Hated it

[Set Harth]

It is.

No, it isn't. A factoid is defined as "something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised especially to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition".

So an example of a factoid would be "ST09 is a reboot".

They're insignificant bits of trivia that don't really matter.

Seems like we're getting into self-fulfilling prophecy territory. Can it be said objectively that certain things "don't really matter" just because they don't matter to you?

I think people tend to think reboot when most of the characters are recast

I think people have the intellectual capacity to realize that William Shatner is too old to play Kirk as a 25-year-old.

there's a wholly different creative team with a new vision

By that logic Star Wars Episode 7 is a reboot, among many other things which are not in fact reboots.

and where the future of those characters is no longer established.

That's the nature of alternate timelines. Star Trek has always had parallel universes in the same overall continuity. No one ever shrieked "Reboot!" when the Mirror Universe episodes happened.

It doesn't really matter if a single character is the one they recognize, it's essentially a reboot.

Is "essentially" one of those words you can insert into a false statement to make it true?

 

[Ryan8bit]

No, it isn't. A factoid is defined as "something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised especially to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition".

So an example of a factoid would be "ST09 is a reboot".

You can split hairs all you want about definitions, but one definition of the word is exactly as I said, an insignificant piece of trivia.

Can it be said objectively that certain things "don't really matter" just because they don't matter to you?

Actually, they do matter to me, but I realize that most of the general audience doesn't give a shit if Spock is an ambassador, a captain, or president of the galaxy. Simply put, nobody really cares about such minutiae. The only thing that's important to casual viewers are the broad strokes. Little bits of trivia are not continuity.

By that logic Star Wars Episode 7 is a reboot, among many other things which are not in fact reboots.

Only if you snip comments out of context or lack reading comprehension. I didn't say a new creative team is the only thing required, just that it's one part of the whole.

 

[Set Harth]

an insignificant piece of trivia.

A character popping in from the Prime universe seems significant to the question of whether or not the Abrams films are in continuity with the Prime universe.

Simply put, nobody really cares about such minutiae. The only thing that's important to casual viewers are the broad strokes.

If you're not a casual viewer, you're "nobody"?

Only if you snip comments out of context or lack reading comprehension. I didn't say a new creative team is the only thing required, just that it's one part of the whole.

And each of those parts was easily debunked as not actually evidence of a reboot, just like that one, something which you must have noticed thanks to your own reading ability. So the "whole" they add up to is still a fail.

 

[Ryan8bit]

A character popping in from the Prime universe seems significant to the question of whether or not the Abrams films are in continuity with the Prime universe.

Not really, and that's not even what you said. You said Spock being an ambassador and Khan being from the 20th century. That's not continuity, it's minutiae.

And each of those parts was easily debunked as not actually evidence of a reboot, just like that one, something which you must have noticed thanks to your own reading ability. So the "whole" they add up to is still a fail.

No. You can't solo out each of those aspects without the others and criticize them in that way. That's a fallacy of division.

Being a new creative team in itself does not make a reboot. Having characters recast alone does not make a reboot. Having unestablished futures for characters does not make a reboot. But a combination of all those things is typically what you would see in a reboot. Hence the word "and" which you conveniently glossed over.

 

[Set Harth]

Not really

Yes, really. When characters arrive from the Prime universe and events from the Prime universe are shown to have created the universe of the movie, these things are significant to the question of whether the movie takes place in a Prime-inclusive continuity.

and that's not even what you said. You said Spock being an ambassador and Khan being from the 20th century. That's not continuity, it's minutiae.

These things are evidence of the film being in the same continuity as the Prime universe. 2387 Spock is an ambassador because it's the same Spock who was an ambassador in the 2360s. Khan is from the 20th century in the Abramsverse because Khan was from the 20th century in the Prime timeline. Khan's history is before the change in the timeline so it carries over into the Abramsverse - a preservation of Prime canon which would be wholly unnecessary if the film was actually a reboot.

But you seem to think that you can excuse all the references to the Prime timeline as "minutiae". Don't forget that in the infamous reactor room scene of STID the characters lampshade the film's aping of TWOK by discussing how things must have worked out in the other timeline.

No. You can't solo out each of those aspects without the others and criticize them in that way. That's a fallacy of division.

The fallacy here is in assuming that if you pile up enough of these aspects which individually have nothing to do with the concept of rebooting, at some point you reach some kind of critical mass which forces the product to be a reboot, intentions of the creative team be damned. But who established such a rule? And who decides the magic cutoff point?

But a combination of all those things is typically what you would see in a reboot.

As long as we're talking about things you typically see in a reboot, one of them is a complete absence of any characters imported bodily from the prior continuity - in short, a lack of any interaction with the prior continuity whatsoever. If that criterion can be so easily shrugged off, why should any special significance be placed on the others?

 

[UFO]

A character popping in from the Prime universe seems significant to the question of whether or not the Abrams films are in continuity with the Prime universe.

Not really, and that's not even what you said. You said Spock being an ambassador and Khan being from the 20th century. That's not continuity, it's minutiae.

It seems unreasonable to write off massive amounts of "minutiae" as not even adding up to a picture of consistent history and therefore continuity. But luckily we don't need that. We know Nero and Spock came back in time from the future. That's definitely continuity: "The unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something over time".

And each of those parts was easily debunked as not actually evidence of a reboot, just like that one, something which you must have noticed thanks to your own reading ability. So the "whole" they add up to is still a fail.

No. You can't solo out each of those aspects without the others and criticize them in that way. That's a fallacy of division.

Being a new creative team in itself does not make a reboot. Having characters recast alone does not make a reboot. Having unestablished futures for characters does not make a reboot. But a combination of all those things is typically what you would see in a reboot. Hence the word "and" which you conveniently glossed over.

But the second of those three things didn't actually happen. The original characters were not recast. New actors were cast in new roles. Remember how I pointed out that these are just copies of still existing characters? I would even argue that most of these new characters, are not that similar to there namesakes in the Prime universe. I guess this was ignored as being a "technicality". But it isn't, anymore that cloning the original characters in the Prime universe would be reason to start wondering if a reboot had occurred.

As for their futures being "unestablished", that was the case for the new characters in TNG and DS9 etc. So I don't see that that's relevant to the reboot status of nuTrek. So we are just left with a new creative team, and you agree that's not enough to call it a reboot.

I realize that most people will continue to call it a reboot, for want of a better term, but I am surprise anyone would be prepared to really argue the point if pushed.

 

[Ryan8bit]

As long as we're talking about things you typically see in a reboot, one of them is a complete absence of any characters imported bodily from the prior continuity - in short, a lack of any interaction with the prior continuity whatsoever. If that criterion can be so easily shrugged off, why should any special significance be placed on the others?

Get ready for the Terminator movie coming out next year. It's basically going to be the same thing. They have Arnold playing his typical cyborg, and likely a lot of allusions to continuity, but in actuality it's a reboot in every common consideration of the word. It doesn't matter if time travel is used as an excuse for the changes, because an in-universe explanation doesn't really change the fact that a reboot is a perceptual thing by audiences.

It seems unreasonable to write off massive amounts of "minutiae" as not even adding up to a picture of consistent history and therefore continuity.

Massive amounts? There's a few little nods here and there, but not really anything substantial. And like I said, for as much as they pay attention to, there's an equal amount that they like to deviate from. Usually being selective in that way means a reboot, but not always.

But the second of those three things didn't actually happen. The original characters were not recast. New actors were cast in new roles.

You've kinda lost me here. I don't think the characters are new roles.

As for their futures being "unestablished", that was the case for the new characters in TNG and DS9 etc. So I don't see that that's relevant to the reboot status of nuTrek.

It's not just being unestablished, it's being once established, and then erased to make way for a new future. Y'know, like in a reboot.

 

[UFO]

As long as we're talking about things you typically see in a reboot, one of them is a complete absence of any characters imported bodily from the prior continuity - in short, a lack of any interaction with the prior continuity whatsoever. If that criterion can be so easily shrugged off, why should any special significance be placed on the others?

Get ready for the Terminator movie coming out next year. It's basically going to be the same thing. They have Arnold playing his typical cyborg, and likely a lot of allusions to continuity, but in actuality it's a reboot in every common consideration of the word. It doesn't matter if time travel is used as an excuse for the changes, because an in-universe explanation doesn't really change the fact that a reboot is a perceptual thing by audiences.

Not wishing to stand on Set Harth's toes here but I would say a reboot has nothing to do with audience perception and is purely a matter of what happens in universe. Unfortunately audiences don't seem to realise that! They seem to think its all about them.

It seems unreasonable to write off massive amounts of "minutiae" as not even adding up to a picture of consistent history and therefore continuity.

Massive amounts? There's a few little nods here and there, but not really anything substantial. And like I said, for as much as they pay attention to, there's an equal amount that they like to deviate from. Usually being selective in that way means a reboot, but not always.

The "deviations" are explained by changes in the new universe and are to be expected. Everything that can't be so explained is the same (within normal bounds of course). As for nods and Easter Eggs they were everywhere. Far more at least than most would expect I suggest. And I imagine they were put there precisely to give the impression of continuity. I mean, even if you ignore things like Archer's dog (which is why Scotty is where he is, so not trivial), things like the 23rd century relationship between the Romulans and the Federation speak volumes about continuity and are the basis for Nero's attitudes. There would have been no talk of helping each other or even knowing of the problem if the Rom/Fed relationship had be as it was in TOS. That's both important and shows us the continuity.

But the second of those three things didn't actually happen. The original characters were not recast. New actors were cast in new roles.

You've kinda lost me here. I don't think the characters are new roles.

I mean "roles" in the sense of individual characters rather that differences in thier functions, though there is a bit of that, or was initially anyway. More telling however is that you didn't argue my basic point, that these are not the same characters.

As for their futures being "unestablished", that was the case for the new characters in TNG and DS9 etc. So I don't see that that's relevant to the reboot status of nuTrek.

It's not just being unestablished, it's being once established, and then erased to make way for a new future. Y'know, like in a reboot.

What? While I might have been confused about the whole single/multi-universe thing when watching the movie at first, I think almost all now agree this is a new universe and therefore nothing was erased. This is reinforced by my point above so its hard to see why you would make that argument, unless you mean in a real world sense, but even that is not right. So I hardly need to add: Therefore not a reboot.

 

[Belz...]

By that logic Star Wars Episode 7 is a reboot, among many other things which are not in fact reboots.

You seem to be fond of that phrase, but if you cut someone's sentence in small snippets, you lose context. "A new creative team" was part of a list of things that make for a reboot, and was not a sufficient condition in and of itself.

You might also have said: "Do you think that the Waynes were killed by Joe Chill only to be magically resurrected just in time to be killed by Jack Napier?"

Yes, exactly. It's clear that the setting has changed.

 

[GalaxyX]

Am I one of the only ones who hated the Trek reboot?

Nope.

But come on, "every bit of Trek has been erased" is totally hyperbolic. They didn't "erase" anything, they're just (for some of us) less than great as films / Trek go.

I was going to mention this earlier, but I snuck into your house and erased all of your DVDs.

I did this!!

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbWGjPByXKk[/yt]

To the following:

Generations, Insurrection, and Nemesis

Why did I even have them?

Paramount forced me to buy the 4 TNG movies along with the 6 TOS ones. Ironically I already had all the TOS movies, but I wanted TMPE and I never saw it being sold separately.

 

[Set Harth]

Yes, exactly. It's clear that the setting has changed.

No, it's clear that it's a different universe/continuity. The setting is still Gotham. Keep in mind that I was originally responding to a poster who did not use the terms setting and continuity synonymously.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, exactly. It's clear that the setting has changed.

No, it's clear that it's a different universe/continuity.

...yes, being in a different universe kinda changes the setting, doesn't it ?

 

[Set Harth]

Not according to some people.

 

[Belz...]

What kind of an answer is that ? If a different house is a different setting, how is it not a different setting when you're in a totally different universe ?

 

[mos6507]

What kind of an answer is that ? If a different house is a different setting, how is it not a different setting when you're in a totally different universe ?

Because the changes presented revolve mostly around pandering to modern youth audiences (as in a reboot) rather than it being more of a genuine exploration of alternative universes (ala the Mirror Universe). Therefore a lot of fans see the framing of nuTrek as an alternative universe as a shallow gimmick to sell new-coke to classic fans (which it is).

 

[Franklin]

What kind of an answer is that ? If a different house is a different setting, how is it not a different setting when you're in a totally different universe ?

Because the changes presented revolve mostly around pandering to modern youth audiences (as in a reboot) rather than it being more of a genuine exploration of alternative universes (ala the Mirror Universe). Therefore a lot of fans see the framing of nuTrek as an alternative universe as a shallow gimmick to sell new-coke to classic fans (which it is).

I don't follow that just because the new universe in the movies is not so completely different from TOS than the mirror universe that it isn't a genuine exploration of an alternate universe. The, "I know, let's make a story about a universe where everyone is evil," seems more of a gimmick to me, if anything is a gimmick.

As far as "a lot of fans" seeing this as a gimmick goes, please site your source. That is just your opinion or conjecture without a source.

 

[Squiggy]

What kind of an answer is that ? If a different house is a different setting, how is it not a different setting when you're in a totally different universe ?

Because the changes presented revolve mostly around pandering to modern youth audiences (as in a reboot) rather than it being more of a genuine exploration of alternative universes (ala the Mirror Universe). Therefore a lot of fans see the framing of nuTrek as an alternative universe as a shallow gimmick to sell new-coke to classic fans (which it is).

Except people didn't buy new coke. They're buying new-Trek in MUCH more quantities than old-Trek.

Paramount is under no obligation to tell a story that would only appeal to current fans. They did that. It sucked and even the fans stopped watching.

 

[mos6507]

As far as "a lot of fans" seeing this as a gimmick goes, please site your source. That is just your opinion or conjecture without a source.

There have been plenty of deconstructions of nuTrek out there that have criticized the framing as a contrivance to try to hide it being a reboot so as not to lose the old fans. There's no need to provide a bibliography.

As for nuTrek making more money, that's also true. Paramount is under no obligation to do anything. Likewise, no Trek fans are under any obligation to like the current direction. And to be fair, we were under no obligation to like the direction it was taking under Rick Berman for that matter. It's "conjecture" to assume that all those who don't like nuTrek heap unconditional praise on Berman-trek. Obviously the franchise was in deep trouble, but JJ's approach wasn't the only way it could have been revived. It would be "conjecture" to assume that any approach other than Star Wars-esque action, rebels without a cause, and lens-flares would have flopped.

 

[Amaris]

As far as "a lot of fans" seeing this as a gimmick goes, please site your source. That is just your opinion or conjecture without a source.

There have been plenty of deconstructions of nuTrek out there that have criticized the framing as a contrivance to try to hide it being a reboot so as not to lose the old fans. There's no need to provide a bibliography.

As for nuTrek making more money, that's also true. Paramount is under no obligation to do anything. Likewise, no Trek fans are under any obligation to like the current direction. And to be fair, we were under no obligation to like the direction it was taking under Rick Berman for that matter. It's "conjecture" to assume that all those who don't like nuTrek heap unconditional praise on Berman-trek. Obviously the franchise was in deep trouble, but JJ's approach wasn't the only way it could have been revived. It would be "conjecture" to assume that any approach other than Star Wars-esque action, rebels without a cause, and lens-flares would have flopped.

But it didn't, and not only did it not flop, it succeeded rather handsomely, to the point where instead of a single movie, we're now looking at our third in the series.

 

[2takesfrakes]