Agree.
Even Space:1999 [one of my favorite series] could get rebooted with a powerful director/producer, like J.J. Abrams did with Star Trek.
Is a modern-day big screen reboot of TNG inevitable?
- Thread starter Shalashaska
- Start date
Even Space:1999 [one of my favorite series] could get rebooted with a powerful director/producer, like J.J. Abrams did with Star Trek.
The idea being that most in this generation don't know the characters and universe. Many people don't want to jump into a 178 episode back catalog, they'd rather come in on the ground floor.
Makes the question: does TNG deserve to continue to live in new incarnations? I'd say yes.
I say "yes" to a degree.
I don't know if there'll ever be a direct TNG reboot. However, I think some kind of TNGesque continuation of the KT is almost inevitable--in fact, I still half-expect Fuller to go that route.
What I mean is, they'll keep the Enterprise-X and it will be set in the generation after the generation after Pine Kirk and may or may not keep the characters. I suspect, at most, they'd keep Picard, Data, (with possible gender-swaps) and the Borg. Everything else can go.
In any event, assuming that's not what Fuller is doing and the films continue to do well but the cast wants to hang it up, TPTB may choose to something like this instead of a recast.
I don't know if there'll ever be a direct TNG reboot. However, I think some kind of TNGesque continuation of the KT is almost inevitable--in fact, I still half-expect Fuller to go that route.
What I mean is, they'll keep the Enterprise-X and it will be set in the generation after the generation after Pine Kirk and may or may not keep the characters. I suspect, at most, they'd keep Picard, Data, (with possible gender-swaps) and the Borg. Everything else can go.
In any event, assuming that's not what Fuller is doing and the films continue to do well but the cast wants to hang it up, TPTB may choose to something like this instead of a recast.
What originated TNG? TOS was still much loved in reruns and the then-current movies but it was not reasonable having the actors step down from movies back to tv (not only for salary matters) so a new ST was needed.
I dont see how present or foreseeable conditions could lead to a TNG reboot theatrical movie. If there is to be any more movies they will be based on the new series.
IMHO of course.
I dont see how present or foreseeable conditions could lead to a TNG reboot theatrical movie. If there is to be any more movies they will be based on the new series.
IMHO of course.
But as you say most people in this generation don't know the characters and universe so that same set of characters returning would be irrelevant to them. They may as well get a brand new show, which we're getting. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if during at least one meeting of suits "Star Trek : The Next Generation Phase II" or something was at least suggested.
Maybe eventually, but not any time soon. I could foresee a very different look for Data or Geordi.
The way things are going no reboot, remake or continuation would surprise me. Though I can more easily see them just rebooting the TOS crew over and over again the way they do with a lot of superheroes than branch out into other shows. There are a lot of TNG fans out there but they don't want to make movies for just the fans, they want to make movies that everybody wants to go see. Name recognition and iconic status have a lot to do with that and in general TNG isn't as recognized as TOS. I think Wayne Campbell said it best: "Ah yes, it's a lot like 'Star Trek: The Next Generation'. In many ways it's superior but will never be as recognized as the original." I'm expecting a Wayne's World reboot before TNG. Either that or the market is going to become so oversaturated with reboots and remakes (though I think when Full House gets rebooted on TV and a new Cliffhanger film is in the works, we're already there), that the bottom will drop out and we'll start seeing much less of them.
"Reboots" and "Remakes" have been a part of storytelling for millennia. They're not going anywhere.
This is true, one of my favorite movies of all time is a remake. John Carpenter's The Thing. But in recent years it's gotten so over the top that I'm actually expecting a remake of the movie Over The Top.
If they reboot TNG I hope they are a little bit bolder and drop some characters, the Abrams universe movies for example didn't really need McCoy, Scotty, Sulu and Chekov. The focus was on Kirk and Spock with Uhura getting attention because she's Spock's girlfriend.
The other four were included because they're part of the crew, not because they were needed.
For TNG they should use Picard and Data, arguably the most well known and popular characters. I would also include Riker and Troi, a potential movie would most likely include a romance so those two are the obvious choice, it also need a female and despite the show often not using her effectively Troi has the most potential, focus on her as a first contact specialist and an advisor for the captain for example.
The others are unnecessary, Tasha and Worf would be used primarily for action scenes, give those parts to Riker. Geordi is unnecessary both as a pilot (an extra saying "yes, sir" is enough) and a chief engineer, because the movie will have to create an engineering problem to give him something to do. If something needs fixing show extras running around in the background fixing things, don't have a character spout technobabble.
The same is true for Crusher, a doctor isn't necessary most of the time, her personal relationship with Picard was interesting but parts of that can be absorbed by Troi (the talks ans trust, not the potemtial romance).
Wesley? No, just no. Completely pointless.
A small group of core characters is best, primarily because every movie would also feature antagonists, people that the crew helps etc., those are more necessary than a large core cast.
The other four were included because they're part of the crew, not because they were needed.
For TNG they should use Picard and Data, arguably the most well known and popular characters. I would also include Riker and Troi, a potential movie would most likely include a romance so those two are the obvious choice, it also need a female and despite the show often not using her effectively Troi has the most potential, focus on her as a first contact specialist and an advisor for the captain for example.
The others are unnecessary, Tasha and Worf would be used primarily for action scenes, give those parts to Riker. Geordi is unnecessary both as a pilot (an extra saying "yes, sir" is enough) and a chief engineer, because the movie will have to create an engineering problem to give him something to do. If something needs fixing show extras running around in the background fixing things, don't have a character spout technobabble.
The same is true for Crusher, a doctor isn't necessary most of the time, her personal relationship with Picard was interesting but parts of that can be absorbed by Troi (the talks ans trust, not the potemtial romance).
Wesley? No, just no. Completely pointless.
A small group of core characters is best, primarily because every movie would also feature antagonists, people that the crew helps etc., those are more necessary than a large core cast.
I have to agree here. Sometimes I hear songs on the radio that I hated when I was a teenager/20-something. Now I enjoy them because of the nostalgia. It works that way.
Well the focus of the series and all the films was usually on Kirk/Spock/McCoy, that doesn't mean they didn't need other characters in them. Since they can't run a starship by themselves there were going to be other people on the bridge and ship, and it's better not to have nameless extras and give those characters some depth. Can you imagine the heart attack that Star Trek fans would have had with no McCoy, Scotty, Sulu or Chekov in a reboot? Or a TNG reboot without Worf and Geordi? In my opinion if somebody is going to drastically overhaul a beloved franchise THAT much then they should probably just come up with their own characters and story instead of messing with Star Trek. Or create their own ship/characters in the Star Trek franchise. As unnecessary as some of those characters may or may not be they're part of the franchise.
Last edited:
Another example: As a kid, I hated the whole 1950s "Teenage Monster" craze on principle; I liked my Gothic monster movies straight up, damn it, not contaminated by beatniks and bikers and high school sock-hops and such. Nowadays, though, I can appreciate those movies on their own terms, as campy time capsules from a vanished era, instead of comparing them to my beloved Universal and Hammer flicks.
But I digress . . ..
Last edited:
Howw could you not love Michael Landon as a Werewolf!!!!!!!
I was a purist who took my monster movies very seriously.
Nowadays, I love the upside-down scene where he stalks the pretty high-school gymnast, while foaming at the mouth more than any movie werewolf before or since!
I was a purist who took my monster movies very seriously.
You must have hated the 80's then, with all the comedy monster movies. Monster Squad, Once Bitten, My Best Friend Is A Vampire, Transylvania 6-5000, Night Of The Creeps etc. Or had you relaxed as a purist by that point?
I always thought they should've done a TNG prequel on the Stargazer featuring Picard and Data. I know it probably violates continuity, but I don't care.
Absolutely.
The same people who are 'purists' about something like Trek being rebooted don't seem to worry about how many times, for example, Sherlock Holmes has been done and redone, many of *those* being remakes or reboots. Or that the 'iconic' Superman movie was hardly the first time the man of steel had been on cinema screens. We could go on, but the point is, like you say, characters in pop culture and mythology have been 'rebooted' for millennia, if they weren't then they'd just fade away. I see no reason why the Star Trek characters (and our rich universe) shouldn't be likewise reinterpreted by new generations. Similar threads
