No, if the existing classic fans are a small group risking alienating them is worth it, a franchise can't survive in the long run if they don't attract new fans. Catering to an ever decreasing aging fanbase is the worst thing anyone can do.
Total Reboot?
- Thread starter Bry_Sinclair
- Start date
Eventually, that's exactly what's going to happen. I hope sooner, rather than later.
The Trek spinoffs are derivative works created by and large by other people. If you're a fan of Rick Berman's Star Trek or Nick Meyer's Star Trek or JJ Abrams' Star Trek, that's fine. But don't tell the rest of us that these are the only versions of the Star Trek worth telling about. The source material is Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry. Every other version, while in their own right perfectly valid visions of Star Trek inspired by the original series, can and should be ignored in favor of the source material.
EDIT: Apologies for the double post.
EDIT: Apologies for the double post.
Why reboot? Just do what the Next Generation did and jump 100 years into the future and tell all new stories. Then you can still keep the vast history that has already been built.
Because the technology is already "God-like" and that problem is only going to get worse if you go one-hundred years further into the future of the same continuity.
Because once again you'll get the inevitable continuity call-outs and contradictions. It's just gotten too unwieldy.
Only if the writers are lazy and unimaginative. Every tech comes with its own problems and aspects to explore. And if you think "God-like" helps, try playing an escort mission in any RPG or fighter sim, even with unlimited ammo and invulnerability (for you) turned on. There are always limitations.
Honestly, I want a total reboot of Next Generation and I want it more realistic, more "gritty" as they say, and less Utopia. I want it to have a similar feel to NuBSG or SG:U (but without everyone being an a-hole), with maybe a little first and second season Andromeda kinda feel to it. I want the same exact characters from TNG, including Tasha, explored in this setting with new actors/actresses and a more serious tone, with a new take on some existing stories and definitely new stories, and definitely arc driven (but still with standalone episodes).
And I'm totally down with Riker being a woman in this hypothetical TNG reboot.
And I'm totally down with Riker being a woman in this hypothetical TNG reboot.
Generally I think it's a mistake remaking existing episodes. Leave them alone. You could take a basic idea and do something new with it, but just reshooting what's already been done is a migraine in the making.
Compare: TOS' "The Naked Time" with TNG's "The Naked Now." No contest. The TNG episode is a a waste of film in comparison.
Compare: TWOK vs. STID. Again the remake is a waste of film in comparison.
Hello, Hollywood? Do something else other than remakes.
And, yes, you can't miss the irony when considering a reboot.
Compare: TOS' "The Naked Time" with TNG's "The Naked Now." No contest. The TNG episode is a a waste of film in comparison.
Compare: TWOK vs. STID. Again the remake is a waste of film in comparison.
Hello, Hollywood? Do something else other than remakes.
And, yes, you can't miss the irony when considering a reboot.
Remember, in our last canonical looks at the 24th century, Starfleet had self-contained transporters the size of a comm badge, a formula to remove transporter range limitations, Borg-busting future torpedoes and armour (which would give them a pretty overwhelming advantage over local powers), black hole WMD's.... even things like the ability to detect things like androids over several light-years. Fast forward a century and they've either had to pretend none of that ever happened (
) or spend the whole series writing convoluted Voyager-style technobabble workarounds for all of it.EDIT: Or they could run with it, but would the result resemble Star Trek at all?
Trek could do with a little less techno-babble, I don't think many people would mind if the only visible technological advancements since TNG were actual touchscreens and thinner tablets.
I like both "The Naked Now" and Star Trek Into Darkness.
And Star Trek Into Darkness is no more a remake of The Wrath of Khan than The Wrath of Khan is of "Space Seed".
Trek could do with a little less techno-babble, I don't think many people would mind if the only visible technological advancements since TNG were actual touchscreens and thinner tablets.
Then you would have people complaining about all the technology that is being ignored and that the Federation made zero technological advances over the course of a hundred years.
We could have a series set in the 23rd century, just in a "different section" of the Federation than what was shown before. This would get rid of many of the more god-like abilities.
Or, if set in the 25th century have there of been some form technological decline like in Andromeda.
Or, if set in the 25th century have there of been some form technological decline like in Andromeda.
I don't believe, that Reboot is a suitable way to keep Star Trek alive.
There are shows, where the story is based on characters. The Spiderman is based on the guy with spider skills. This show is nothing without particular character in blue-red spandex. Let's remember Fantasy Island (original one and rebooted version). This show is based on charismatic man in white tuxedo. The stories were about people and theirs weaknesses and fears, but the core character was Mr. Roarke. Rebooted version is based on charismatic McDowell in black tuxedo as Mr. Roarke, that's even better than original version.
If we will accept the idea, that Star Trek is only Kirk&Co adventures, then we can accept reboots and we can stuck in 23th century.
Star Trek is not based on particular characters. Star Trek is (or should be) a strong, well developed environment for various SciFi stories. Remakes and reboots will kill the interest to Star Trek, it's pointless to have various versions of Kirk&Co and stagnate in 23th century.
What killed Star Trek was the continuing watering down of the brand with spin-offs that took it further and further away from what it actually was. Outer space, action-adventure.
I don't think that many people would complain, because :
(a)there's not that many people who do know and remember every piece of technology and the way it's used in each and every one of the 700+ episodes of Trek so far.
(b)it's not like Trek hasn't used and then completely forgotten about advanced technologies before.
As long as the stories are good, who would really care if the featured starship doesn't have Voyager's future ablative armour and 1,21 gigawatt phasers installed?
You obviously weren't around during Voyager and Enterprise. You had some folks foaming at the mouth over the smallest deviation from what came before.
I can't agree with you. In general Roddenberry version of Star Trek was about social problems, evolution of humanity and so on. Spaceship was only a place to play with social topics. Instead of space, aliens, intergalactic travels it could be western farm or indian village.
