But that comes at the price of whining about what happened to Chekov or Sulu when Chapel or Rand take the screen time. People come to expect certain roles to be in place, which is why the movie has Chekov coming in, however improbable. General audiences don't care about Number One or Boyce either, they just want the core people, which is why that issue is difficult. I think that updating it to any real degree sort of nullifies the way things turn out. The creation of uber smart AI (which will likely precede interstellar travel) brings up questions of the technological singularity. And let me say that this isn't necessary, but it would be nice. People aren't going to be wowed by ideas of androids, padds, or replicators. Even the most episodic shows have growing relationships and life changes that happen, which Star Trek practically had none of. The later shows had more, and even DS9's quasi arc story format I think audiences would prefer to standalone stuff. And I don't think antiheroes are going anywhere. The sort of comic book good vs. evil stuff just doesn't fly on TV anymore. Everyone is flawed, and that parallels real life, which helps people identify. The Abrams films have done well in dropping the flaws in to Kirk and Spock, but there may be a desire for it to go further (although not Admiral Marcus far). As far as the comments about militarism, I think that the shows want to have a more lax approach to appeal to the common viewer. Typically the person who is strict and rigid is a trope that shows us they're not like our heroes. Anyone who is by the book or all about procedures will seem stuffy and people will want to not like them.
Meh, I often hear this being claimed on behalf of "general audiences" but I see little evidence of it. People who aren't hardcore Trek fans don't typically care whether Chekov is there or not or if the doctor's name is Boyce. I'm pretty sure that's more of a fandom thing, much like the perpetual claim that Trek is Kirk and Spock. I think "the singularity" (or as I like to call it, the Rapture for geeks ) is actually fairly passe at this point. AI is ultimately just a tool -- Trek could certainly include stories featuring quixotic attempts to create AI that can argue with you or set its own agendas, but the chances of people putting computers on "the Enterprise" that can do this are minimal. A tool that can answer you back is fundamentally just a broken tool. "Technology wow" is generally not a very likely premise, although there are certainly still cool things that could be done. But then Trek stories were not generally supposed to be about "technology wow," the tech was always supposed to be a means to telling human stories. There's a parsec's worth of room between flawed, relatable heroes and either "comic book good vs. evil stuff" or antiheroes. I think that's something different. That in fact was why Trek was calibrated the way it was originally; Enterprise was meant to be believably militaresque and efficient without looking regimented and oppressive.
Isn't there a bit of irony here when we're talking about how Star Trek is basically Kirk and Spock? I don't think the singularity is entirely realistic, especially Ray Kurzweil's vision of it, but I think that there are elements of it that are going to come true. Maybe not in the time span or with the exponential growth into infinity type stuff, but I think it's possible we will come up with AI that rivals human intelligence, and possibly even one-ups it. I believe we will fully understand the brain before we visit other stars, and I think that understanding will go a long ways toward describing intelligence, consciousness, and a whole host of other things that we don't fully understand. There wouldn't be an Elba II because the brain and body would be more understood. But that might limit story potential. Star Trek doesn't cling to realism, especially if it is at the cost of the story, and I don't know that we could even hope that it would. It's more like present day types of people in a fantasy world than it is like anything futuristic. I understand that, but I was never really talking about the human stories, just the dressing surrounding it and the need for updates. Star Trek certainly has had technology wow type stuff. When I say flawed I mean flawed. I don't mean something like Picard not liking children. The closest Trek hero character I can think of that had some serious flaws was T'Pol, and that was only a drug addiction with a pepper of racism. We would be expecting to see some of that plus a little bit more. Do people want to see that kind of stuff in Kirk and Spock? Harlan Ellison was on the track with his original scripts for CotEoF of making Starfleet officers flawed, but it went against what Star Trek was. It was supposed to be this optimistic thing where character's problems were solved in an hour and they otherwise lived pretty perfect lives. But I just don't know if that will fly anymore.
Heh, what do you mean "we," kemo sabe? I am certainly not talking about how Star Trek is basically Kirk and Spock, since I don't think that's true. No, I get you. I'm saying there's still a lot of room between heroic characters with flaws and the anti-hero. (This was something I liked about NuBSG. It had real character conflict and real human drama but it still had heroic characters.) I completely agree with you that there should be a willingness to explore broader dramatic territory there than the original series did. It's probably confusing that I'm using "reboot" differently from the OP. I'm all in favour of rebooting the whole concept from the ground up with a new crew. I don't think a lot of the changes that would need to be made could be sold with Kirk and Spock.
I just meant that if you're already thinking to include Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise, it stands to reason that you include the other iconic things as well. Klingons, Scotty being drunk, "I'm a doctor, not a ____", etc. I'm not sure how I feel about a ground up reboot with a new crew. At that point, it seems to me like someone should just make something new altogether. I know, I know, it's a lot easier to piggyback on a brand than it is to chance it with something new *cough*Robocop*cough*.
God no. I'd rather see less mistaking of reference for cleverness or intelligence in general, and to leave grinding out the old cliches to sitcoms and parodies. As for whether it should be something outright new: it would only be genuinely a "reboot" if it was a ground-up fresh run at the Great Bird's original set of ideas. That original set of ideas is actually quite basic and can be taken a lot of very different directions, but I'd say if you're using them as a core it's appropriate (and more than just cynically cashing in on an established brand) to call it Trek.
a tv series set in the future of the reboot reality with a new crew whose captain could be reboot Spock and Uhura love child lol would be cool to have a vulcan/human captain
We all love "The Partridge Family", right? Would you like to see a remake of that? Enough already with the remakes. Leave that nonsense to those comic book movie-loving dopes.