how would you reboot star trek?
- Thread starter Wingcommanderdarkwolf01
- Start date
They essentially gave you this in Picard season three.
You do realize all these people are twenty to thirty years older than they were when their various shows ended? What are we going to get? Starfleet Geriatric Hospital...
What does this even mean, and to whose standard?
It already exists. Its called the Kelvin Universe.
The people's. *
That’s one take.
Let's just say you speak for yourself only, OK?
Why don't we start with ours?
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/worst-character-assassination-episodes.307981/
Yes... "ultimately." I've only watched the early episodes of The Orville, and it was essentially a more comedic version of TNG with the serial numbers filed off. MacFarlane wasn't exactly subtle about this.
Pretty much. DC goes to the reboot well more often than Marvel, which still has the same general continuity that started in 1961, only with the occasional retcon of the "Everything you knew was wrong!" variety ("Jean Grey wasn't really Phoenix and is alive after all!" "The Vision was actually the Golden Age Human Torch! No wait, he wasn't! No wait, he WAS!" "The Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are Magneto's children! No wait, we take that back! Polaris IS Magneto's daughter after all, though!" "Aunt May is dead! No, that was just a genetically-modified actress!" "Gwen Stacy had the Green Goblin's babies! No, we take that back!" "Spider-Man has revealed his identity to the world! No, we take that back! Now he was never married to Mary Jane!").
As cal888 and Nerys Myk pointed out, Marvel also established the Ultimate line in 2000, which offered more contemporary versions of their characters with less continuity to keep track of. But it never replaced their regular line, just being offered alongside it. (I personally never saw how publishing two alternate versions of the same characters at the same time was somehow more inviting to new readers, but whatever.) Of course, within a few years the Ultimate line had lots of its own convoluted continuity to keep track of. It's pretty much inevitable in superhero comics.
DC has done line-wide reboots (Crisis on Infinite Earths, Zero Hour, the New 52, Flashpoint, Convergence) to increasingly diminished returns since 1985-86. Usually whatever titles are successful at the time they reboot just continue on as is (like the Batman and Green Lantern titles at the time of the New 52). And inevitably, writers can't help reintroducing characters, concepts, or even entire stories from the old continuity. But I think the constant reboots have damaged DC, possibly irreparably. Because if you're constantly telling your readers how certain past stories don't matter, at some point your readers will decide that your present day stories don't matter either, as they're just going to inevitably be replaced by the next version of continuity. That's certainly what happened to me as a reader. With each DC reboot I cared a little less, as I went from enthusiasm for the Post-Crisis era in the late 80s to near-indifference in the late 2000s.
So I think Marvel's approach, where (as John Byrne once phrased it) their continuity is written in Silly Putty rather than stone, is the better one. That at least maintains the illusion that their current continuity is still the same one that was started in the 1960s. And since Star Trek has gone back to the (admittedly modified) Prime Universe continuity in DSC, PIC, and SNW, it seems that they've come to the same conclusion.
With Batman, as far as I'm concerned, there are exactly three comic book runs I look at: 1939-1954, 1964-1986, and 1986-2011.
I disregard all the crazy stuff from when Batman was going through his Wacky Sci-Fi phase, and I ignore everything since Flashpoint. It sounds like things have gotten better since Convergence, but I'm not diving back in at this time. First, because it's too expensive, and second, like you say: why invest in it if they're just going to change everything again? They should stop doing things that we know won't last. "Alfred's dead!", I heard. My first thought was, "Oh? So they're doing that again. I wonder how long until he's back?"
Last edited:
I wouldn't because I think Star Trek doesn't need to be rebooted.
I would reboot Star Trek by destroying the Star Trek universe and then allowing it to be reborn in to Star Wars. I would then let the fans enjoy Star Wars before destroying that and rebooting it in to a new vision of Star Trek yet again. A continuous and infinite cycle of rebirth, life and death which spans the franchises. This destruction and rebirth cycle would continue, with each rebooted universe taking on a new form inspired by the other. This would offer fans the opportunity to experience multiple versions of their beloved franchises while also recognising the fleeting nature of all things.
Depends what we mean by "reboot". Looking at the one legitimate Trek reboot we have, the Kelvinverse, I'd not do this:
- Link it to the original continuity in any way. Having Leonard Nimoy back was of course a joy, but it hamstrung the new cast out of the gate. Then they doubled down on all the Khan-isms in the second film and it became positively toe-curling.
- Re-examine the original characters for their defining traits, rather than the public perception of them. Kirk in the Kelvinverse is a swaggering womanising caricature of who Kirk should be because that's what the general public think he's like.
- Sort out the design aesthetic from the beginning.
Any Star Trek reboot could potentially be an underhand attempt by a science fiction writer at promoting their own generic sci-fi show to a wider audience under the banner of a recognised franchise such as Star Trek, because none of the networks or streaming services would buy their ideas without the ‘safety blanket’ of an already established fanbase and brand recognition underpinning their concepts. J Michael Straczynski has some good ideas, but he should come up with his own original sci-fi series rather than trying to put his own spin on to already established and beloved characters, instead putting his sci-fi concepts in to the public domain on their own creative merits as a standalone series separate from Star Trek rather than relying on a ‘brand stamp’.
Here is a modern day parable which represents the problems with Star Trek these days, in particular on how to reboot and reimagine it in a sustainable and ‘fresh’ way. Please, spare the time to watch what I am presenting to you all here through till the end. Replace the words ‘Tubby toast’ with ‘Star Trek’.
Last edited:
Similar threads
