Reboot or alternate universe? Which is better?
- Thread starter Enterprise is Great
- Start date
Other - if by reboot you mean "changing everything" - people use the term so loosely I never know what anyone means. I'd be fine with something that adheres to the spirit of Star Trek but doesn't get wound up in silly little details.
For the most part, they're the same - I doubt that new viewers will pay a lot of attention to the "alternate universe" aspects of the story, which are there mainly to quell anxiety amongst the hard core.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
I agree. When I read the thread title my first throught was "How can I answer when there's no difference?" Then I saw the option.
"Alternate universe", the rationale I suggested for people insistant on in-continuity explanations in another thread, reminds me of DC's Crisis, something I didn't like because I could barely read any of it when a friend of a friend tried to force-feed me a hardback of Crisis On Infinite Earths once. To that my opinion was: Just say you reboot every 20 years, some things are similar, some aren't, and be done with it. Who needs a long story that only makes a lore they were trying to simplify sound more complicated than ever?
"Alternate universe", the rationale I suggested for people insistant on in-continuity explanations in another thread, reminds me of DC's Crisis, something I didn't like because I could barely read any of it when a friend of a friend tried to force-feed me a hardback of Crisis On Infinite Earths once. To that my opinion was: Just say you reboot every 20 years, some things are similar, some aren't, and be done with it. Who needs a long story that only makes a lore they were trying to simplify sound more complicated than ever?
See, some fans are saying "the changed timeline thing is too complicated for an audience unfamiliar with Trek to care about. It's gimmicky. What Trek needs for a restart is a good basic story."
Like what? Like a guy from a TOS episode materializing on a desert planet to chase Kirk around with a Doomsday machine?
That's not dismissive of TWOK - the point is simply that there's nothing more or less "basic" about that than there is about the essential premise of enemies mucking around with the past.
People have it backwards: the "alternate timeline" thing is only complicated and trite to long-time Trek fans because it's been used a lot in Trek and they have very, very specific expectations of what it is and how it works.
To a casual viewer, it's really pretty simple and dramatic.
This isn't about "Borg preventing the formation of the Federation" or even "The Federation going to war with the Klingons because the Enterprise C disappeared in a time vortex."
It's "The bad guys go back in time to prevent Captain Kirk's birth, and Spock has to prevent that."
People who know who Kirk is and who Spock is, at all, will get why that's a big deal without any exposition to speak of.
Is it "overly familiar?" Hell, yes - like just about every movie, it's composed of elements people have seen before. What's worth noting is that the premise is familiar to most people from some hugely successful and popular high-concept movies. To most people, being reminded of the "Terminator" or "Back To The Future" movies is not a bad thing.
And, of course, it appears that all of this "mucking with the time line" is only the set-up for the main action of the movie. What makes "Back To The Future" are the specifics of the story and characters after Marty goes back in time and fouls things up. Who he meets, what happens, how it all resolves - none of that is immediately obvious from the time travel premise.
The same looks to be true of the Trek movie. Okay, Spock somehow "unkills" Kirk's father - then what? Well, then we have a story some twenty or thirty years later involving Young Spock and Young Kirk and quite possibly a high-profile villain of some kind for whom the producers may be looking for a star like Russell Crowe to play. What is that story about?
This rumor of Moriarity's really tells us nothing about that story and how the script tells it, and dollars to donuts that's the story the producers expect will engage a mass audience. As one of the writer/producers has said, long-time fans will see things in this movie that will mean one thing to them and new viewers will be watching a different movie.
Like what? Like a guy from a TOS episode materializing on a desert planet to chase Kirk around with a Doomsday machine?
That's not dismissive of TWOK - the point is simply that there's nothing more or less "basic" about that than there is about the essential premise of enemies mucking around with the past.
People have it backwards: the "alternate timeline" thing is only complicated and trite to long-time Trek fans because it's been used a lot in Trek and they have very, very specific expectations of what it is and how it works.
To a casual viewer, it's really pretty simple and dramatic.
This isn't about "Borg preventing the formation of the Federation" or even "The Federation going to war with the Klingons because the Enterprise C disappeared in a time vortex."
It's "The bad guys go back in time to prevent Captain Kirk's birth, and Spock has to prevent that."
People who know who Kirk is and who Spock is, at all, will get why that's a big deal without any exposition to speak of.
Is it "overly familiar?" Hell, yes - like just about every movie, it's composed of elements people have seen before. What's worth noting is that the premise is familiar to most people from some hugely successful and popular high-concept movies. To most people, being reminded of the "Terminator" or "Back To The Future" movies is not a bad thing.
And, of course, it appears that all of this "mucking with the time line" is only the set-up for the main action of the movie. What makes "Back To The Future" are the specifics of the story and characters after Marty goes back in time and fouls things up. Who he meets, what happens, how it all resolves - none of that is immediately obvious from the time travel premise.
The same looks to be true of the Trek movie. Okay, Spock somehow "unkills" Kirk's father - then what? Well, then we have a story some twenty or thirty years later involving Young Spock and Young Kirk and quite possibly a high-profile villain of some kind for whom the producers may be looking for a star like Russell Crowe to play. What is that story about?
This rumor of Moriarity's really tells us nothing about that story and how the script tells it, and dollars to donuts that's the story the producers expect will engage a mass audience. As one of the writer/producers has said, long-time fans will see things in this movie that will mean one thing to them and new viewers will be watching a different movie.
Well said.
The premise sounds silly at first, but it could easily be engaging.
As for the poll, I voted for reboot.
I'm not convinced the time travel element will actually create a different universe. Causality paradoxes are much more interesting.
We're a couple steps away from knowing that these two things are the same.
The premise sounds silly at first, but it could easily be engaging.
As for the poll, I voted for reboot.
I'm not convinced the time travel element will actually create a different universe. Causality paradoxes are much more interesting.
We're a couple steps away from knowing that these two things are the same.Similar threads
- Locked
