Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

[Charles Phipps]

Controversial topic I examine on my blog today. You're welcome to agree or disagree.

http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/

WHY A REBOOT WAS NECESSARY




My name is Charles Phipps, and I am a Trekkie.

This is, quite bluntly, the Platonic true form of nerd in many people's minds. My wife, lovely woman that she is, finds Star Trek to be the most embarrassing of my hobbies. She's okay with my being a Star Trek fan but I read the novels, routinely watch the old shows, and would go to the conventions if I had the extra cash.


The problem is, time marches on. I think this is the most annoying factor to Star Trek fans, and indeed, fandom in general. No one likes to acknowledge they're getting old. However, comic books have been dealing with this fundamental truth for generations. When fans get old(er), set aside "childish things" (or let them become nostalgia), a fandom has to court new(er) audiences to survive.


Buck Rogers, Tarzan, and Flash Gordon used to be the most famous mulch-generational stories there were. Unfortunately, time had a way of eroding their good will so that all three drifted out of the public consciousness. The Flash Gordon TV series on SyFy illustrated just how badly reboots can go, leaving people with a poor impression of what the franchise is all about, but letting them know it exists.


Star Trek is in no danger of disappearing, of course. It's as influential as its rival Star Wars and has shaped public consciousness to the point every science fiction program takes something from its setting. Indeed, real-life inventions like the cellphone have been influenced by Trek. However, by the time of Star Trek: Nemesis, most fans were aware the writing was on the wall.


Star Trek had become irrelevant. Worse, it had become boring.



Poor Tom Hardy. We know you can act now. We're sorry we blamed you.

Ron Moore created his Battlestar Galactica reboot which, horrible ending aside, never shied away from controversial topics. Social progressiveness has gotten to the point that we have a transgendered character causally introduced on Elementary, when the only homosexuals on Star Trek allowed were evil Mirror Universe counterparts. Which, given they were genetically identical to their alternates, meant half of DS9's cast was bisexual but never bothered to show it.


A new series was, and is, necessary to tackle the kind of subjects the show was made famous by. I believe Star Trek belongs on the small screen and, ironically, the movies are keeping that from happening. Still, this is a essay to defend the reboot as opposed to oppose it. If nothing else, JJ Abrams material has done something which has rocked my Trekkie heart to its core. Its made Star Trek cool.


The JJ Abrams reboots have put Star Trek squarely back into the public eye and earned no small amount of good will from the public in general. More than anything, though, they've introduced a whole new generation of individuals to the world created by Gene Roddenberry. While not as successful as, say, Michael Bay's Transformers--it's given Star Trek a badly needed shot in the arm (or hypospray if you will).



The fact he's not doing the Vulcan peace-sign says it all, doesn't it?


A lot of my fellow fans point out nothing I've mentioned necessitates a complete restart of the series. Why are we in a parallel reality, anyway? Why are we closing the universe on Star Trek universe-1, anyway? The Next Generation continued the universe of the original cast and crew, after a fashion. Ironically, older fans have told me TNG was originally loathed because it wasn't Star Trek: The Original Series Season 4 (or 6 if, if you count the animated series' two seasons). Gradually, though, TNG won over even hardcore fans.


I'd be remiss, of course, if I didn't mention the caveat we're all thinking: but Charles, TNG was good!


Okay, you've got me there. I could argue that the first couple of seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation were gloriously bad but they were never boring to my adolescent self. Even when Tasha Yarr was being killed by a sludge monster, I enjoyed it. JJ Abrams, likewise, is never boring but there's not much content. The words 'pure spectacle' come to mind when describing his movies compromised of almost pure action and adventure.


He's made no secret of his Star Wars influences and man, what sort of Mirror Universe are WE leaving in that the Star Wars movies are about separatism, trade-negotiations, religious dogmatism, and political corruption while Star Trek is all about the "pew pew"? A Mass Effect movie is impossible now because between JJ Abrams Trek and the Total Recall remake, there's no point.


However, the big anchor weighing down any new fans is continuity. The most successful science fiction reboot in recent memory to both fans of the old and the new is probably Doctor Who. What managed to make that palatable to new audiences? Well, in addition to any number of small changes, they started from the beginning and introduced every element from the beginning.

Would Star Trek fans be willing to sit through an explanation of what Ferengi, Klingons, Bajorans, Prophets, Organians, Q, Augments, and so on are? Perhaps they might have, but that's partially what the reboot movies are. They're cherry picking from the best of the franchise and letting us remember the good without the bad.

That's the dark side of this discussion, I think. A lot of fans don't want Star Trek to change and you either evolve or die. As fans, we've suffered through some horrendously bad movies, but Abrams' Trek challenges us with brainless popcorn fair. Nothing says "grumpy fan" than complaining about everyone liking your series. Do I want more from our films? Yes, but I'm content with the pew-pew until something meatier comes along.


Besides, there's nothing preventing the old series from being appreciated. They're DVD and Netflix, waiting to be experienced again whenever you want. Nothing JJ Abrams will do can take that joy away.


Live long and prosper folks.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Good point about the treatment of homosexuality on DS9.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Good point about the treatment of homosexuality on DS9.

Garak being bisexual would surprise no one, including his actor.

In my headcanon, there's a perfectly viable "lost episode" where Kira has a (female) lover from the resistance where no one reacts in the slightest manner different from it being an episode about a male one.

 

[BillJ]

I don't see an issue with Star Trek being a spectacle and loved the first two season of The Next Generation more than anything else with Rick Berman's name on it.

And I loved Skin of Evil.

I watch Star Trek to be entertained and Star Trek Into Darkness does entertain me. It's probably the most entertaining new Trek since The Undiscovered Country.

 

[Charles Phipps]

And I loved Skin of Evil.

To make a digression, "it's new for somebody" is an important thing for fans to remember. As silly as that episode was, it was shocking for me at the time because I didn't realize you could kill characters like that and it left me badly shaken as a child. Which was a good thing.

I watch Star Trek to be entertained and Star Trek Into Darkness does entertain me. It's probably the most entertaining new Trek since The Undiscovered Country.

I think ST:ID was an improvement message wise over the original reboot film and could have dialed it back JUST A LITTLE. Still, I was never bored in my seat and that's impressive given my natural fidgety nature.

 

[darkshadow0001]

I think a reboot was necessary. Old Trek was good, but I think it drug out because there was not enough battles in it. I realize that is not what Trek is all about, but sometimes I think you just have to get in with the times. I personally don't think Roddenberry would argue with these newest films to the franchise. I always thought the alternate universes were cool... they could create so many different stories with this concept.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I love Roddenberry but he wasn't perfect and even original Trek was improved by his fellow writers, Bill Shatner's suggestions, and even the writers on occasion. In any case, I think the movies aren't PERFECT but they've breathed life into the franchise and got people to start thinking about Star Trek in new ways.

Then again, I'm just waiting for the Klingon War we've been denied since when they were first introduced.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Good point about the treatment of homosexuality on DS9.

Garak being bisexual would surprise no one, including his actor.

In my headcanon, there's a perfectly viable "lost episode" where Kira has a (female) lover from the resistance where no one reacts in the slightest manner different from it being an episode about a male one.

None of this has anything to do with what was actually portrayed in the series; the OP got it right.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Yeah, my point was ST was already starting to lag behind during it's 'heyday' because it had become acceptable family-friendly material. A gay person on the crew during the 90s would have been massively important.

Now? It wouldn't mean much et all.

 

[Romulan_spy]

I definitely think that a reboot was a good idea. The biggest problem with old-trek was that it had become too formulaic, riddled with technobabble and cliched. With JJ-trek, we got a show that is exciting and fun again and feels fresh.

 

[Jon1701]

Personally, I would have done a full on reboot. No messing about.

None of this alternate universe stuff. I mean, it virtually is a full reboot - they just won't say it out loud.

 

[DaleC76]

I would have preferred a total reboot also.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I think it was appropriate for Star Trek. There's no real difference to the setting as a result other than Leonard Nimoy's presence.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Good point about the treatment of homosexuality on DS9.

Garak being bisexual would surprise no one, including his actor.

In my headcanon, there's a perfectly viable "lost episode" where Kira has a (female) lover from the resistance where no one reacts in the slightest manner different from it being an episode about a male one.

None of this has anything to do with what was actually portrayed in the series; the OP got it right.

Um... Charles Phipps IS the OP. Maybe you should back off on your knee-jerk negativity.

 

[YARN]

I would have preferred a total reboot also.

Yep, clean break. Clean slate.

 

[GalaxyX]

Dear God that was a long read. Didn't finish it.

Trek needed to be rebooted because the core of what it is needed to be redone in a more contemporary style with the better cinematographic technologies available now.

The 60's series is great but only old timers find it all endearing. My first introduction to it was in my teens, and while I liked it, I had to "ignore" a lot of the 60's tropes in it to enjoy it more.

On the other hand, TNG, my favorite series had such an impact on me, that I clearly remembered thinking in my teens "this is how the future will be!".

Yet I look back on it, and now find myself casually ignoring some of the 80's tropes in it, and thinking "wow I thought that was going to be the future? what was I on"

The new generation could never get into either series now, it's too far apart from what the world currently is now. JJ Trek is reflective of today's cinema.
Reimagining Trek to be more contemporary is a plus for me even if it's less cerebral.

 

[Cadet49]

I absolutely agree that Trek needed a reboot, even for those of us that loved the other series back in their day. To me, Trek, in its original core, was about adventure and leaping into the unknown, excitement, danger as Kirk and crew faced new adventures ... a western-style frontier adventure, with the bizarreness of a sci-fi Twilight Zone episode thrown in from time to time, something I felt got lost in the later Treks - I actually loved the first two seasons of TNG, because they still had that "out there, bizarre adventures" feel to them - remember when Q made Riker a Q, and had the crew fight "pig men" dressed in French Revolutionary outfits on a contructed world? Loved that bizarre stuff!

Trek had lost some of that "adventure" element over time ... it became about politics, and diplomatic negotiations that get interrupted, or studying quasars, or preventing a war through impassioned speeches ... all of which were important elements of TOS, but they weren't the core focus, in my opinion - the focus was on exploring, and bizarre or unusual sci-fi adventures! This new movie manages to touch on some of those relevent themes that make us think, but never slows down its pace to lose us as an audience wanting a good adventure like the original series ... these two films have highly entertained me ... I'm excited again to watch Trek for the first time in almost 15 years! Sure, there are plot holes, but I like the action-adventure feel of new Trek, while still holding onto the roots (exploring a new world, Prime Directive debates while running for their lives, etc) - the "fun" in Trek is back!

 

[Charles Phipps]

I think part of the problem, of course, is the rapid fire of series was filling in the galaxy a little too much. There's now no region of the universe unexplored in Trek in the "home galaxy." We know what's in the Gamma and Delta Quadrants when we should have been focused more on the "unexplored" parts of the next-door neighbors.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I agree Trek needed a reboot. Having watched all series or Trek I think I know where Trek went wrong. Like so many others have said Star Trek became boring and formulaic.

1960's TOS has a charming simplicity to it. It's not perfect but enjoyable to watch. I don't think Timeless is to strong a word to describe how I and my friends feel about it.

1980's-1990's TNG: Improves on the TOS formula but doesn't copy TOS. I actually like the first 2 seasons of TNG because it felt like the creative team was taking risks and trying to find a formula. After that TNG did improve but you knew what to expect from it. If you like TNG it's because of the characters and the situations they are put it.

1990's DS9: Here is where the biggest change happened. DS9 takes the franchise in a whole new direction from it's predecessors. It was risky and people didn't receive it well. But by season 3 the bugs were largely ironed out and DS9 powered through to tell it's own unique story. Like TNG it focuses on seeing characters work their way through problems. Although DS9 it was more like you lived with these character's day to day. Superb.

1990's-2000's VOY: Another attempt to take the franchise is a new direction. While the premise was bold, and the set up staked out conflict. It all fell apart shortly. Like TNG and DS9, the first two seasons of VOY were underwhelming. By season 3 the show became TNG-lite. While TNG is responsible for starting this trend. The creative team of VOY relied on it to get there show through it's paces. Things got worse and or better when 7 of 9 was added to the show. B'Ellanna, Tuvok, Chakotay and Neelix all seemed to fade into the background with her addition. While Tom Paris was the resident authority on everything. How important was his job on Voyager when even Wesley was shown to be competent enough to pilot a ship. Harry Kim was Voyager's punching bag and resident death victim. So he stuck around for those reasons. Janeway and The Doctor took up everything that 7 of 9 didn't have. While this trend disappeared at the later part of season 6 through season 7. VOY's story is uninspiring and boring. The audience knew VOY would get home. TNG broke through and became a pop culture sensation, DS9 changed the game in the Trekverse, VOY just kind of did it's own thing which was something we had already seen...

2000's ENT: Just can't leave the TNG formula alone can you? First two season summed up right there. Made worse by the EXTREMELY forced Kirk/Spock/Bones dynamic that was copied for Archer, T'Pol and Trip, with a bonus of SEXUAL TENSION. Woooo. Temporal Cold War attempts to be clever but is really out of place in the first two seasons. Finally someone lit a fire in Berman and Braga's asses. The Xindi arc being like a defibrillator placed on the chest of the franchise and shocked back to life. While the parallels to 9/11/ muslim jihadist/ culture misunderstanding messages were forced and grating at times. The arc did work and it's conclusion was satisfying. Just get rid of that toe rag Daniels telling Archer how important he is when he really isn't. Season 4 being everything a prequel Trek series should've been from the start but by then it was too late to save the series. It's a shame because ENT started to turn itself around to something admirable.

JJ's Trek is purely for entertainment. Star Trek like any series/film property has that primary goal to be entertaining. So far JJ has succeeded at that. The public and fans like his films because they are entertaining. Is he doing anything radically different than what we've previously seen? Not really, but the spectacle outweighs the substance when it comes to JJtrek. Which is enough to inspire confidence to see more of it.

 

[The Wormhole]

Personally, I would have done a full on reboot. No messing about.

None of this alternate universe stuff. I mean, it virtually is a full reboot - they just won't say it out loud.

Pretty much how I feel. Yes, Trek needed to be rebooted to be commercially viable, but instead of doing a clean reboot they're still clinging to the Prime Universe by thin threads with all this alternate timeline stuff and Nimoy Spock who has taken a solemn vow never to discuss his timeline, unless someone's asking. Then he'll make an exception just this once.

I definitely think that a reboot was a good idea. The biggest problem with old-trek was that it had become too formulaic, riddled with technobabble and cliched. With JJ-trek, we got a show that is exciting and fun again and feels fresh.

Abrams Trek is still clichéd. Hell, all Abrams and his writing lackeys do is string together a bunch of tropes and call it a day. They just do it in an energetic and "exciting" way.

And while technobabble was undeniably one of Prime Trek's downfalls, the Abrams series is taking it in the opposite direction of being completely scientific illiterate. Okay, so Star Trek has never been once for scientific accuracy, and if I'm completely honest I prefer sci-fi which isn't slavish to pure science. But still, "Aft nacelle" sounds sloppy and unprofessional. "Lightning storm in space" sounds like something out of a child's storybook.