Rebooting TOS: What must stay the same?

[Therin of Andor]

gastrof said:
Tell that to the writers and fans of DS9.

That show wasn't initially about war either. War came to DS9, sure, but as a long story arc - and they didn't stop exploring either.

But a whole TV series, with the Romulan War as its focus, where we already know the two sides couldn't even see each other on viewscreens - and that Earth would ultimately be victorious - ugh. What's the point?

I'm happy enough that the period will be covered by Pocket Books. But I don't need to see it all onscreen.

 

[Therin of Andor]

gastrof said:
Why not do what you want, but introduce a new crew in the 25th or 26th century?
WHY change (destroy) what was? Why not just add to it?

Because the general movie-going populace, at this point in history, are probably going to be more intrigued by the nostalgia of a remake/rebirth of a cultural icon (Kirk and Spock's "Star Trek") by the guy who makes "Lost", than by the concept of a whole new crew in a whole new century with a whole new cast (which may as well be a whole new non-ST franchise).

 

[davejames]

Therin of Andor said:
Because the general movie-going populace, at this point in history, are probably going to be more intrigued by the nostalgia of a remake/rebirth of a cultural icon (Kirk and Spock's "Star Trek") by the guy who makes "Lost", than by the concept of a whole new crew in a whole new century with a whole new cast (which may as well be a whole new non-ST franchise).

Exactly. Obviously for a new TV series I'd prefer that they jump forward in time with a whole new crew, but for a movie I think the best shot at attracting an audience is to go back to the simpler, more barebones Trek of Kirk and Spock.

Because whether us diehards want to hear it or not, THAT'S the only Trek most people out there really know and care about. They certainly aren't going to care about the new adventures of Captain McJohnson and his first officer Zlorg on the Enterprise G.

 

[igrokbok]

If you change the elements of Trek that, when combined, created 1966 Star Trek, then it's not really Star Trek anymore. I mean,what's the point? If you want to change it beyond what is recognizable as Star Trek, then just create something new. Otherwise it's nothing more than riding the coat-tails of something else just for the sheer sake of name recognition.

 

[Neopeius]

igrokbok said:
If you change the elements of Trek that, when combined, created 1966 Star Trek, then it's not really Star Trek anymore. I mean,what's the point? If you want to change it beyond what is recognizable as Star Trek, then just create something new. Otherwise it's nothing more than riding the coat-tails of something else just for the sheer sake of name recognition.

Reverend!

 

[Plum]

igrokbok said:
If you change the elements of Trek that, when combined, created 1966 Star Trek, then it's not really Star Trek anymore. I mean,what's the point? If you want to change it beyond what is recognizable as Star Trek, then just create something new. Otherwise it's nothing more than riding the coat-tails of something else just for the sheer sake of name recognition.

*shrug*... works for Batman.

 

[FalTorPan]

Nothing must stay the same.

 

[Therin of Andor]

igrokbok said:
If you change the elements of Trek that, when combined, created 1966 Star Trek, then it's not really Star Trek anymore. I mean,what's the point?

There's a version of "Hansel & Gretel" where the children find a gingerbread house, start eating its candy decorations, get captured by a witch and eventually escape.

There's a version of "Hansel & Gretel" where the children find a house made of cake, with a fence made of child-sized gingerbread men. They don't eat the house, but the siblings get captured by an old woman and eventually escape, only to find that their stepmother back home vanished at exactly the same time as Gretel killed the old woman. The gingerbread men fence turns back into all the children who'd been enchanted by the old woman over the years.

There's a version where the children find jewels after killing the witch and live happily ever after.

There's another version where a swan cheats them out of all the jewels in order to let them cross a river to get home.

All of these are enjoyable stories, and each of them are tailored to certain age groups and time periods.

The art of storytelling used to be an oral tradition, and changing details was both part of the art, and a problem associated with "Chinese whispers" syndrome.

Storytelling hasn't changed just because people learned to write, to read, and to make motion pictures. Just ask Superman, Batman, Wonderwoman, and any other character with multiple origin stories.

The point is: TOS is now of limited appeal to today's audiences. Why not remake it, let new audiences discover TOS, some of whom may then be attracted to its origins and all the myriad spin-offs?

 

[Ssosmcin]

gastrof said:

davejames said:
...I'm a huge TOS fan, but I'd love to see a complete reimagining, with a more sophisticated and detailed Enterprise, cooler uniforms, cooler weapons, Klingons and Romulans that have a totally different look, new music, etc....

But why would you have to have this done in the era of Kirk and Spock, thus over-writing all that came before?

Why not do what you want, but introduce a new crew in the 25th or 26th century?

WHY change (destroy) what was? Why not just add to it?

But they're not. Think of this as an "alternate" Trek or, if you are familiar with Marvel Comics, "Ultimate Star Trek." No impact on previous or current continuity. It's a separate entity. Nobody's said this is how Kirk's era "really" was. It's just a different take on the material.

Like I said, no one is going back and destroying the original. No one is saying this erases TOS from the Star Trek tapestry. It's just a new version set in it's own continuity. And the fans who don't like it can not watch it and miss nothing that impacts on the previous series'.

I don't know, I just don't see the big deal here. Either watch it and appreciate it, or just ignore it. Because, this is going to be the only Trek in town. It's this or nothing. Those who prefer "nothing" can just pretend it never happened.

 

[DrTaylor]

If it's going to be before where No Man, Gary Mitchell should be in it.

Uniforms should be the same.

The Bridge should be recognizable. And any differences should make it look less advanced.

 

[Warped9]

Admiral2 said:

Anthony said:
They are "rebooting" it. It's called Star Trek XI.

Okay, pay attention: Setting the story in an earlier time frame within the exact same continuity as all the other stories does not constitute a "reboot."

To answer the thread question, if you're going to talk seriously about a proper reboot, then there should be no aspect of the original that "must" be kept. Everything should be fair game for change.

Except that it will be a reboot/restart. Thats a certainty and no doubt about it.

 

[gastrof]

And where did you get this info from?

None of us know what the movie will be like.

Are you an insider? If not, then please don't make flat statements that tell us how things will be when you don't know any more than we do.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I'm pretty sure Abrams has said the continuity of the series will not be altered (i.e., no reboot), but there may be a redesign of appearences.

 

[TheMasterOfOrion]

Ronald Held said:
Nothing major that was filmed before should be contradicted.

I agree, the majority of the storyline and characters must remain consistent

 

[Anthony]

Says who?

 

[Anwar]

The general public.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Really? When?

 

[Warped9]

FalTorPan said:
Nothing must stay the same.

This is essentially true. If you're rebooting, restarting, reimagining or whatever you want to call it then nothing is actually sacred. No matter what is done it will never be authentic TOS because as beaker said upthread Star Trek TOS is a body of work made between 1964 and 1969. Everything else is an interpretation.

That said interpretations can vary. Some later interpretations could be reconciled with TOS seeing as the settings for those stories were set in the future of TOS' universe. But if there are enough inconsistencies and disparaties then those interpretations can only be reconciled by accepting that they are of an entirely different continuity from TOS. Of course individuals may draw varying lines in what they consider irreconcilable differences in continuity.

ENT is a perfect example, though, of a work overflowing with irreconcilable disparaties with TOS. But in fairness ENT was following a long practice of inconsistencies dating all the way back to TAS. ENT was also produced by mostly the same people creating Trek since TNG and so it's little surprise that the show is more consistent with that than with TOS.

The distinction for the individual is where does one draw the line? I find it somewhat ironic that I find much of the first two seasons of TNG more consistent with TOS than the bulk of the films TWoK-TUC and the TNG films, but there it is.

In a restart nothing need stay the same. By some miracle a reboot could even be well made and entertaining. But it will never be TOS.