels do, as not to tread on subjects in TOS is naive and absurd.
James Cawley has tread marks on his neck that look suspisciously like J.J. Abrams boot.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
If Batman's 'source material' could be rebooted, then why can't the Trek source material be rebooted?
ST-One
Vice Admiral
'Cause. And it can't. And...'cause!
ST-One
Vice Admiral
It can be, obviously. however, I do think that it is more difficult with Trek, since it's all been 'one universe' up until now. The first reboot is the hardest, especially after all these years.
But I still think the Batman analogy is a good one. If Batman had never been rebooted even once he'd just be a footnote in 40's comic history that no one remembers, rather than a huge character with a blockbuster 2008 movie. There's a Batman for everyone, from 6-year-olds to cranky old men.
A new version of Trek isn't really a bad thing.
Last edited:
Thats how I think, take Bond its been going along for 20+ movies now with each Bond supposedly being the same Bond as the one before never mind that they spand over 30 years between Connery's first and Brosnons last they are supposed to be the same Bond.
Then Casino Royale comes along where Bond first becomes 007 and for some reason the fans still manage to say "but it comes before Dr No" even though its set years after and one major point being the M this Bond has is supposed to replace the M in Dr No.
Little side spat but its a comparison of similar minds not being open to something new, which with Trek is rather odd as part of the core ideal is to be open to new ideas.
Then again the ship does look odd...
Well, at least you're honest about it.
Another big difference between something like Star Trek and, say, Crisis on Infinite Earths.
DC Comics did that big event because they had to. The backstories had gotten so convoluted and contradictory that they had to do something. There were at least three or four versions of Superman's origin alone. The decks had to cleared if they were going to move forward and pose a serious challenge to Marvel.
It was also getting a little tough to take Bond seriously, either, particularly with Sean Connery still kicking to remind us just how bloody long the movies have been going.
Star Trek, on the other hand, does not need to be rebooted! Even a prequel could've been done without tossing the whole works in the garbage in the process.
I think Jon Povill said it best in those bits quoted by TGT. Paramount has been trying to change Star Trek into a big screen Star Warsy epic since the late 70's, AND IT JUST DOESN'T WORK!! Star Trek isn't set up that way. You can tell a big epic story set in the Star Trek universe, but that's not the same thing.
Star Wars is an epic, told in six chapters, with a few side stories tossed in for good measure.
Star Trek is a setting for stories, some epic, like "Best of Both Worlds", some more personal and intimate, like "The Naked Time" or "Data's Day".
DC Comics did that big event because they had to. The backstories had gotten so convoluted and contradictory that they had to do something. There were at least three or four versions of Superman's origin alone. The decks had to cleared if they were going to move forward and pose a serious challenge to Marvel.
It was also getting a little tough to take Bond seriously, either, particularly with Sean Connery still kicking to remind us just how bloody long the movies have been going.
Star Trek, on the other hand, does not need to be rebooted! Even a prequel could've been done without tossing the whole works in the garbage in the process.
I think Jon Povill said it best in those bits quoted by TGT. Paramount has been trying to change Star Trek into a big screen Star Warsy epic since the late 70's, AND IT JUST DOESN'T WORK!! Star Trek isn't set up that way. You can tell a big epic story set in the Star Trek universe, but that's not the same thing.
Star Wars is an epic, told in six chapters, with a few side stories tossed in for good measure.
Star Trek is a setting for stories, some epic, like "Best of Both Worlds", some more personal and intimate, like "The Naked Time" or "Data's Day".
Well of course it doesn't need to be rebooted. Star Trek doesn't really need anything, actually. It doesn't need to be rebooted, it doesn't need new series, it doesn't need new movies, it doesn't need new fans, etc... But since Paramount intends to release a new Star Trek movie, and intends to make money off of it, yes, in that particular situation it needs to be rebooted.
I think it's pretty obvious by now that they have not, in fact, "tossed the whole works in the garbage". Quite the contrary in fact.
Good. I don't want the same thing. We've already had the same thing. And then the same thing again. And then a copy of a copy of the same thing. We need new things.
With that attitude, you couldn't buy dignity at any price.
Poor, poor Dennis... just trying to curry favor with 'The Idiots in Charge'. Doesn't it get old?
