So, the "Torchbearer..."
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
It would be to me.
Why? it is the exact same thing, just updated visuals.
For me, the visuals are part of the universe, every bit as important as the lore. It is part of what sold me on "Star Trek". You change the visuals, you are changing the universe in my mind.
Everyone's mileage will vary.
Yes.
So, I did what I generally consider the irrelevant thing of looking up an online dictionary definition. For "reboot" one meaning given is "to create a distinctly different version" of an existing story, movie, TV show etc.
An example is given, which is Sony retelling Spider-Man over and over and over and over and -
Sorry.
As I was saying, that story has been told several different ways even in the comics. So whether events exactly match up with the last version of the story can't be the definition of "reboot" where Spider-Man is concerned. Or Superman.
A "reboot" isn't simply and literally defined as one thing - like "changing an event is a reboot, changing a picture isn't a reboot, changing dialogue is a reboot, changing actors isn't a reboot" - it's more along the lines of damon knight's famous remark about science fiction, ie "A reboot is what I'm pointing at when I say 'reboot.'"
An example is given, which is Sony retelling Spider-Man over and over and over and over and -
Sorry.
As I was saying, that story has been told several different ways even in the comics. So whether events exactly match up with the last version of the story can't be the definition of "reboot" where Spider-Man is concerned. Or Superman.
A "reboot" isn't simply and literally defined as one thing - like "changing an event is a reboot, changing a picture isn't a reboot, changing dialogue is a reboot, changing actors isn't a reboot" - it's more along the lines of damon knight's famous remark about science fiction, ie "A reboot is what I'm pointing at when I say 'reboot.'"
Last edited:
Batman Forever changed a lot of things, and even changed the cars to be from the 1940s and '50s instead of the present day, but it wasn't really a reboot. It probably would have been considered one if it hadn't kept the same actors for Alfred and Commissioner Gordon though.
"I don't know what the definition of a reboot is... but I know one when I see it"
You strip off the soul, and nail on a new one.
Nothing can be completely dublicated. You would need new actors who would give different performances and even if you somehow got the same actors the scene's would play differently.
Jason
The flip side to there being no strict definition of a "reboot" is that Discovery may come to not be seen as one, despite the visual overhaul. If the folks making it say it isn't one, and enough of the audience ends up agreeing with them, then it isn't a reboot.
The one thing from oldTrek that will be well and truly dead in that case will be literal interpretation of visuals. No more will there need to be stories like the Enterpise Klingon forehead arc.
The one thing from oldTrek that will be well and truly dead in that case will be literal interpretation of visuals. No more will there need to be stories like the Enterpise Klingon forehead arc.
In the time it took Phlox to find a cure, other Klingon scientists on a hundred different worlds may have found other cures that resulted in variously different mutations as the augment virus stabilized.
Virtues of piracy...sorry...can't hold it in...
Put him in armor and don't worry about the forhead
That's perfectly canonical as long as she transitions back into a male at some point prior to WNMHGB.
Put him in armor and don't worry about the forhead
In his younger days, Kor was one of the many Klingons who underwent Dr. Antaak's reconstructive surgery regimen. He later removed the implanted ridges in protest of the traditionalist T'Kuvma government.
Last edited:
Hey, hey hey! I will have none of that fan theory garbage running around here, messing up my posts. You bring dishonor!
Except that vernacular translations were used throughout the middle ages, in abridged and full form, depending on where and when you talk about, eg. the Bibles moralisées, the old English bible, etc, as well section adaptations. The reformation has some very problematic historiographical errors, most especially the invention/emergence of vernacular.
There is also a problem with conflating scripture with liturgical culture, as not every biblical text was used in the office, mass or even paraliturgically.
It is also worth remembering that preprint culture was mnemonic, and that people were often multilingual, eg Ralph Hanna's study of literature in 14th century London. How we understand a highly sophisticated set of cultures is highly shallow.
This also ignores Byzantium, and Slavic, Georgian and other Christian cultures.
no that is called shipping
