I would have made Spock a romulan woman. And I wouldn't have just thrown out a little bit of canon; I would've thrown out nearly everything of it.
How might you have rebooted TOS?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
I would most certainly have avoided an origin story. I'd have taken the example of the earliest episodes and just started off with them already a few weeks or months into their mission. I'd have come up with a genuine story about something although not necessarily with overt allegory. Origins and earlier events can be referred to in casual references as had been done throughout TOS.
I also would have updated the materiel. Much of it would have been familiar, but there would also have been new elements.
I'd have gone for a sense of adventure, but I wouldn't have dumbed it down. The oft repeated excuse for why the current film was made the way it was is completely hollow and baseless. I'd have tried for the energy, character and pacing of TWoK along with the kind of intelligence seen in TMP. Overall, though, I'd have tried for something like Master And Commander but as Star Trek.
I'd have fixed things that they had no choice about in the '60s while still retaining things that worked well.
I also would have updated the materiel. Much of it would have been familiar, but there would also have been new elements.
I'd have gone for a sense of adventure, but I wouldn't have dumbed it down. The oft repeated excuse for why the current film was made the way it was is completely hollow and baseless. I'd have tried for the energy, character and pacing of TWoK along with the kind of intelligence seen in TMP. Overall, though, I'd have tried for something like Master And Commander but as Star Trek.
I'd have fixed things that they had no choice about in the '60s while still retaining things that worked well.
Or braindead remakes of old properties?
^To be fair to Ron Moore, though, there are a TON of Trekkies and Treknecks who are OBSESSED with canon. Y'know, "WAIT A MINUTE!!! THAT CONTRADICTS EPISODE 47 OF THAT ONE OTHER SHOW!!! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, MY CHILDHOOD IS RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPED!!!"
There are still some folks who refuse to watch the new BSG because of the changes made in the reboot.
Ron Moore has a creative right to see his version of BSG come to fruition, whatever that may be. Having said that, whenever any TV show gains a fan following, the show's makers do have a responsibility to decide what their agenda is and stick to it. L.A. LAW was nearly derailed after being on NBC for five years because the creative staff left and new people came in, the storylines were all screwed up by new people who weren't up to the job, the quality of the show took a nosedive, the ratings tanked, and the show came within a whisker of being canceled before more new writers and producers were brought in to restore the show.
The L.A. LAW lesson is important not because people are anal about continuity. It's important because here was a critically acclaimed show that was a ratings success that almost went down the toilet because new people took charge and ignored their responsibilities. Any TV show or movie is supposed to entertain by doing something, doing it well, and doing it well consistently. That doesn't mean it has to be "obsessed" or formulaic. It does mean the show's makers have to be faithful to what the show is.
People can criticize Moore's approach to reviving BSG. Well and good. But at least he didn't try to mess with what came before. He made a clean break and announced it as such, right from the start. If you don't like TOS, fine; it is strange to post insults in a TOS forum, though. If memory serves, that's a JJ-movie forum available on this web-site...
The L.A. LAW lesson is important not because people are anal about continuity. It's important because here was a critically acclaimed show that was a ratings success that almost went down the toilet because new people took charge and ignored their responsibilities. Any TV show or movie is supposed to entertain by doing something, doing it well, and doing it well consistently. That doesn't mean it has to be "obsessed" or formulaic. It does mean the show's makers have to be faithful to what the show is.
People can criticize Moore's approach to reviving BSG. Well and good. But at least he didn't try to mess with what came before. He made a clean break and announced it as such, right from the start. If you don't like TOS, fine; it is strange to post insults in a TOS forum, though. If memory serves, that's a JJ-movie forum available on this web-site...
Last edited:
More importantly, Moore's BSG has not attracted a large audience.
Hey, was it Ron's idea to give Starbuck a GENDER-CHANGE???
That's what I was hoping for TBH, a direct prequel using [similar] sets and designs from TOS.
I think the problem is why should we give a crap about alt-Kirk, Spock, McCoy etc? We've seen alt-versions of characters come and go, many of them meeting an untimely death. We never really cared about them then* so why do we care now?
A full prequel or full reboot would've have worked better for the movie because now it occupies some nebulous territory introducing us to characters who we ultimately care very little about because it was explicity stated that the 'prime' Kirk, Chekov etc are kicking around somewhere else.
I liked the film but why should I invest in it through the books, computer games etc when I know that the prime universe is still kicking around?
*Beardy-Spock was cool though.
Wingsley made some very good points above about the reboot of BSG and the L.A. Law comparison. I have to lean towards the former as being a better comparison to what we've experienced with Trek.
Despite the time-travel/alternate reality backbending, does anyone really feel that the new film is anything but a reboot? To me, the homages in XI to TOS and the previous Treks are basically just hand-hold homages for the folks who are already fans. Personally, I'd have preferred a clean reboot. (In my mind, the future from which "Spock Prime" came isn't really the Trek we've been watching for the past 40 years, but a timeline almost identical to it.)
Despite the time-travel/alternate reality backbending, does anyone really feel that the new film is anything but a reboot? To me, the homages in XI to TOS and the previous Treks are basically just hand-hold homages for the folks who are already fans. Personally, I'd have preferred a clean reboot. (In my mind, the future from which "Spock Prime" came isn't really the Trek we've been watching for the past 40 years, but a timeline almost identical to it.)
The very notion that the story needs two Spocks underscores the contradiction; "classic"/"cannon" TOS had to be included in the story so it could be repudiated/replaced.
I agree with Praetor. I would sooner have seen a completely new TREK, with completely new characters on a completely new ship, set in a completely new Universe. That's called a clean sheet of paper, and that is what a reboot is born from.
I still would prefer a canon-prequel (pre-TOS) above all else, but if Hollywood had to chuck TOS, then they should've sucked it in and gone for a real reboot.
I agree with Praetor. I would sooner have seen a completely new TREK, with completely new characters on a completely new ship, set in a completely new Universe. That's called a clean sheet of paper, and that is what a reboot is born from.
I still would prefer a canon-prequel (pre-TOS) above all else, but if Hollywood had to chuck TOS, then they should've sucked it in and gone for a real reboot.
I suppose Abrams figured this was the best sort of compromise, enough to bring in older fans to see what he'd done and alter/reboot the timeline in such way that wouldn't make them go nuts. I had by problems with the movie (specifically Kirk at the end) but I could appreciate what he was trying to do. It had enough to respect the older timeline while rebooting it effectively.
Similar threads
