• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay hired to write Trek 3 with Orci

Huh, and I was totally cool with killing off Newt and Hicks because I didn't think they were worth following (especially Newt). Lance Henriksen is at least around for a few moments.

Me too, especially considering how Newt & Hicks ended up in the sequel comic book from Dark Horse comics (the original version of these books, because Fox overruled the story and forced the characters to be rewritten as different ones):

Newt:

*Ended up a patient in a mental hospital, about to be lobotomized due to Weyland-Yutani's taking her off the Sulacco without Ripley to be near her and making her life crap.

Hicks:

*A complete drunk, always getting into fights and feeling crappy about life (his face was disfigured, and his friends felt that he was contaminated by contact with the xenomorphs, so they all melted away.)

What happened to them in the third movie was better than what happen to them (and eventually to Earth, due to the company getting what it wanted) in the comic books-it was a merciful exit.
 
I agree Star Trek has a good share of continuity issues that require we Trekkies (I'm not a Trekker - ugh) to fill in the holes with all kinds of rationalizations and cognitive dissonance. But to its credit, Prime Trek did its best to keep that continuity - perhaps more than any other franchise.
Nope, they just put out technical manuals and timeline books which glossed over the discontinuities. The differences in warp speed between Voyager and the other series' completely breaks the Trekverse. And guess what? The Voyager people deliberately ignored what TOS and the TOS movies had established. That's the opposite of trying.
Ironically, that was the very thing the Trek Rebooters complained about in their justification for the alternate reality - an admission of creative bankruptcy.
Indeed, a prequel where anything can happen is far more exciting than "scenes before TOS" which just connect dots.
But my commentary was generally about lamenting "reboots," with a cynical swipe at Orwellian attempts to doublespeak "remake." Abrams Trek is just one example. Batman, Spiderman, blah, blah, blah - they all have the disease. Remakes used to be decades apart - not any more. The only series midway in I wish they would "reboot," they haven't - Alien 3, a complete and artistically brutal waste of good character development in the form of Snuff Writing out Newt, Hicks, and Bishop - an example of writers getting their jollies by pissing on franchises like dogs to make their mark. Same with Kirk and, particularly regrettable - Picard's family for a throwaway line by Soren thereby making TNG's episode "Family" a tragedy instead of an uplifting story when we see it again. As if death and saving the world/universe is the only thing they can write anymore that has any dramatic strength, but, oddly, little depth.

And yes, Hollywood spouses are easy targets. But I used it as an abstract reference these days of needing to "reboot" every few years or hook up with someone new every night, week or month because of whatever it is - lack of attention span, lack or fear of commitment, the MTV quick-cut edit and shaky cam style of cinematography, or the inability to be happy with what you have for a long time? Whatever. We're like runaway consumers always waiting for the next new thing and never happy with what we've been given - yet spoiling ourselves with two minute trailers and continuous set reports so nothing can possibly be new and our thirst can never be quenched. Ever. Like drug addicts. I just lump it all together into the problems of society today. I don't doubt they're all connected, if only loosely. So we get reboots galore and more news about Hollywood spouses daily.
Society today has far worse problems than movie trailers and reboots. And I promise you, had the internet existed in the 80's, fans would be obsessing over every last detail of the classic movies too. Look up the letterzine Interstat or the old Best of Trek books - fans were making the same complaints about Trek now as they were back then. Wrath of Khan even got complaints so similar to Into Darkness' that a BBS member swapped the names around and posted a thread about it.

Reboots are nothing new. Look at theatre, where stories have been retold with new actors and modifications since the dawn of time. You're looking at a small sample of entertainment and calling the changes "the degradation of society" when those same changes have been going on throughout the creation of our society. Just not in your favourite medium with as much frequency as we see now. Fictitious characters are more than the actors who portray them. That's what makes them special.
 
But my commentary was generally about lamenting "reboots," with a cynical swipe at Orwellian attempts to doublespeak "remake." Abrams Trek is just one example. Batman, Spiderman, blah, blah, blah - they all have the disease. Remakes used to be decades apart - not any more.
I don't think that a reboot is a remake unless it also tells the same story as the original, or is an adaptation of it. Going on to tell its own, previously untold stories in a different continuity from the original is precisely and primarily what a reboot is. Of course, something can be both a reboot and a remake, and as an example Max Headroom springs to mind:
In 1987, the story told in Max Headroom: 20 Minutes into the Future, a made-for-television movie shot in 1985, formed the basis of a full-fledged drama television series. The film was re-shot as a pilot program for a new series broadcast by the U.S.-based ABC television network. The pilot featured plot changes and some minor visual touches, but retained the same basic storyline. The only original cast retained for the U.S. version series were Matt Frewer (Max Headroom/Edison Carter) and Amanda Pays (Theora Jones); a third original cast member, W. Morgan Sheppard, joined the series as "Blank Reg" in later episodes. Among the non-original cast, Jeffrey Tambor co-starred as "Murray", Edison Carter's neurotic producer.​
The only series midway in I wish they would "reboot," they haven't - Alien 3, a complete and artistically brutal waste of good character development in the form of Snuff Writing out Newt, Hicks, and Bishop - an example of writers getting their jollies by pissing on franchises like dogs to make their mark.
Not to mention, Ripley. ;)

And yes, Hollywood spouses are easy targets. But I used it as an abstract reference these days of needing to "reboot" every few years or hook up with someone new every night, week or month because of whatever it is - lack of attention span, lack or fear of commitment, the MTV quick-cut edit and shaky cam style of cinematography, or the inability to be happy with what you have for a long time? Whatever. We're like runaway consumers always waiting for the next new thing and never happy with what we've been given - yet spoiling ourselves with two minute trailers and continuous set reports so nothing can possibly be new and our thirst can never be quenched. Ever. Like drug addicts. I just lump it all together into the problems of society today. I don't doubt they're all connected, if only loosely. So we get reboots galore and more news about Hollywood spouses daily.
I understood exactly what you meant by it, thanks, but I found the original reference to "Hollywood spouses" to be not only unnecessary but also offensive in the way it appeals to prejudicial stereotypes. The further elaboration here, that would seem to suggest that the existence of reboots is evidence of moral decay, is simply bogus.

Rest assured, though, that I can't stand the shakier shaky cams.
 
But to its credit, Prime Trek did its best to keep that continuity - perhaps more than any other franchise.
That doesn't mean it's any good. Like I said before, it's all about why you watch Star Trek in the first place. First and foremost I want a good story. Keeping a continuity simply for the sake of continuity isn't enough. Continuity is there to serve the story. When Trek simply becomes a way to reinforce the delusion that a fictional universe is real, then maybe it's time to step back from Trek a while.

But my commentary was generally about lamenting "reboots," with a cynical swipe at Orwellian attempts to doublespeak "remake."
Okay, call it a remake. Call it a reboot. Or just call it Star Trek. What difference does it make?
 
Prime Trek did its best to keep that continuity - perhaps more than any other franchise.

The Star Wars franchise was doing a pretty decent job, at least until a certain tv show came along...
 
Imagine modern audiences attending an ancient production of Sophocles' "Oedipus at Colonus." "Oh my God, it completely contradicts 'Antigone' and 'Oedipus the King!'"
 
Okay, call it a remake. Call it a reboot. Or just call it Star Trek. What difference does it make?
When people use different words to describe the same old thing in a new way, you have to wonder why they're doing that; what they're trying to hide behind or disguise. If you follow the money, the answer is usually there. Propaganda or truth: It's about learning the motivations behind things and staying informed to determine which.
 
If you follow the money, the answer is usually there. Propaganda or truth: It's about learning the motivations behind things and staying informed to determine which.

While I believe that this is a good outlook to have on important matters in life, I do not believe it truly matters one iota when evaluating entertainment.

The only thing I evaluate with entertainment is whether or not I enjoyed it. :shrug:
 
Okay, call it a remake. Call it a reboot. Or just call it Star Trek. What difference does it make?
When people use different words to describe the same old thing in a new way, you have to wonder why they're doing that; what they're trying to hide behind or disguise.
To my knowledge, it's fans who insist on making distinctions with the word "reboot" or "remake." I don't remember any of the filmmakers of the last two Trek films calling the movies anything other than, simply, Star Trek.

Star Trek, Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise have seeped into our culture. Star Trek is going to be rebooted again and again; it should be to keep it alive and kicking.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top