Let's continue TOS

[Lord Garth]

I always have the question of what makes a reboot a reboot? If it is completely disconnected from past production teams?

It's going to go in circles from here on out.

I don't know. The issue is intentionally murky. It's not just production teams. James Bond was never officially rebooted in films until Casino Royale. Yet, even though it technically wasn't rebooted, I have a hard time believing the James Bond in Die Another Day is the same James Bond from Dr. No. Not just because of recasting (though it doesn't help) but because how can James Bond be in his early-30s in 1962 but only be in his late-40s in 2002? A silent reboot occurred at some point. I'd say more than one. BUT that doesn't mean I can't enjoy Goldeneye even though they never declared it a reboot. For that matter, it doesn't mean I can't enjoy For Your Eyes Only even though Roger Moore's James Bond couldn't possibly be any more different from Sean Connery's.

 

[1001001]

I can forgive certain things, but…

A) if it’s boring and meh I’ll tune out.
B) if they insist this is the same as before when clearly it’s not then I’ll have no confidence in them.

I want them to be honest about something being a reboot or they can fuck off.

That seems awfully harsh.

 

[Dukhat]

I think that with the James Bond franchise, the audience was well aware that they needed suspension of disbelief. Nobody was taking it that seriously.

 

[Warped9]

The Bond franchise was effectively rebooted whenever Bond was recast even though the producers never really stated it. Continuity was never really a strong point of the franchise.

 

[Warped9]

That seems awfully harsh.

It’s emphatic, but makes the point.

 

[Nyotarules]

Today's producers of "official" Star Trek often seem to be motivated by their present-day politics. They do not love TOS. It would not be a love letter to our show. TOS is our thing, and they are doing their thing, which strikes me as very different, both aesthetically and in its morals. They're pretty much just using the Star Trek name as a hall pass to get a show made, and do things they'd want to do anyway, which are often egregious. I'll limit my observations because I gave up on watching their stuff quite a while back.

Plus, we already have The Animated Series, Star Trek: New Voyages, and Star Trek Continues.

Ever watched TOS A private little war?

It just seems more obvious than it used to be, perhaps.

If I believe something, and most of the people I take cues from/learned from/grew up around/am inspired by, are where I got said beliefs, if a show agrees, it doesn't seem "political". It's affirming what I believe, or taking the next logical step from there. Perhaps it might have been foreign/controversial to someone else at the time, who believed something else, but to me, it was validation and affirmation of what I thought or had heard and never questioned already. I took it for granted, at the least, (now I don't, perhaps) and believed it myself (perhaps all the more so now)

Finding myself on the outside of what's being espoused now, and, in fact, in many ways, opposed to/rather confused by what's being said, it seems more political. The world is moving on from where I am and what I believe, and going places I am not/may not ever be/hope I won't/can't imagine ever go(ing).

Seems a touch hypocrite, if I agree with the show , it's not political, if I disagree its political?

Anyway a TOS continuation would not bother me, it might be question of semantics whether its a reboot , (hello TMP Klingons) or a continuation. I would expect a TOS show to look like it was produced in 2023 and not 1966 hence I have no issue with SNW Chapel. In the words of GR when 1970s critics complain, use your imagination and assume whatever modern TV production changes you see, assume in universe they were always there.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Seems a touch hypocrite, if I agree with the show , it's not political, if I disagree its political?

Yeah, I guess it is. Though more about perception sometimes than reality.

 

[Ronald Held]

SOT, but James Bond/007 is not a person but a designator of various agents over time.
An easier solution is no TOS prequels pick another era.

 

[Lord Garth]

If Paramount officially declared everything from 1987-2005 a second continuity and everything from 2017-Present a third continuity, that wouldn't alter the quality of any of those shows. It wouldn't suddenly make them "better" (or "worse").

The opinions I'd have of them, good, bad, or indifferent would stay the same regardless of whatever some rich bastard CEO with one too many yachts says.

If Richie Rich and Thurston Howell III have stock in Paramount, owned the company, and said, "ENT has no connection to TOS!", I wouldn't suddenly start liking the show. I don't like it because it's dull, dull, dull. Canon or not. Declared in continuity with TOS or not. If they said, "DSC has no connection to TOS!", I wouldn't suddenly think a show I already like is "even more awesome now because it doesn't violate canon anymore!" That's ridiculous. You either like a show or you don't.

 

[Warped9]

Trek has, in a broad sense, been a series of reboots. Some soft and some hard.

TAS is not seen as a reboot, but it could be seen as a soft one. It was the one way, without cgi or expensive fx, to show things TOS could not afford to show. But then again TOS did allude to things it could not afford to show. So in a practical sense it can be accepted as a continuation of TOS given many of the same elements, and people, that were in TOS went into TAS. An important element is little, if anything, in TAS contradicts TOS.

TMP is also not really considered a reboot, but it also can be seen as a soft one. The feature film budget allowed them to show more detail and a grander scale than what could be done in TOS. It was sort of saying. “This is how things really looked like.” But again many of the same people and elements from TOS contributed to TMP. Beyond it’s more detailed visuals one could squint past some of the small inconsistencies to accept TMP as a continuation of TOS.

TWOK-TUC makes a big time jump in terms on continuity, about a decade after TOS and TMP. Again, though, you have to squint to look past some of the inconsistencies with what had been seen before. Candidly, I’ve long given up being a fan of this block of films. For me they just don’t click anymore. This version of Trek doesn’t gel with what I saw in TOS. In some ways I can defend TNG more than TWOK-TUC. But in a broad sense it can be taken as a continuation of TOS.

While I initially disliked it I have mellowed with TNG, at least parts of it. While somewhat of a reboot in a greater sense it was a smart move to push the continuity forward in time a considerable degree and distance the show from much of what had already been established. The show could be its own thing and wasn’t tied heavily to what came before. In some cases you still had to squint to rationalize things that were inconsistent with TOS, but overall it worked. DS9 and VOY continued on from there. At this point it wasn’t really a matter of continuity, but whether one liked the shows or not. For me it became more of “same old same old.” And none of it felt as fun or as dynamic as TOS. And one certainly could no longer say it was a continuation of TOS.

I detested VOY, but I was really disappointed and bummed by ENT. Maybe it was inevitable. Not only did it bore me, but realistically there was no way you could do a proper prequel to TOS with a production made thirty years after the fact. You couldn’t make it look like a TOS prequel and every little inconsistency with TOS was going to loom large. And it was really more “same old same old,” but with different faces. And it hit me more as a full on reboot than anything that came before.

One could categorize Trek as before Abrams and after Abrams. JJtrek was a definite full on reboot no matter what the fuck Abrams or the studio might claim. It sure as hell wasn’t a continuation of TOS—it was a complete rewrite of TOS. They not only changed the continuity but also the entire tone and mindset of the show. I’m not hesitant or embarrassed to say JJtrek really pissed me off and to this day I still cannot abide it. The best thing that can be said is that it has largely become irrelevant after its initial splash, and Thank God for that.

Since JJtrek what is passed off as official Trek is made by people with a rather different mindset than those before JJtrek. Today’s showrunners don’t give a shit or even really understand what made any Trek work before. They’re just using a familiar name to get their stuff made and on television. And it’s blatantly all reboot of continuity no matter what is claimed otherwise. SNW gets something of a pass because it appears to be moderately better than what immediately preceded it, but it won’t stand the test of time alongside TOS and TNG.


How can you continue TOS? No one is going to really try to do that primarily because today’s society is quite different than it was in the 1960s, for better or worse.

One might try to continue the spirit of TOS in a new production but that, too, could be difficult as it would be a challenge to form a consensus of what that spirit really is.

 

[Ssosmcin]

SOT, but James Bond/007 is not a person but a designator of various agents over time.

This isn't true at all. Neither the films nor the Fleming novels even hinted at this.

007 is a number that can and has been reassigned. But "James Bond" is the actual name of one person. They've even given us the names of his parents and they all shared the same "Bond" surname.

 

[1001001]

Bond regenerates, like The Doctor.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

SOT, but James Bond/007 is not a person but a designator of various agents over time.

That's Casino Royale (1967) talking.

 

[plynch]

they'll be a thread counting the nose hairs on Paul Wesley to see if it matches Shatner. How many pages is the funny-angle-bridgeapalooza gone to?

I love that thread.

 

[BK613]

That's one of the reasons why I don't post in that forum.

Which forum do you think this thread is in?

 

[1001001]

I love that thread.

It is my every nightmare come true.

 

[Lord Garth]

Which forum do you think this thread is in?

Crap!

Well, I don't post in either SNW or TOS normally. I'm just visiting here for Old Time's Sake. It's 2000s Day on TrekBBS. Don't ask me how it happened, it just did! Long story.

I used to post in the TOS Forum all the time. Way back when. I was a moderator in this forum at one point, for a little while.

 

[Commishsleer]

I would have loved the original TOS to have continued for anther 2 years. Sure Ethan Peck's a cutie but it will never be the same as the original cast. Although I think Chris Pratt would make a good Kirk but no-ones the Shat.
However if they had made 2 more years of TOS poorly we might have grown to hate it.
Especially if they'd done the Phase 2 thing and had TOs without Spock and they'd had Kirk in the background. Shudder...

 

[Ssosmcin]

However if they had made 2 more years of TOS poorly we might have grown to hate it.

Well, I have no problem with season 3, so it would have had to have been really bad. And they most likely would have moved onto another producer, especially if Freiberger wasn't living up to expectations. That budget would have been more of a problem as Paramount tightened those purse strings.

 

[Warped9]

Things don’t happen in a vacuum. The writing on the wall was already there for TOS’ third season. There absolutely wasn’t going to be anymore after that.

But if things had gone differently earlier on—had Roddenberry not been such a pain in the ass, had Roddenberry, Fontana and Justman not left, had the show retained a better time slot and the budget not been slashed then who knows what might have followed? Even one more season would have gotten them to that magical 100 or so episodes to make for a sweeter syndication package.