Then reboot again ... now.
If it's about the actor over the character because of "special circumstance", start again.
With it all.
Is a modern-day big screen reboot of TNG inevitable?
- Thread starter Shalashaska
- Start date
Then reboot again ... now.
If it's about the actor over the character because of "special circumstance", start again.
With it all.
Better yet, move ST
iscovery to feature status right away!
Since the film franchise seems to be more needy that the television franchise.
All new characters, new vessel, new adventures. Up on the big screen!
No preconceived notions from us "old" fans to get in the way of good moneymaking- er -storytelling!
iscovery to feature status right away!Since the film franchise seems to be more needy that the television franchise.
All new characters, new vessel, new adventures. Up on the big screen!
No preconceived notions from us "old" fans to get in the way of good moneymaking- er -storytelling!
If Paramount is going to reboot TOS, the studio might as well reboot all of the shows . . . or create SOMETHING NEW. Though to be brutally honest, I don't really like the TOS movie reboot from the past seven years. Nor do I want to see a reboot for any of the other established Trek shows. I really think it's time for Paramount to move forward and try something new with the Trek series.
Really? Personally, I think both shows are overrated to a degree. I'll give TOS points for being the first show and kick starting the franchise. Otherwise, . . . I don't know. As for TNG, I think it was just as good as DS9 and VOY. I thought all three shows were better than TOS and definitely better than ENT. But for the likes of me, there isn't a Trek show I would seriously regard as better than any of the others.
Last edited:
I don't quite see the point in rebooting TNG. There's no story that can be told with TNG characters that can't also be told in TOS, and TOS is the genesis of all the major cultural touchpoints of Star Trek.
All TNG really did (IMO) was to put a fresh face on the formula and modernized it for 80's sensibilities. I don't say that to put down TNG. I really like TNG, but that's exactly what the reboots are doing for the movie franchise today.
Whether you like or dislike the end result is secondary, but if the TOS movies end, it will be because general interest dwindled, and TNG is not the answer to that. If you're a casual or a non-fan, and you are burned out on TOS movies, how motivated are you going to be for a movie about Picard and crew?
All TNG really did (IMO) was to put a fresh face on the formula and modernized it for 80's sensibilities. I don't say that to put down TNG. I really like TNG, but that's exactly what the reboots are doing for the movie franchise today.
Whether you like or dislike the end result is secondary, but if the TOS movies end, it will be because general interest dwindled, and TNG is not the answer to that. If you're a casual or a non-fan, and you are burned out on TOS movies, how motivated are you going to be for a movie about Picard and crew?
Because of Chekov? Let's be honest here. They're not going to reboot the entire franchise just to cast a new Chekov. With all due respect, he's not that crucial a character.
I'll be curious to see who the new navigator is in next movie.
This is the bottom line for the franchise, isn't it? Whether film, television, "streaming", or whatever form, making STAR TREK viable for future audiences is it.
I surmise some of us fans are concerned about its direction after we've left this mortal coil.
Personally, I don't want to see the TOS characters "rebooted" ever again.
Are general audiences so mindless that they will not go to a theater to see all-different characters in a different ship?
Must general audiences see only TOS characters on the big screen? Are they the only characters relevant to the franchise?
They must be the only money-makers in the whole franchise.
I suppose it is to Gene Roddenberry's credit that those original characters have the staying power ... but they can't be "evergreen", "actor-interchangeable".
Move on to the new. New, new, new!
In all honesty, film history disagrees with you.
Superman: Played by (so far) 6 (soon to be 7) different actors since the 1940ies when the first movie serials appeared.
Batman: Played by 7 different actors (8 if you count the 'Gotham' TV series since the 1940ies when the first movie serials appeared.
Flash Gordon: 4 actors since the 1930ies.
Buck Rogers: 4 actors since the 1930ies. (There was also a Buck Rogers TV series in the 1950ies aside from the 1979 "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century.)
My point? To this day if you ask the casual person about Star Trek; they'll more often respond with something related to Kirk, Spock, McCoy...et al; then any of the follow up series. The original series is still the iconic mold for 'Star Trek' - and over the next decades (and after we're gone); whenever they decide to revive/modernize 'Star Trek'; the original series themes and characters is what they'll use.
All those mentioned started as literary characters first; the TOS characters, though created on the page, were seen first inhabited by the actors cast in the roles.
No books, comics, cartoons, films! Television first.
Re-casting with those other characters is understandable; not as much with TOS characters.
My opinion.
When people first read Superman, Tarzan, Buck Rogers, et al, they used their mind's eye to see the character as flesh and blood.
TOS started in television first; no mind's eye view was necessary; the actors were in the roles.
Now the converse happens; when I read a TOS novel or comic my mind's eye places those actors from the series in the roles as I read.
It was difficult to read the STAR TREK '09 novelization; I couldn't place the actors; my mind's eye kept going back to the TOS actors.
Does that make sense?
TOS started in television first; no mind's eye view was necessary; the actors were in the roles.
Now the converse happens; when I read a TOS novel or comic my mind's eye places those actors from the series in the roles as I read.
It was difficult to read the STAR TREK '09 novelization; I couldn't place the actors; my mind's eye kept going back to the TOS actors.
Does that make sense?
Except the success of the reboot films (and they HAVE been successful) shows that audiences will in fact accept different actors as these same characters; which was also my point regarding the various film incarnations of other iconic characters. It doesn't matter WHERE they started. All that matters to Hollywood is: Will putting these characters back on the screen with different actors bring in an audience and makes us money with a good return on investment?
If/When the answer is: Yes. You get a remake. Doesn't matter where, when, or how it started.
I really don't want to see a TNG reboot, for several reasons :
It's only personal preference, but whilst the original cast is still young enough, it just seems too soon.
TNG isn't as iconic as TOS. It doesn't carry the 'Lots of people have played Hamlet' argument.
Most fans of TNG would rather have a straight sequel to TNG/DS9/VOY.
I'd just rather a new fresh crew in a new era.
Your mileage may vary...
It's only personal preference, but whilst the original cast is still young enough, it just seems too soon.
TNG isn't as iconic as TOS. It doesn't carry the 'Lots of people have played Hamlet' argument.
Most fans of TNG would rather have a straight sequel to TNG/DS9/VOY.
I'd just rather a new fresh crew in a new era.
Your mileage may vary...
I think that by the time of TNG reality will have drifted so far from the original one that TNG won't happen at all, at least not the way we saw it. Remember that all it took was Picard NOT being stabbed in the back to change who would be the captain of the Enterprise. Here we have that multiplied by a million.
A TNG reboot wouldn't necessarily be a continuation of the TOS reboot films. It could easily be spun from the original TOS.
IMO, they should make the next one about the mirror universe.
I've drifted from the issue of this thread. Apologies.
The likelihood of a TNG feature is remote. Even if it were an "epic" story utilizing Riker's Titan, DS9, and VOY characters with Picard and Co. against a large threat to the Federation.
Hmmm ... well Romulus is gone (supposedly); would the irate Romulans constitute a big enough threat?
What about a Q Continuum-shaking galaxy threat? Q wants to open Picard's mind again before he gets too old to know better.
Could get into 2001 mind-bending storytelling.
The likelihood of a TNG feature is remote. Even if it were an "epic" story utilizing Riker's Titan, DS9, and VOY characters with Picard and Co. against a large threat to the Federation.
Hmmm ... well Romulus is gone (supposedly); would the irate Romulans constitute a big enough threat?
What about a Q Continuum-shaking galaxy threat? Q wants to open Picard's mind again before he gets too old to know better.
Could get into 2001 mind-bending storytelling.
But let's be honest here: most modern audiences do not come to Tarzan or Bond or Zorro via the original prose versions anymore. They encounter them first on screen, played by a succession of actors. With any luck, the screen versions inspire some moviegoers to go check out the original books or comics, but it's not like they first saw the characters in their minds' eyes while reading Edgar Rice Burroughs or Ian Fleming or Johnston McCulley, so I'm not sure it actually matters anymore whether a character has literary roots or not.
Look at it this way. Dracula comes from a book. The Wolf Man and The Mummy do not. Does that really make it harder, at this late date, to recast the Mummy instead of Dracula? Or do movie and TV audiences just accept that popular characters eventually get recast, over and over again, regardless of their origins?
Hollywood has been rebooting and recasting famous characters for at least a century. I think we all know how it works by now.
So why would it be any different with TNG?
.
Last edited:
Similar threads
