My Conclusion: STXI = Reboot

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The Mighty Monkey of Mim said:
I was talking about Trek series and films. Novels and everything else are separate things.

If you're talking *canon*, yes. Continuity, OTOH...no, not really.

I mean, if you pick up any Trek novel at random and read it, what reason is there NOT to assume it takes place in the regular Trek continuity (until it's contradicted by something else, of course)?

 

[cultcross]

Babaganoosh said:
Okay, you lost me.

I honestly didn't know the definitions of such terms was so nebulous. For example, nobody seriously thinks that nuBSG exists in the same 'universe' as the original BSG, right? That's what a reboot/reimagining is. It's what I always thought it was, anyway. nuBSG is a reboot of the old; the new Bionic Woman series is a reboot of *its* original; etc. Those remakes are obviously not in the same continuity as their originals. I hope this won't happen here.

For one thing, you clearly are using reimagining and reboot as synonyms - to many here that is not the case. Leavign aside 'cosmetic' updates of uniform or ship texture, broadly speaking a 'reboot' seems to refer to a film which will keep everything pretty much the same up to the starting point of the new stuff, but branch off in potentially totally new looks/directions - i.e. a different looking 'future of the future' than the one we're used to. It may not lead to Picard and Sisko, but it will have the old bridge crew pretty much as established. Sort of like returning to a saved computer game after losing an hours more game play - the background up to that point is the same, but what happens from then to the point where you crashed could be radically different.
A 'reimagining' meanwhile, seems to generally refer to a more complete redo, altering many of the most basic elements of the universe - changes on the level of Starbuck-is-a-girl.
Taking these definitions, it looks likely that Star Trek will be a reboot rather than a reimagining, based on what we've seen so far. Start from the same point, the same crew on the same ship, and go somewhere different with it, both visually and narratively.
However much the production crew will speak about this film being 'in established continuity', it will not be - either by inconsistency with one part of TOS, or inconsistency with another. Very few watchers of TOS will see it as 'the same continuity', however it's done. I'm not saying that's a bad thing necessarily, I just think it's pretty inevitable.

 

[Noname Given]

Babaganoosh said:
I used to think it wouldn't be a reboot, but with those uniforms...now I'm not so sure.

If it's not a reboot, how come we never saw uniforms like that before?

Because we never saw beyond 13 years prior to TOS on screen. The events in The Cage took place 12 before Mr. Spock's court martial; and that's as far back as the on-screen 23rd century era goes (same with the 1701).

Thus IF the move takes place at a time when Kirk was a cadet; (and assuming Kirk joined at 18); any Starfleet Academy scenes could be 15-20 years prior to the TOS era we saw on television; thius who's to say what StarFleet uniforms, or the 1701 looked like at that time. Hell, they COMPLETEY changed the look of the 1701 in 18 months (it looked VERY different from the TV series version) - so who's to say what it looked like before Christopher Pike commanded it - OR even if he IS commanding it during Kirk's time at the Academy - it may have gone through a refit under Pike's command just before the events of The Cage.

Thus - while this film MAY infact be a reboot in some areas; it's just as likely that it COULD all still fit into the existing canon without much of a hiccup (ie no more than 'wiggleing than certain existing episodes of TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT require ).

So, given the projected timeframe, there's a lot of wiggle room to make it fit; BUT, I guess we'll all find out on/around Christmas 2008.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

How often does one of these posts come up? Every four or five days, isn't it?

"Trek 11 = Reboot" = "flogging a horse that's already a pulpy mess on the ground."

Is this going to be exactly like everything we've ever seen before? Absolutely not. And thank God for that.

Is it going to invalidate everything we've ever seen before? That's the only real question, isn't it? If there are things that don't look or feel the same... is it something that INVALIDATES what we already know, or is it something that can fit into the larger mosaic of what we know?

That's an awfully large mosaic, and we only have a handful of tiles already in place. It's not necessary to have the tiles we see be adjacent to others already in place... and it would be BORING AS HELL to just recycle the same tiles we already have.

Lots of things can and will be different. Which has ZERO to do with whether or not this "fits" with what's come before. We know that we won't have a 27-year-old Bill Shatner playing Kirk... or a 17-year-old Shatner, or a 12-year-old Shatner, or a 3-month-old Shatner. It's be great if we could, but contemporary moviemaking techniques don't allow it.

The Enterprise(s) we'll see in this movie will, at various times, look more or less like what we know. Of course it won't be a perfect representation of the TOS ship (including all it's flaws... asymmetricallity, sags, seams, etc, etc) and it's almost certain that we'll see it in various forms in various timeframes (timeframe including not only the date but also, potentially, alternate branches of time itself). Uniforms can and will be different, and there will be more variety. As long as the uniforms which are different aren't done in the same timeframe as the TOS uniforms, it contradicts NOTHING. Remember, in early TOS there were MANY uniform variations, too... it's only in later (and more budget-constrained) shows that we lost that variety of clothing style.

So nothing... NOTHING... we've seen, heard, or been given any remote reason to believe (short of fantasy or paranoia) leads to a conclusion that "this is a reboot."

It seems that some people just want to see this be the case, either because they hate the idea (but want to feel good about themselves by bitching about it, as though they already know it's the case!) or because they WANT this to be the case (and it's an example of fantasy wish-fulfillment).

Either way... it's unsupported and unsupportable at this point.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Cary L. Brown said:
Is it going to invalidate everything we've ever seen before? That's the only real question, isn't it?

Quite.

 

[Ryann866]

Read the recent comments from Kurtzman and Orci, the film's writers. Their main goal was to reboot Star Trek in order to introduce it to a wider audience. They don't use the term "reboot" but that's what they are doing. In terms of look and design, this film will indeed be different.

The problem is that Trek doesn't need to be "re-introduced" to the mass public. While it's true that nothing Star Trek related has ever had a huge crossover appeal in the way a genre piece like LOTR or Star Wars have had (TVH was a fluke), everyone and their mother knows what Trek is and what it's supposed to look like.

Everyone knows the magic of the transporter, what phasers do, who has pointed ears, and anyone with the slightest notion of popular culture would recognize the look of the bridge down to the sliding red doors. That's why it's easy for non-Trek Fans to "get" a Trek parody even if they've never watched the show.

My issue is not that they've decided to reboot the Trek concept, but their choice to have Nimoy appear as Spock.

If they are intent on re-designing the costumes, the ship, the look of the props, etc, why then have Nimoy as the older Spock at all?

Imagine how odd it will seem when Nimoy is on the bridge of 1701 and it looks nothing like what the bridge that he, the character, used to serve on -- and for us, the audience, watching Spock surrounded by costumes and sets that looks totally different from what we saw in the original show. It would completely take me out of the story.

If they were determined to have Nimoy in this and tell a time travel story, the only sensible thing to do was to recreate the look and feel of the original show down to the smallest detail. An "impression" of the look of what we all remember from 60's will only push a viewer away, and instead of some sense of nostalgic wonder, we'll all go: "wait a minute... where is this supposed to be taking place... where are the red shirts?"

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

They would never be so foolish as to throw away everything we've seen so far. TNG alone is far too much of a continuing cash cow for them to say "it never happened."

 

[Noname Given]

The Mighty Monkey of Mim said:
They would never be so foolish as to throw away everything we've seen so far. TNG alone is far too much of a continuing cash cow for them to say "it never happened."

As Star Trek: Nemesis proved - the TNG film franchise is no longer a 'cash cow'. If it were, they would have continued that film series.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The Mighty Monkey of Mim said:
They would never be so foolish as to throw away everything we've seen so far.

Never underestimate the possibility for such things.

TNG alone is far too much of a continuing cash cow for them to say "it never happened."

In what way? DVD sales? They're not making any more TNG films or TV series, so it may not be that important anymore.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Syndication?

I mean, who's going to be interested in watching a series that never happened?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The Mighty Monkey of Mim said:

I mean, who's going to be interested in watching a series that never happened?

Exactly.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Also, why the hell would they be spending all this money and hype on TOSR if they were about to wipe it off the record?

 

[Noname Given]

The Mighty Monkey of Mim said:
Also, why the hell would they be spending all this money and hype on TOSR if they were about to wipe it off the record?

Becaue like I Love Lucy - Paramount expects to be able to continue to make syndication revenue off of TOS YEARS after this new movie (or movie series) has come and gone. Hell, Mission Impossible is still shown in syndication; yet I doubt anyone would say the Tom Cruise film versions follow ANY of the actual continuity of that show.

'Star Trek' DOESN'T need to be one complete and homogenious entity foir Paramount to make money off of it at this point either. If the new dfilm gains a following, great - but I think CBS knows it won't make much of a dent in the continued poipularity or marketability of the original series; OR the spinoff 24th century series.

The more 'Star Trek' out there, the more possibility that one or more of the versions available will continue to generate revenue for both paramoount and CBS.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Babaganoosh said:
^ Either it's in continuity or it isn't. Can't be both.

You appear to be suggesting that if two bits of "Star Trek" contradict one another they can't both be "in continuity."

Since the continuity is already full of holes, contradictions and silly things I don't see any reason why one would make that assumption.

The very best way for the producers to answer the question of "is this in the same continuity as other Trek movies and shows?" is to refuse to ever answer the question at all.

Let fans come to their own conclusions based on what they're comfortable with, what they enjoy and what they don't - and if every trekkie in the world comes to a different conclusion (hah!) that's fine, too. :thumbsup:

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

The Mighty Monkey of Mim said:
I mean, who's going to be interested in watching a series that never happened?

The general public.

They will watch the episodes if they find them entertaining. They won't care about continuity or canon. They won't even know what that means.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

North Pole-aris said:

Babaganoosh said:
^ Either it's in continuity or it isn't. Can't be both.

You appear to be suggesting that if two bits of "Star Trek" contradict one another they can't both be "in continuity."

Yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting. At least when it's this serious.

Since the continuity is already full of holes, contradictions and silly things I don't see any reason why one would make that assumption.

None of those were so overt as this. And they could be easily glossed over.

The very best way for the producers to answer the question of "is this in the same continuity as other Trek movies and shows?" is to refuse to ever answer the question at all.

Yeah, right. Look at the bitching that's going on here (some of it by me ). You really think that'd be good enough?

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Babaganoosh said:
Yeah, right. Look at the bitching that's going on here (some of it by me ). You really think that'd be good enough?

As long as we (and enough others) are buying the merchandise, it will be good enough.

What else matters?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ If you mean, what else matters to the bean counters, probably not much.

A lot more matters to me, but YMMV of course.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Babaganoosh said:
^ If you mean, what else matters to the bean counters, probably not much.

Well, the bean counters determine what is and is not canon.

And the only thing that informs that decision is how many beans they expect to count.

Babaganoosh said:
A lot more matters to me, but YMMV of course.

You are going to need to either fork over more beans, or prepare to become flexible.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Babaganoosh said:

North Pole-aris said:Since the continuity is already full of holes, contradictions and silly things I don't see any reason why one would make that assumption.

None of those were so overt as this. And they could be easily glossed over.

In your opinion. As you already noted, YMMV - and a lot of what you're willing to "gloss over" as less "overt" has already launched ridiculous flamewars and created schisms in the past.

If the producers are smart, they'll let fans work the continuity out for themselves. Any attempt to impose an explanation will only alienate a whole lot of people.

A lot of people don't realize how controversial TWOK was in fandom before anyone had seen it. If it had not been a good movie, Meyer and Bennett would be as reviled as Berman and Braga on similar principles: ignoring continuity, ignoring "Gene's vision" and "not listening to the fans."

Of course, most (not all) Trek fans loved TWOK and so everything was peachy keen.