If enough people will buy them, then yes, of course.
Who Wanted This To Be A Remake? Who Didn't?
- Thread starter AC84
- Start date
If enough people will buy them, then yes, of course.
There's a difference between no new material being produced and something being invalid.
Is the original Lost In Space series invalid? Is the remake movie invalid? No, and no, despite the fact there are no plans to follow up either. They have seperate continuities - the latter is not in contunity with the former.
What is true, though, is that there is no more 'new faces on a new show' Star Trek being produced, or TNG movies being produced. Those died with Nemesis and Enterprise. It's the end of the Berman era. Whatever came afterwards was bound to be radically different, even if it did try another new-faces approach.
Nothing that comes out is going to 'invalidate' DS9, for example. It may have a different continuity from DS9, but so what? You can still put on your DS9 DVDs. Nothing has changed - it's not like a film with Avery and the crew was ever in the cards anyway.
And Cary L. Brown, how about the Bond movies? Connery, Moore, and Bronsnan in turn all stuck around as Double-oh-seven for considerably more than three films.
Is the original Lost In Space series invalid? Is the remake movie invalid? No, and no, despite the fact there are no plans to follow up either. They have seperate continuities - the latter is not in contunity with the former.
What is true, though, is that there is no more 'new faces on a new show' Star Trek being produced, or TNG movies being produced. Those died with Nemesis and Enterprise. It's the end of the Berman era. Whatever came afterwards was bound to be radically different, even if it did try another new-faces approach.
Nothing that comes out is going to 'invalidate' DS9, for example. It may have a different continuity from DS9, but so what? You can still put on your DS9 DVDs. Nothing has changed - it's not like a film with Avery and the crew was ever in the cards anyway.
And Cary L. Brown, how about the Bond movies? Connery, Moore, and Bronsnan in turn all stuck around as Double-oh-seven for considerably more than three films.
Yeah it is. No one is denying that. But the conclusions drawn from this fact by some people is quite strange.
Why do we consume fictional works? Do we want to see Tolkien's writing style or Nick Meyer's art of direction? Partly, yes. But we also want to dive into that fictional world, we pretend it's real for the time being. And we'd feel betrayed if the writers (whose job is to make that happen) neglect the inner coherence, the continuity.
And it's a canon that has been developed for 40 years that may be sacrificed. I think that should make anybody think twice about messing around with it. It's not too much canon or continuity that got Star trek where it (sadly) is now, but quite the opposite.
I also beleive that many people mistake the "canonista" complaints to be reservations against any changes, as though we'd want every button, every silly monitor display and every haircut just as it was. That isn't so.
Rather, we believe that many of the designs and style of the original show were good enough to be included in the next movie. And that it isn't THAT hard to come up with solutions that will satisfy both the "canonista" AND those who don't give a damn about canon and just want it to look "modern".
Orci understood that. Some people here don't.
Ron Moore said it best (LCARS.com)
The STAR TREK, hardcore audience loves continuity; they love accumulating data on these ships. They love knitting together all the little pieces, and compiling lists, and doing trivia. That's been a staple of the STAR TREK culture from the get-go. People really love the details. They love the fact that the details all add up and make one mosaic, and that the universe holds together. When you don't give a shit, you're telling the audience: don't bother.
Great quote.
And, more importantly, let's not forget the incredible work of Jim Varney in his unforgettable collection of "Ernest" movies.
I don't think that appealing to the masses is a bad thing when it comes to Trek because I don't think the risk of "alienating the hard core fans" is much of a gamble. Even the most hard-core Trek XI haters will go see this movie, they're the only ones who saw Nemesis in the theater.
I wouldn't have wanted a remake.
I'm not one of those folks who is completely obsessed with the smallest detail of canon....but I do care about the ships looking the same and about individual characters' (and the universe in generals') timelines not being mucked up.
Besides...I'd like to see a new adventure that will stand or fall on it's own merits - not in comparison to something that came earlier.
I'm not one of those folks who is completely obsessed with the smallest detail of canon....but I do care about the ships looking the same and about individual characters' (and the universe in generals') timelines not being mucked up.
Besides...I'd like to see a new adventure that will stand or fall on it's own merits - not in comparison to something that came earlier.
^
Any Star Trek will be compared to what came earlier. Sisko was compared to Picard, Picard to Kirk... and Abrams' film will rise or fall on its own merits. Reusing popular characters, even actors, is not a guaranteed success: Not all of the Bond movies were big hits, for example.
True, though, the film will fully muck up the timeline. I'll freely confess to being past caring about that.
Any Star Trek will be compared to what came earlier. Sisko was compared to Picard, Picard to Kirk... and Abrams' film will rise or fall on its own merits. Reusing popular characters, even actors, is not a guaranteed success: Not all of the Bond movies were big hits, for example.
True, though, the film will fully muck up the timeline. I'll freely confess to being past caring about that.
I'm kind of losing a little hope for this movie already. If this movie was supposed to bring relavency back to the Trekverse, I can't help but wonder why they casted a bunch of no name actors (Other than Quinto and Nimoy) in the roles. Also, I've been wanting a movie set during the Lost Era (Post Star Trek 6, pre TNG) or after the Dominion War. Trek now seems so convinced that it can really go back to Star Trek and they've failed once. What makes them think this movie is going to succeed again.
^^ Good enough. But I'm in full agreement with that Ron Moore quote upstream in the thread. 
Big surprise there, huh?
Big surprise there, huh?
True, but if you're watching those DVDs and you realize that nothing that happens in this show really matters - if the new canon/continuity ignores them or won't respect them - then what's the point?
I disagree wholeheartedly.
I WANTED them to cast "no-name" actors, and I'm a bit bothered by the fact that they HAVE gone a little bit more "name-centric" than I'd have liked in several cases. Okay, they're not "Hollywood A-Listers" but they're still known faces. Pegg, Cho, Saldana... all are recognizable to a portion of the audience (though clearly not all of the audience).
That said, despite my concerns about a few casting choices, I'm pretty happy so far with the "big two" at least.
Very few people know Chris Pine by name or by face. So it's going to be easier for the audience to see Jim Kirk and not "that Bourne guy who did all the Kevin Smith stuff and acted in that Robin Williams flick."
Suspension of disbelief tends to work better with unknowns, especially when dealing with a recasting.
(I never saw anyone but Remington Steele when I was watching the last few Bond flicks... sorry!)
So for ME... this is a GOOD thing. I'd still rather have had an actual African for Uhura, and McGillion for Scotty, an actual Japanese-American as Sulu, and an actual Russian as Chekov. But hey, I really REALLY don't expect to see much of any of them anyway. This is a Kirk/Spock movie with a fair smattering of McCoy thrown in for good measure, I'm convinced.
You're just enjoying something from an earlier continuity and an earlier era, and you're doing so because it entertains you and provides intriguing drama. It's still (for the most part) internally consistent with TOS, TNG, VOY, ENT and the first ten movies... which is all it was internally consistent with when it was first aired - less, actually, as a few seasons of VOY, all of ENT, and the tenth movie postdate DS9. That universe isn't getting any bigger, but it hasn't got any smaller either.
I suppose a remake/reboot wouldn't be so bad...just as long as the original continuity would still exist *in some form*. If that form has to be novels, then it's better than nothing.
One could always use the parallel universe angle. That could even be played up in a subsequent Trek novel - one version of continuity meets the other.
I don't know why this is affecting me more than BSG is. nuBSG is a blatant reboot and everyone knows it, yet I have no problem with ignoring it and focusing solely on the original version (since I can't stand nuBSG). I don't know why I can't be that open-minded about Trek.
One could always use the parallel universe angle. That could even be played up in a subsequent Trek novel - one version of continuity meets the other.
I don't know why this is affecting me more than BSG is. nuBSG is a blatant reboot and everyone knows it, yet I have no problem with ignoring it and focusing solely on the original version (since I can't stand nuBSG). I don't know why I can't be that open-minded about Trek.
If they want to do something very different - just do a retcon. I'd like them to tie movies into continuity and (sensible) fanon, but after Enterprise I'm fairly pessimistic about the ability of a creative team to make Star Trek 'edgy' while respecting said canon. So on balance they may as well retcon it. But then, really I'd like to see another 24th century film, so it isn't a big deal for me what they do with Kirk et al.
I'll tell you why. It's because you've probably internalized one of the big anti-reboot arguments, which is [angels singing] "There are forty years of Trek continuity!" [/angels still singing] as if this fact alone renders it exempt from ever being rebooted/reimagined/remade/retconned, what have you, whereas there are only two years of original BSG continuity, the second of which (Galactica 1980) everybody disavows anyway. So for you, nuBSG isn't displacing much and you're content to ignore it, but nuStar Trek would be committing sacrilege of the highest order.
Just a guess.
Um, yeah, but I think Bab made that fairly clear anyway by saying he can't stand nuBSG. :-)
And there isn't really forty years of Trek continuity - the show hasn't been in continual production for forty years. Maybe it feels like it... but...
And there isn't really forty years of Trek continuity - the show hasn't been in continual production for forty years. Maybe it feels like it... but...
I know that. I was there.
I know that, too.
What I'm talking about here is the level of sin. Babs hates nuBSG, but can simply ignore it because the level of sin involved in displacing oldBSG comes nowhere near the level of sin involved in displacing five series and ten movies and assloads of books of Trek.
