No remake for me.
The Trek universe is fine the way it is. I see no reason to eliminate 40 years of history.
The Trek universe is fine the way it is. I see no reason to eliminate 40 years of history.
Who Wanted This To Be A Remake? Who Didn't?
- Thread starter AC84
- Start date
No, but if the new film had been a remake/reboot, it would have meant that nothing in those DVDs and novels had ever (fictionally) happened, so there would have been no *point* in watching them.
dude, it's fiction. none of it happened. A remake, reimagining whatever doesn't change that fact at all.
In the fictional Trek canon, it *did* happen.
I love this. People bitch about 'reset button' episodes, but don't mind the *entire Trek continuity* being wiped out?
I wanted PIXAR to do a CGI reboot of "Star Trek: The Animated Series."
A reboot would simply be "Volume 2" or something like that. It would not make the previous work "invalid". While I would not consider the original BSG to be as good as the original Star Trek, I did enjoy it as a kid and recently rewatched them, for nostalgia's sake, on the Canadian cable sci-fi channel, Space. I even liked a few of them still today. However, I also very much enjoy the new BSG. It doesn't prevent me from watching and enjoying the old one. Same with Star Trek.Babaganoosh said:
In the fictional Trek canon, it *did* happen.
I love this. People bitch about 'reset button' episodes, but don't mind the *entire Trek continuity* being wiped out?
(or do you insist that any production of Shakespeare be with male only casts dressed in Elizabethan costumes?)
Remake, reboot, in universe, out of universe, parallel universe--I DON'T CARE. Just give me a GOOD movie. I'll still watch the "old stuff".
It's been said several times here, but I'll repeat it.
The REAL choice isn't listed. Is this movie a "reboot?" Or, do we want it to be a "reboot?"
Maybe it's "none of the above!" I think that the movie is a "fill in the blanks" rather than a "start it all over" thing.
Might there POSSIBLY be another flick or even two with some of the characters from this one? Possibly... but not a single one of these actors is going to commit to being stuck in Star Trek for the rest of their careers, are they? I mean, seriously, THINK ABOUT IT. If we were talking about playing these characters for the next three to five years, some folks might buy off on it... but how many, really?
Basically, if they WERE to go past another two movies, they'd have to recast it all again anyway, don't you think?
The SMART decision, and the one I have strong reason to believe is the one that's been made, is to make a film with no plans to continue beyond this one. Make it stand entirely on its own. (IE, don't do an "X-Men" where the first movie is done as, essentially, an introduction to the next ones.)
Motion picture series rarely go beyond three films. Excepting Freddy Kruger and the classic Pink Panther flicks, name any movie series that went forward with the same actors for more than three films. I can't think of any... though I'm sure SOMEONE here can.
My point? It's better to come up with great stories, and if they happen to use these characters, fine. But don't plan to do more movies using these characters just to use 'em.
Abrams said that he had a "Kirk story" he always wanted to tell. I still remember him saying that and I still believe that's the single best clue for what this film is all about. It's a Kirk story told from the perspective of Spock. Whether it's a time-travel cheesy villany bit, or the more general "E! True Story - James T. Kirk" or something else entirely, this much, at least, we know.
We know that they've recast several characters from the original series. Are they all going to be present throughout the film, or just have a few moments of screen time in one small section of the film? Nobody posting here know, do we?
Will they make the Enterprise into a giant Tranformer with rotating shoulders and handlebar tassels? Possibly... none of us know for certain (though it seems damned unlikely).
But back to the topic... while none of us know for certain what they're doing, we know this much:
A film set in the TOS era need not be treated either as a "reboot" OR a "new series." It may merely be a "filling in of the corners" that fits entirely into the existing whole... and yet not need to directly reference... well, almost anything... from the "canon" that so many folks here think is such a bad thing. Just so long as it doesn't CONTRADICT canon, everybody'll be happy.
The REAL choice isn't listed. Is this movie a "reboot?" Or, do we want it to be a "reboot?"
Maybe it's "none of the above!" I think that the movie is a "fill in the blanks" rather than a "start it all over" thing.
Might there POSSIBLY be another flick or even two with some of the characters from this one? Possibly... but not a single one of these actors is going to commit to being stuck in Star Trek for the rest of their careers, are they? I mean, seriously, THINK ABOUT IT. If we were talking about playing these characters for the next three to five years, some folks might buy off on it... but how many, really?
Basically, if they WERE to go past another two movies, they'd have to recast it all again anyway, don't you think?
The SMART decision, and the one I have strong reason to believe is the one that's been made, is to make a film with no plans to continue beyond this one. Make it stand entirely on its own. (IE, don't do an "X-Men" where the first movie is done as, essentially, an introduction to the next ones.)
Motion picture series rarely go beyond three films. Excepting Freddy Kruger and the classic Pink Panther flicks, name any movie series that went forward with the same actors for more than three films. I can't think of any... though I'm sure SOMEONE here can.
My point? It's better to come up with great stories, and if they happen to use these characters, fine. But don't plan to do more movies using these characters just to use 'em.
Abrams said that he had a "Kirk story" he always wanted to tell. I still remember him saying that and I still believe that's the single best clue for what this film is all about. It's a Kirk story told from the perspective of Spock. Whether it's a time-travel cheesy villany bit, or the more general "E! True Story - James T. Kirk" or something else entirely, this much, at least, we know.
We know that they've recast several characters from the original series. Are they all going to be present throughout the film, or just have a few moments of screen time in one small section of the film? Nobody posting here know, do we?
Will they make the Enterprise into a giant Tranformer with rotating shoulders and handlebar tassels? Possibly... none of us know for certain (though it seems damned unlikely).
But back to the topic... while none of us know for certain what they're doing, we know this much:
A film set in the TOS era need not be treated either as a "reboot" OR a "new series." It may merely be a "filling in of the corners" that fits entirely into the existing whole... and yet not need to directly reference... well, almost anything... from the "canon" that so many folks here think is such a bad thing. Just so long as it doesn't CONTRADICT canon, everybody'll be happy.
Yes, it would. There's only one canon/continuity.
To use the BSG analogy: Is there anything more being done with the original? No. Even Richard Hatch's novels don't seem to be continuing. Right now, the only BSG is the new BSG. (I personally can't stand nuBSG and so I prefer to pretend it doesn't exist. But that doesn't matter in the end, does it? However much I like the original BSG, if it's not continuing, how much relevance could it possibly have?)
If this film had been a reboot, think of what it would do to the novels' continuity (the sort of "Trek EU"). How would writers decide which continuity - old or new - to write for? It'd be a nightmare.
No more of a nightmare than those who write for both Marvel's regular line and the Ultimates line. You're really taking this "continuity" thing a bit far. While I don't currently collect any comics (primarily because I spend my money elsewhere now AND my comic shop, with which I had an excellent relationship, closed a number of years ago), I was collecting when the Ultimates line came out. I had regular Marvel lines going back 25 years and I continued to collect them concurrently with the Ultimates (mostly Spidey titles). I didn't view the Ultimates as "invalidating" the regular line--nor did, I am confident, the writers who wrote for both lines.
It's FICTION. Moreover, the original actors are TOO OLD/DEAD to keep making stories. We don't have "holodecks" that can create new stories with the likenesses of the original actors.
As I said, I don't care in any case, as long as the movie is entertaining. Clearly I won't change your mind (nor did I have any expectations of doing so) but I've yet to see a persuasive argument as to why a "reboot"/"remake"/etc. would "invalidate" existing Trek. Simply stating it would do so is not all that persuasive.
Star Trek.
True, but totally missing the point.
I was talking about how being locked into an ongoing role is basically career suicide. The Trek movies are atypical because they involved people whose careers had already locked into this.
But when you REALLY think about it... there were only six TOS-cast films. And there were... gasp... ONLY FOUR TNG-era films. So even with the fact that these peoples' careers were already inextricably linked to Star Trek, the "film fatigue" effect still holds.
Do we really expect to see Matt Damon do another "Bourne" movie?
My point was that three flicks is really VERY common for successful "franchises" but you seldom see it go beyond that. And when you do, it's normally involving a major revision (a new Bond actor, for instance).
At least both the Earth-616 and Ultimate lines of comics still *exist*, and both are still being written for. That's something, anyway. Would the same hold true for Trek novels?
