Was a reboot inevitable?

[Dukhat]

One thing that still gets me is how Trekkies like to say how the franchise "died" in 2005 and JJ Abrams miraculously swooped in and "saved" it in 2009. That's... not exactly how it went.

He "saved" it because his movies were successful. Had they been duds on a ST:Nemesis scale, Trek would then have been truly dead. So however you want to justify it to yourself that he had no influence, he most certainly did.

 

[Hey Missy]

He "saved" it because his movies were successful.

Yeah, the first two.

So however you want to justify it to yourself that he had no influence, he most certainly did.

But he wasn't this holy visionary or saint that people like to paint him as, who had this brilliant idea only he could have to resurrect the body of Trek, he was 500th on a list of pitches.

 

[Dukhat]

Yeah, the first two.

The first two were the only ones he directed. The third was Justin Lin.

But he wasn't this holy visionary or saint that people like to paint him as, who had this brilliant idea only he could have to resurrect the body of Trek, he was 500th on a list of pitches.

I'm pretty sure you're exaggerating a bit about what people think of him. And where are you getting this 500 thing?

From Wikipedia:

In 2005, Viacom, which owned Paramount Pictures, separated from CBS Corporation, which retained Paramount's television properties, including ownership of the Star Trek brand. Gail Berman, then president of Paramount, convinced CBS' chief executive, Leslie Moonves, to allow them eighteen months to develop a new Star Trek film, otherwise Paramount would lose the film rights. Berman approached Mission: Impossible III writers Orci and Kurtzman for ideas on the new film, and after the film had completed shooting she asked their director, Abrams, to produce it.

Do some research before spouting inane untrue bullcrap.

 

[The Wormhole]

The franchise was never "dead" to begin with, because Paramount ordered a new movie in 2005 as soon as Enterprise was cancelled.

No they didn't. Rick Berman was optimistic he could get his Romulan War movie Star Trek The Beginning made, and even hired Erik Jendresen on his own initiative to do a script. But Paramount had no interest and the project was officially declared dead in January 2006. Abrams, Orci, and Lindelof came were approached by Paramount to do a Trek movie due to their work on Mission Impossible 3, as per Dukhat's above post.

 

[Greg Cox]

Was a reboot the only way to revitalize TREK at that point? Probably not.

Would another approach have worked as well or better? We'll never know.

Did something have to done to recapture the public's interest? Definitely.

STAR TREK X: MORE OF THE SAME was not going to cut it .. .

 

[Ghost]

Greg, if I don't care for the characters or the stories from what I read about either, how can how it is acted make a difference then?
I was never interested in watching a Federation-Klingon war story or another visit to the Mirror Universe.

Again, I personally don't like the new Trek movies or Discovery, I am not judging the rest of you guys for liking them.

 

[Greg Cox]

Nothing personal. Just resisting the idea that reading a synopsis is enough to judge anything on. To get all semantic, you can't say you "don't like" the new stuff if you've haven't actually seen them. You can say that what you've read doesn't sound appealing to you, but that's different than passing judgment on them sight unseen.

I've never seen a TRANSFORMER movie. I'm in no hurry to do so. But I can't say that I dislike them, or that they're bad movies, because I've never experienced them.

More: how can you know you don't care for the characters if you've never seen them brought to life by the actors? I remember when I first read the series bible for VOYAGER, months before the show debuted. On paper, the EMH didn't sound all that interesting. There was nothing in the character description to indicate that "Doc Zimmerman" would end up being the best character on the show, thank in large part to Robert Picardo's performance.

No one is saying you have to like the new stuff. Just saying you don't know that yet.

Again, nothing personal. You're hardly the only person on the internet to assert that "I know that episode sucked because I read the synopsis on-line!" (Which always drives me nuts.)

And, to belabor the point, execution matters. I once got caught up in a movie about college football, even though I have absolutely zero interest in that subject matter, because the acting and directing and writing managed to make the story compelling anyway. "Oh, fuck, now the coach is in deep shit. Nick Nolte is really killing this scene."

You can make any topic interesting, if you do it with style and skill and conviction. Even a Klingon War or Mirror Universe.

 

[Dukhat]

Greg, if I don't care for the characters or the stories from what I read about either, how can how it is acted make a difference then?
I was never interested in watching a Federation-Klingon war story or another visit to the Mirror Universe.

Again, I personally don't like the new Trek movies or Discovery, I am not judging the rest of you guys for liking them.

We’re not forcing you to watch them. But you have to understand that it’s very hard to take someone seriously when they say they don’t like something they’ve never actually seen. That’s all.

 

[Vger23]

There's a difference between "dislike" and "disinterest."

Dislike is "I've experienced that first hand, and find it not to be to my liking. "

Disinterest is "I've seen previews / read reviews / browsed a synopsis and it doesn't sound like something I'd enjoy."

Neither is any less valid than the other. However, the credibility of saying you dislike something without firsthand experience is very low. Ive never tried coffee because I'm disinterested. I can't possibly pass judgement (i.e.: dislike) on it's quality, content, or flavor without actually trying it though.

 

[Ghost]

Okay, I will amend it to "I am disinterested"
Better?

Could we perhaps go back to the subject now instead of questioning why Ghost does not want to watch the new Trek movies or Discovery while he claims to be a ST fan?

 

[1001001]

Okay, I will amend it to "I am disinterested"
Better?

Could we perhaps go back to the subject now instead of questioning why Ghost does not want to watch the new Trek movies or Discovery while he claims to be a ST fan?

You brought that on yourself.

At least I think you did.

I didn't actually read your original post.

But I know I didn't like it.

 

[Gavin70]

I don't know whether a reboot was inevitable or not. I guess in the long term everything that's got a nostalgia factor ends up getting rebooted (or re-imagined). With a franchise like Star Trek, there's always a range of options, reboot, prequel, spin-off, future continuation. They've all been tried with various levels of success and hopefully will continue to be. The more Trek there is, the more likely there'll be something I enjoy.

I've got mixed feelings about what's been done so far. Loved TOS, TNG and DS9, mostly enjoyed Voyager, hated Enterprise (first viewing I got half way through season 1 - more recently I forced myself to try again and made it as far as the first few episodes of season 3). Mostly enjoyed the 2009 reboot movie (with some reservations), hated Into Darkness, and loved Beyond. Wasn't keen on Discovery at first but persevered and mostly enjoyed middle and later parts of the season (although I found the ending to be a bit of a let down). Overall I've enjoyed more than I've disliked and I hope to continue enjoying for many more years.

Personally I'd like to see another continuation, set after Voyager, and while that doesn't appear to be on the cards right now, I imagine that it will be a possibility in the future.

 

[2takesfrakes]

After TNG, the franchise couldn't - or wouldn't - offer up anything that had the potential to reach the levels of popularity TOS and TNG had, there was nothing else to do. STAR TREK became more interested in maintaining the status quo and the longer this went on, the more the original series started to be used as a yardstick and they weren't measuring up. ALL that TOS cared about was being entertaining. The continuity and science-based themes and all of that were just sauce for the goose. Yes, TOS could be and often was campy. Yes, its limitations were glaring. But the later shows had become business as usual and it was never like that with TOS. It was the only series that was always challenged to prove itself over and over. Series threatened with cancellation and it gets another year. TMP comes out and it's too bloated and pricey to maintain its new identity, so the sequel's a soft reboot. The cast is aging and all the while, there's talk of a new series with a new crew in development for television.

TOS was always challenged to be more entertaining to sort of earn its keep and it benefitted, that way. STAR TREK in the 24th Century was never challenged like that, it was just concerned with keeping product going on the assembly line. ENTERPRISE might've actually worked had it not been on that same assembly line and it exhibited all of the same problems as its predecessors, as a result of it. So, what's left? Return to what worked before and what worked before? TOS and TNG, with TOS having the most recognition and clout with general audiences, so that means getting TOS back. And there was only one way to do that ... with a reboot. Unfortunately, DISCOVERY's still got to get the entertainment part up front and center, where it belongs. Its already kind of bloated with its own self-importance as the first new series in over a decade, whatever it is. It's got to take the reboot lessons and apply them this 2nd season ...

 

[SpocksOddSocks]

*snip* But he wasn't this holy visionary or saint that people like to paint him as *snip*

I don't think he's a saint, but he did have a vision... and now we're sitting in it...

Sorry, I know this post is a couple of weeks old, but I've only just seen the thread since the latest post, add couldn't resist that.

 

[Maurice]

Of course it was inevitable. The whole of Hollywood has been about rebooting and remaking for a while now, right down to Disney making live action versions of films that are a lot younger than Star Trek. Kirk + Spock + a director who's made a bunch of really successful stuff = greenlight. No one was willing to do another diminishing returns spinoff. They wanted to see if the core property with the highest brand recognition could still pull an audience.

 

[CRM-114]

I think it would've been rebooted eventually. It's not like Bad Robot and/or Paramount were the only ones who saw this as the best course of action. Before ST09, J. Michael Straczynski co-wrote a treatment for a new series that would've completely rebooted TOS:
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_Re-Boot_the_Universe

EDIT: The actual treatment for those interested:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5pYsyQJx6f4Q084YTFiWFoxdjA/view

 

[lawman]

Everything gets rebooted eventually. It was just STAR TREK's turn.

I think, in the current mass media culture, a reboot was probably inevitable. But it's important to acknowledge the constraints of that qualifying statement. It's not something that sprang into existence organically; it's the result of specific laws designed to serve specific interests.

For the longest time, before the current era of corporate media consolidation, the length of copyright on creative works was 28 years. If something was still worth bothering with at that point, it could be renewed for another 28. If it was actually owned by the original individual creator, it was life of the author plus fifty years. But that's all. Then it entered public domain.

Then in the 1970s Congress got involved, in response to corporate lobbying, and extended copyright out to 75 years, no renewals necessary. They did it again in the '90s, leaving us with the current law, in which the standard is 95 years.

Before those "reforms," most things didn't remain the property of a single owner long enough to be treated as "franchises"... and once something was in the public domain, what we might call a "reboot" was merely some new author's interpretation of the original concept, an adaptation, one possibility among many.

(Consider Sherlock Holmes. There have been endless films, TV series, and books and stories continuing, adapting, or reinterpreting the character's adventures. But the original canon by Conan Doyle remains intact, has never been rebooted, and never will be.)

Under the original rules, just about anything made before 1962 would be in the public domain, from Mickey Mouse and Superman on through lots of classic movies, TV shows, and songs. Star Trek would be about four years away from entering public domain. As things stand now, though, that won't happen until the 2060s. Pretty much anything created from the 1930s forward is still under copyright, and some corporation somewhere owns it and is almost inevitably in the process of trying to figure out how to milk new dollars out of it. After all, it's way easier and less risky to revive something that was already proven in the marketplace than to create something new and different and untried, right?

Plus, let's not forget that that vast majority of the movie and TV audience have not spent decades obsessing over fanon or their individual headcanons or whatever.

That, too, is arguably an artifact of the extended lifespan granted to media "properties" under current law. The longer old stuff (rather than new) is in the public eye, the longer people have to become attached to the details of it.

P.S. It occurs to me that SMALLVILLE was another notable prequel from around the same era. Ran for ten-seasons, making it it the most successful Superman TV series to date. Possibly the most successful comics-based show in history.

So, yeah, prequels don't always chase audiences away.

That's an interesting example, but also kind of a unique one. After all, Smallville wasn't really so much of a prequel as a reboot; it didn't pretend to lead into any previous version of the Superman mythos, but instead started from square one. It banked on a degree of audience familiarity with the character (and his setting and supporting cast) sufficient to attract people's interest, while still leaving them open to surprises.

I've never seen a TRANSFORMER movie. I'm in no hurry to do so. But I can't say that I dislike them, or that they're bad movies, because I've never experienced them.

I can agree with the first three parts of that: I've never seen one, don't plan to, and my attitude is better described as disinterest than dislike. On the last part, however, I think there's more than enough external evidence, beyond the scope of individual experience, to state with reasonable confidence that they are in fact bad movies.

 

[Lance]

In 2005, Viacom, which owned Paramount Pictures, separated from CBS Corporation, which retained Paramount's television properties, including ownership of the Star Trek brand. Gail Berman, then president of Paramount, convinced CBS' chief executive, Leslie Moonves, to allow them eighteen months to develop a new Star Trek film, otherwise Paramount would lose the film rights. Berman approached Mission: Impossible III writers Orci and Kurtzman for ideas on the new film, and after the film had completed shooting she asked their director, Abrams, to produce it.

It seems there's always ALWAYS a Berman somewhere behind the scenes pulling the strings

 

[suarezguy]

Not quite inevitable, going to Academy Cadets would be an obvious alternative that could have happened, but it would probably be risky/too risky after a prequel already failed (while an original cast but similar structure would probably really seem too More of the Same); after Enterprise and Nemesis (suggesting people are tired and bored of the 24th century but don't want some prequel or gap-bridging series with original characters either) it's understandable, if not sensible to indeed play things safe, go back to Kirk and the whole original series cast and style only younger, newer, kewler.

I think (as indeed the Star Wars prequels probably led to prequel Enterprise seeming obvious) Batman Begins and Casino Royale made reboots-that-tell The Beginning seem particularly the best bet.

 

[Paradise City]

There's big money in Trek, it has a lasting appeal, the TOS characters have a living, ongoing seat in mass culture (like superman & batman), reboots were inevitable.

I think if JJ's effort had of flopped. someone else would've rebooted it down the line, so I don't think JJ "saved it", he just pushed Trek out of bed and got it to do a 10 mile marathon.