Total Reboot?

[Bry_Sinclair]

If the PTB decided that rather than faff around with an alternate timeline they were just going to reboot TOS, how would you like it done?

Would you want just a new cast and altered storylines, or would you want them to do a full overhaul by drastically changing characters and whatnot, or something in between?

 

[Melakon]

I prefer the 23rd century setting. I think the ships should keep Matt Jefferies' basic design cues, much like Rick ("Risk") Sternbach did countless variations on the theme.

 

[2takesfrakes]

I want a hard reboot. Start from scratch. Make Kirk/Spock/Bones their own and canon be damned.

 

[T'Girl]

... or would you want them to do a full overhaul by drastically changing characters and whatnot, or something in between?

Change the concept too much and at some admittedly ill-defined point, it ceases to be Star Trek and becomes "something else."

I like science fiction in general, but the majority of it isn't Star Trek. Simply having three characters who are named Kirk, Spock and McCoy doesn't cut it.

Look at the opening sequence of the movie Star Trek Eleven, many would agree that that was in fact Star Trek, to some more so than the remainder of the movie. The "feel" was there. Even if Jim Kirk, Spock and Bones were not.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Trek should be treated like comic book franchises, or Sherlock Holmes. Keep enough original elements to keep it recognizable, and do a mix of new stories and fresh spins on old ones.

None of the pretentious holier-than-thou twaddle of TNG, please.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I want a hard reboot. Start from scratch. Make Kirk/Spock/Bones their own and canon be damned.

Except that it will be canon no matter if it's a reboot or not.

Continuity, however, is another matter...

 

[USS Triumphant]

Trek should be treated like comic book franchises

So, in other words, they should dump everything in the investment (time/money/emotion) that classic fans have in it, in order to focus on making a product that they hope will sell to young people who aren't currently Trek fans? That's not just bad art, it's bad business to gamble your existing customers on the hope that someone new will buy in.

On a related note: "Screw the New 52, and screw DC" - a formerly utterly devoted Superman/Justice League fan that at one point was buying two dozen of DC's titles a month, and now buys NONE and discourages others from doing so when the topic arises. Because your best word-of-mouth always comes from the ex you screwed over, doncha know?

 

[-Brett-]

I'd argue that we have seen a total reboot, albiet one with references to trick gullible fans into believing that it isn't.

 

[HIjol]

... or would you want them to do a full overhaul by drastically changing characters and whatnot, or something in between?

Change the concept too much and at some admittedly ill-defined point, it ceases to be Star Trek and becomes "something else."

I like science fiction in general, but the majority of it isn't Star Trek. Simply having three characters who are named Kirk, Spock and McCoy doesn't cut it.

Look at the opening sequence of the movie Star Trek Eleven, many would agree that that was in fact Star Trek, to some more so than the remainder of the movie. The "feel" was there. Even if Jim Kirk, Spock and Bones were not.

...could not agree more!!!...and I would further argue that they were there, in a nascent, but pleasant way!

 

[BillJ]

So, in other words, they should dump everything in the investment (time/money/emotion) that classic fans have in it, in order to focus on making a product that they hope will sell to young people who aren't currently Trek fans? That's not just bad art, it's bad business to gamble your existing customers on the hope that someone new will buy in.

This is nothing but non-sense. You have to lure in young people because eventually your current customers grow old and die.

 

[Timewalker]

If the PTB decided that rather than faff around with an alternate timeline they were just going to reboot TOS, how would you like it done?

Would you want just a new cast and altered storylines, or would you want them to do a full overhaul by drastically changing characters and whatnot, or something in between?

Change too much, just for the hell of it, and it ceases to be Star Trek. You might as well call it something different. This is why I could never get into nuBSG. They changed too much, and for no logical reason I could ever figure out.

 

[-Brett-]

So, in other words, they should dump everything in the investment (time/money/emotion) that classic fans have in it, in order to focus on making a product that they hope will sell to young people who aren't currently Trek fans? That's not just bad art, it's bad business to gamble your existing customers on the hope that someone new will buy in.

This is nothing but non-sense. You have to lure in young people because eventually your current customers grow old and die.

The ideal approach is to draw in new customers without alienating existing ones. In Star Trek's case, however, fans have become so irrational and hyper sensitive that it's literally impossible to not alienate them.

 

[USS Triumphant]

This is nothing but non-sense. You have to lure in young people because eventually your current customers grow old and die.

The ideal approach is to draw in new customers without alienating existing ones.

^^This.

I actually like the approach they've taken, if not every little detail of the actual execution - to start fresh, but in a way that gives a firm nod to the older fans that says "what you remember is still valid, and we aren't leaving you behind". We can argue all we want about various canon/continuity issues and what has changed and what hasn't and read the novels and make Primeverse fanfic and so on without feeling like the nuVerse KILLED OUR TREK , and really, that sort of minutiae is what a lot of us love about Trek - and the new audience can just enjoy what they're watching without all that or dive right into it, whatever level of involvement they want.

 

[Jonny]

I'd prefer any new series to be about a new crew on a different ship but since this is about a reboot then I guess I'd have it from where the Enterprise is just starting up it's 5 year mission and Kirk, Spock and Bones and the rest are all just getting to know one another. Biggest change I'd have in any reboot is more episodes for the ''lesser characters'' like Chekov or Sulu - a bit like what TNG had I suppose.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Ryan8bit]

I don't think everything needs to be treated like a comic book. Leave that to the mostly boring comic book movies. Let Star Trek be Star Trek, and have a more broad strokes type of continuity. And if you have to reboot, don't go so crazy that you don't keep the things that are core to the show still there. Otherwise it's just monopolizing on the brand. At that point I'd rather have something new that's like Star Trek, just without the hangups (ie: most aliens are forehead aliens).

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'd argue that we have seen a total reboot, albiet one with references to trick gullible fans into believing that it isn't.

Not to say they haven't made plenty of changes, but the existence of those direct references to what came before fundamentally disqualify it from being a total reboot.

The ideal approach is to draw in new customers without alienating existing ones. In Star Trek's case, however, fans have become so irrational and hyper sensitive that it's literally impossible to not alienate them.

This is true.

 

[Warped9]

There are different kinds of reboot. Even within accepted continuity Trek has already been rebooted several times since NBC rejected "The Cage" even while liking the essential concept.

"The Cage"
"Where No Man Has Gone Before"
TOS
TAS
TMP
TWOK-TUC
TNG
DS9
ENT
ST09

Strictly speaking they were all mild redresses of what came before. None of them made radical changes.

So one has to decide how extensive a reboot one wants. Do you want a mild redress or a clean sheet restart that updates the material? And if a clean restart what needs to be there for it to still have a measure of familiarity to it?

That last point can also prove to be contentious because different people focus on different things that say "Star Trek" to them.

There's also a matter of medium. Trek on film and Trek on television are two different animals. There's more flexibility on television because you can tell a greater variety of stories as well as smaller scale stories. Trek on film is hampered by expectations and preconceptions. It isn't that a smaller scale story couldn't be done in film, but it's practically a no-brainer that no studio could envision that and green light it.

For example I offer Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World. It felt very much like original Star Trek and yet it wasn't an epic huge story. The story was about one small skirmish set within a larger conflict. Here was a story on film that could have been done as science fiction set in the Star Trek universe. But you can pretty much guarantee that if such a Trek story were proposed for a feature film it would be rejected flat out. "Not big enough" is what they'd say.

That tells you that studio heads know jack shit in terms of what Star Trek is.

For Star Trek to be reborn properly it should be on television where it can be itself and utilize its flexibility.

 

[BillJ]

So one has to decide how extensive a reboot one wants. Do you want a mild redress or a clean sheet restart that updates the material?

Clean sheet for me.

And if a clean restart what needs to be there for it to still have a measure of familiarity to it?

Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise. Everything else is up to be tinkered with or replaced.

I like McCoy, Scott, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov but don't find any of them necessary for a new version of Star Trek.

 

[Warped9]

Well, I'm already working my own idea: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=241042

 

[Galileo7]

I prefer the 23rd century setting. I think the ships should keep Matt Jefferies' basic design cues, much like Rick ("Risk") Sternbach did countless variations on the theme.

Agree.