Star Trek 4: The Next Generation?

[Franklin]

A spin-off reboot?

No. Please, no.

What's the option when this cast leaves? A reboot of a reboot?

Or they could just recast the actors as they go along. There's no rule that says you have to jump-start the continuity every time you switch out a cast member. Hollywood used to recast parts in continuing series all the time.

(Hello, Eartha Kitt, Lee Meriwether.)

It would be the logical way to go if they are committed to keeping Trek on the big screen. I wouldn't even mind having time "stand still," and it's the same period in the 23rd century every movie. Kirk and Spock in their mid-thirties forever. Kind of the "James Bond" approach Hartzilla referred to.

No one who went to see the last to movies cares about what happened way back in 1973.

You don't literally mean "no one", right? Because I, for one, care about what happened in the original movies.

But Garth's point was that, as time goes by,the older movies will have faded in the memory of the general audience, particularly where the younger demographic is concerned. The percentage of the audience that is waiting anxiously for a follow-up to NEMESIS will have dwindled to a precious few.

Here's the thing: Reboots are not primarily intended for the folks who grew up on the previous version. First and foremost, they're aimed at a new generation of moviegoers. If you can win over us old-timers as well, that's great, but that's not really what matters in the long run.

Because in the long run, we're all dead.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Same with TNG. Eventually, no one will care about what happened way back in 2002 (assuming that's not already the case). If enough time passes and they make a rebooted TNG film, you'll have a large portion of the audience who wasn't even alive in 2002.

if they did decide to do a TNG movie reboot for ST4 in say 2019/2020 itd be roughly the same amount of years gap between TNG films as Trek VI/ST09 (and getting on for 25 years since one that people actually liked)

 

[Lord Garth]

Greg Cox saved me some typing.

No one who went to see the last to movies cares about what happened way back in 1973.

You don't literally mean "no one", right? Because I, for one, care about what happened in the original movies.

Somehow, I think you knew what I meant.

BUT what I meant specifically was that no one who went to see the new movies cared that the sequels in the '70s were making less and less money. It had nothing to do with 2011 or 2014.

 

[Makarov]

I would disagree with the idea of James Bond style recasting for Trek. This cast is too good to do the old switcheroo. Bond is largely standalone stories where he's more or less on his own aside from M/Q/Moneypenny. And even still each Bond had his own style going on, each time one Bond actor hands it off to another becomes a new Bond era.

After the care they took to do a time travel plot to seamlessly get this cast in, it would be jarring to suddenly see new people playing Kirk/Spock so soon with different chemistry.

 

[Set Harth]

And I'm no Bond expert but it's kind of problematic to act as though they all occur in the same continuity, right?

 

[Greg Cox]

And I'm no Bond expert but it's kind of problematic to act as though they all occur in the same continuity, right?

The Bond movies have never worried too much about continuity, no. At least not until recently.

So who is Felix Leiter this week?

 

[borgboy]

I'm no Bond expert, but my understanding is that Judi Dench came in as M several movies back, and then when they cast the latest Bond it was supposed to be a prequel to the earlier movies, but Dench was still playing M. Doesn't that bugger their continuity all up?

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm no Bond expert, but my understanding is that Judi Dench came in as M several movies back, and then when they cast the latest Bond it was supposed to be a prequel to the earlier movies, but Dench was still playing M. Doesn't that bugger their continuity all up?

Again, the Bond movies have never worried overmuch about such things.

Example: In the movies, Bond first meets Blofeld face-to-face in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, but when they meet again in the very next movie, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond right away. (Granted, they're both played by different actors at this point!)

This is partly because the movies filmed the original novels out of order, but mostly because they were all mostly standalone adventures so nobody really worried about "continuity" issues. The Bond movies weren't really intended to be viewed any particular order.

 

[thumbtack]

Or they could just recast the actors as they go along.

Studio comments hint at this option, though they may just be posturing for the upcoming renegotiations.

 

[Dukhat]

the 'Berman era' didn't really begin until the end of TNG/start of DS9.. before that the 'TNG era' Trek had become pretty much comparable to TOS in terms of quality, characters/ships/props recognition, catchphrases, general popularity etc even threatening to overshadow TOS (at least seasons 3 onward anyway). if they were to do a TNG reboot itd be that 'era' of TNG theyd be aiming to replicate (plus FC )...not so much DS9/VOY/ENT/INS/NEM

That doesn't matter. It was the TNG cast who were in the films, and it was the films plus ENT* that eventually caused the downfall of Berman Trek. At least, that's what a TV or movie producer will think.

*(Which is also why the "Bring Back ENT" crowd will be in for a major disappointment.)

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm no Bond expert, but my understanding is that Judi Dench came in as M several movies back, and then when they cast the latest Bond it was supposed to be a prequel to the earlier movies, but Dench was still playing M. Doesn't that bugger their continuity all up?

It was a reboot not a prequel. They just decided to keep Dench as M.

 

[Makarov]

Yeah Bond's continuity is really weird which is why you get the far-fetched-but-cool fan theory that "bond is just a code name for different people." There's some moments of continuity like where the original Q introduced the younger Q in one of the Brosnan movies. Not to mention the end of Skyfall which throws the continuity all over the place. If I try to make it all fit my head explodes Scanners style.

 

[Lord Garth]

My approach to the first 20 Bond films:

They all happened and we're supposed to pretend it's been the same guy all along. But, how can James Bond be in his early-30s in 1962 but only in his late-40s in 2002? Simple. A sliding timescale. Starting with The Living Daylights, the events of the earlier films happened but they happened later. Judi Dench is the last M.

For the last three Bond films and going forward:

The first 20 films didn't happen. Judi Dench is the first M.

 

[Mudd]

the 'Berman era' didn't really begin until the end of TNG/start of DS9...

It actually began in season 3 at the latest.

 

[borgboy]

I pretty much learned to read with comic books, so I'm very familiar with the sliding timescale idea. Somehow I thought that the new Bond movies were prequels but a reboot makes more sense.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ With every new Bond actor - even the ones before Daniel Craig - comes a reboot. That's the way I look at it, anyway. All new Bonds are reboots - Casino Royale was not more of a reboot than any other new actor. (Indeed, if this was not the case, Bond would be about a hundred years old now, I should think.)

Moore, Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan were just as rebootish as Craig was. The next one will also be.

 

[Lord Garth]

The world would be dull if we all thought the same. We'd be like the Borg.

I don't like to argue about religion -- oops, I mean canon -- so to each their own. I have my beliefs and other people have theirs.

 

[Nerys Myk]

^ With every new Bond actor - even the ones before Daniel Craig - comes a reboot. That's the way I look at it, anyway. All new Bonds are reboots - Casino Royale was not more of a reboot than any other new actor. (Indeed, if this was not the case, Bond would be about a hundred years old now, I should think.)

Moore, Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan were just as rebootish as Craig was. The next one will also be.

So Diamonds Are Forever is a deboot?

 

[Greg Cox]

^ With every new Bond actor - even the ones before Daniel Craig - comes a reboot. That's the way I look at it, anyway. All new Bonds are reboots - Casino Royale was not more of a reboot than any other new actor. (Indeed, if this was not the case, Bond would be about a hundred years old now, I should think.)

Moore, Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan were just as rebootish as Craig was. The next one will also be.

So Diamonds Are Forever is a deboot?

Probably not, because Diamonds begins with Bond dead set on finding and killing Blofeld, presumably because Blofeld killed Bond's wife at the end of the previous movie . . . although this isn't stated explicitly because, as noted, old-school Bond movies didn't do continuity and seemed to actively avoid referencing each other.

(It's interesting to note that Blofeld was never played by the same actor twice. Where's the wacky fan theory about that?)

But I like the word "deboot."

 

[Nerys Myk]

^ With every new Bond actor - even the ones before Daniel Craig - comes a reboot. That's the way I look at it, anyway. All new Bonds are reboots - Casino Royale was not more of a reboot than any other new actor. (Indeed, if this was not the case, Bond would be about a hundred years old now, I should think.)

Moore, Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan were just as rebootish as Craig was. The next one will also be.

So Diamonds Are Forever is a deboot?

Probably not, because Diamonds begins with Bond dead set on finding and killing Blofeld, presumably because Blofeld killed Bond's wife at the end of the previous movie . . . although this isn't stated explicitly because, as noted, old-school Bond movies didn't do continuity and seemed to actively avoid referencing each other.

(It's interesting to note that Blofeld was never played by the same actor twice. Where's the wacky fan theory about that?)

But I like the word "deboot."

I only made the post so I could use it.