Why Didn't They Do a True Reboot?

[ShatnersToupee]

One of the many things that bothered me about the latest Star Trek movie is that it couldn't make up its mind whether it wanted to be a reboot. Rather than just start with a clean slate, they gave us the alternate timeline thing, which comes across as something that was meant to appease fans who were worried that a reboot would invalidate everything that came before. But are Star Trek fans really such big babies? Do you think fans of Batman can't enjoy Tim Burton's Batman now that Chris Nolan rebooted the series? What about James Bond? Does Casino Royale make Goldfinger invalid? Or how bout the upcoming Spiderman reboot?

The filmmakers claimed they felt weighed down by having to adhere to the continuity of 5 shows and 10 movies, which is why they went back to the beginning. Then why not do a true reboot? Instead, they came up with a plot that ties itself to everything that came before. We get Ambassador Spock. We get time travel, as if we haven't seen that enough times already. We get a villain with a contrived and implausible motivation. And we couldn't get William Shatner because his character had already been killed off. I think the producers missed a great opportunity. Reboots give you the chance to do things right that were handled poorly the first time. The Batman series is a perfect example of that. But this movie, for its claims about wanting to start over, actually ties itself to what came before. And as someone who loathed Enterprise, it's scary to think this movie actually says that awful show happened in not, but two timelines. Ugh. Now there's a show I wouldn't mind seeing invalidated.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Give it some time. The true reboot may come before this decade is out, IMO.

 

[BlobVanDam]

None of your examples ever gave a crap about continuity. Bond never gave any sense of continuity, and basically rebooted every time they changed Bond. Batman is based on a comic book, so every adaptation just does its own thing. In both of these cases continuity is an absolute joke.
But Star Trek has tried to maintain continuity for 40+ years as a franchise. To throw that away would ruin everything that makes Star Trek what it is, and for no good reason at all. They've recast the entire cast, they've redesigned every piece of technology and ship, and it's an all new crew. It is as true a reboot as possibly necessary, and it was very successful, so I don't see that there was any fault in their method of reboot.

There's nothing wrong with the movie linking to the past Treks, especially since they're passing off these characters as the exact same characters we saw in the series and several movies, rather than being a genericized character such as Batman and Bond that are much more open to the interpretation of the individuals, rather than being firmly established by particular actors. Huge difference.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It very much worked for me. I love the idea that Spock Prime's the same guy we saw from "The Cage" through to STVI and "Unification". I love the idea that Captain Archer was fighting the Xindi a century earlier, and that if Nero never appeared in 2233 events would have gone the way of TOS and the rest.

Are Bad Robot constrained at all by what remains of Trek's canon? Nope. Anything they don't like, they'll simply ignore or change.

 

[Gojira]

I think by tying the movie to the 40 years of Star Trek that went before was a very respectful gesture to the fans and the franchise. Now I would not have been upset with a clear reboot because nothing would stop me from enjoying the old shows and movies on DVD but I am glad they were respectful to the franchise.

 

[lurok]

 

[Robert D. Robot]

^ I agree, KingDaniel. We get to have the original universe in tact, plus a sister universe now where the producers can decide what "old" elements can be retained or modified a bit and what old inconvenient/inconsistent elements can go.... and still everything is under one roof of a Trek multiverse based on what came before in TOS. I like it.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

We get to have the original universe in tact, plus a sister universe now where the producers can decide what "old" elements can be retained or modified a bit and what old inconvenient/inconsistent elements can go.... and still everything is under one roof of a Trek multiverse based on what came before in TOS. I like it.

We could have had that, even if ST XI *had* been a pure reboot.

 

[Merky]

... If Star Trek truly rebooted itself... do you know the amount of nerdrage that would ensue? How many manchildren tears would be shed? How much internet wars that would be fought over invalidating 40 years of established canon?

This movie is srsly damned if it does or damned if it doesn't.

 

[SchwEnt]

Eh, I call BS on their whole thing.
They wanna have their cake and eat it, too.
It's a half-assed quasi-reboot mess.

It would have been too much "trubble" to go with a straight prequel origins story.

It would have pissed off too many fans if they tossed it all out and started over with a totally clean reboot.

So they came up with some poor mix, of tossing in enough to appease fans, while ditching anything that would have caused problems in their script. The cheap easy way out.

I see no reason why a true-to-canon origins prequel story couldn't be written and filmed.
But you know, they didn't even WANT to abide by canon. The alternate timeline BS is an excuse to allow them to do whatever crazy siht they wanted to do.
Cheap and lazy and all lens flare.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

They intended to limit the number of people they pissed off and/or confused, and it worked.

 

[Merky]

Had they done a fresh out reboot and did an academy days type of movie there would have been no springboard to continue with future movies. Where could they have taken the franchise? We already have an established series and set of movies that chronicles this crew's entire journey on the Enterprise... had they done a fresh prequel there would have been no room to really continue and Trek seem "fresh out the box".

The way I see it at least.

 

[FarStrider]

Eh, I call BS on their whole thing.
They wanna have their cake and eat it, too.
It's a half-assed quasi-reboot mess.

It would have been too much "trubble" to go with a straight prequel origins story.

It would have pissed off too many fans if they tossed it all out and started over with a totally clean reboot.

So they came up with some poor mix, of tossing in enough to appease fans, while ditching anything that would have caused problems in their script. The cheap easy way out.

I see no reason why a true-to-canon origins prequel story couldn't be written and filmed.
But you know, they didn't even WANT to abide by canon. The alternate timeline BS is an excuse to allow them to do whatever crazy siht they wanted to do.
Cheap and lazy and all lens flare.

Maybe because there would be no real drama, or danger to the characters, because we fans would know that in 6 years, bla bla blah has to happen, and Kirk and Co. have to be there to stop it. . .and in 30 years, blahdy-blah-blah happens, and again, Kirk and the Enterprise crew saves the day. . .so, anything that happens in a "true-to-canon" origin story would have absolutely NO drama, no real conflict, no point of being told. . .

~FS

 

[ShatnersToupee]

Eh, I call BS on their whole thing.
They wanna have their cake and eat it, too.
It's a half-assed quasi-reboot mess.

It would have been too much "trubble" to go with a straight prequel origins story.

It would have pissed off too many fans if they tossed it all out and started over with a totally clean reboot.

So they came up with some poor mix, of tossing in enough to appease fans, while ditching anything that would have caused problems in their script. The cheap easy way out.

I see no reason why a true-to-canon origins prequel story couldn't be written and filmed.
But you know, they didn't even WANT to abide by canon. The alternate timeline BS is an excuse to allow them to do whatever crazy siht they wanted to do.
Cheap and lazy and all lens flare.

Thank you. At least one person who gets it. The idea that the alternate timeline was done in order to be respectful to the fans is complete BS. I think they were just worried the fans wouldn't accept a true reboot, which goes back to my earlier point about the fans being a bunch of babies. To whoever said it's different with Batman or Bond, get real. The fans of those respective franchises cry every time there's a change to the series. They got upset when they heard someone else would be playing The Joker. They got upset when Daniel Craig was cast as Bond. Notice how they changed their tune after the movie. And yes, there was continuity in the Bond movies. Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton's movies acknowledged that Bond had been married and that Bloefeld existed. So there was no true reboot until Casino Royale.

What's clear to me is that the writers of Star Trek wanted to start over, but they were afraid of alienating the fans. So they came up with this silly alternate timeline idea so that fanboys wouldn't cry over the thought that DS9 never existed. I loved TWOK, but it wouldn't have taken away from my enjoyment of it if this latest movie did a true reboot.

Lastly, this idea that a reboot would've forced them to repeat the same stories all over again is laughable. Who says they have to have the same villains? Notice how the Batman movies have done it. New continuity means you can introduce Batman to villains in a different way or to new villains we never saw before. A reboot doesn't mean you repeat the same stories. It means you're now free to do whatever you want.

 

[Merky]

Big question, does it even matter? Or is this more of an rant to validate the whole " ______ wouldn't have acted that way and this only served to be a cheap cop out to let _________ do ________ "

 

[SchwEnt]

Maybe because there would be no real drama, or danger to the characters, because we fans would know that in 6 years, bla bla blah has to happen, and Kirk and Co. have to be there to stop it. . .and in 30 years, blahdy-blah-blah happens, and again, Kirk and the Enterprise crew saves the day. . .so, anything that happens in a "true-to-canon" origin story would have absolutely NO drama, no real conflict, no point of being told. . .

~FS

I see your point but hey, that's part of going along for the ride. We KNOW Blofeld and SPECTRE aren't going to succeed in their evil plans, we KNOW James Bond isn't gonna get killed. So there's no drama, no enjoyment, no point in making or watching any more 007 movies?

We KNOW the Xindi aren't gonna blow up Earth in the 22nd century because the planet is still around in the 24th century. So the whole Xindi plot is stupid and pointless and without drama?

And during ST series, we saw McCoy and Scotty and Data and Worf and Geordi all presumed dead. We KNOW they're gonna pop up alive before the eps is done. So there's no drama, no point there?

And every time Scotty says she canna take it anymore, or the Enterprise is facing a warp core breach... we KNOW the ship isn't gonna blow up, it's gotta survive for the next eps.

(Yeah, sometimes it IS real...Tasha DID die, the Ent-D DID blow up. But you get my point)

Even though we know the outcome of things, we enjoy the ride and the drama. Do we not?

 

[BlobVanDam]

Thank you. At least one person who gets it. The idea that the alternate timeline was done in order to be respectful to the fans is complete BS. I think they were just worried the fans wouldn't accept a true reboot, which goes back to my earlier point about the fans being a bunch of babies. To whoever said it's different with Batman or Bond, get real. The fans of those respective franchises cry every time there's a change to the series. They got upset when they heard someone else would be playing The Joker. They got upset when Daniel Craig was cast as Bond. Notice how they changed their tune after the movie. And yes, there was continuity in the Bond movies. Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton's movies acknowledged that Bond had been married and that Bloefeld existed. So there was no true reboot until Casino Royale.

What's clear to me is that the writers of Star Trek wanted to start over, but they were afraid of alienating the fans. So they came up with this silly alternate timeline idea so that fanboys wouldn't cry over the thought that DS9 never existed. I loved TWOK, but it wouldn't have taken away from my enjoyment of it if this latest movie did a true reboot.

Lastly, this idea that a reboot would've forced them to repeat the same stories all over again is laughable. Who says they have to have the same villains? Notice how the Batman movies have done it. New continuity means you can introduce Batman to villains in a different way or to new villains we never saw before. A reboot doesn't mean you repeat the same stories. It means you're now free to do whatever you want.

Oh no, we all get it, we just disagree, along with all the millions of people, existing fans and otherwise, who perfectly enjoyed the movie and didn't "get it" either.
Ultimately the movie has all of the freedom of what you consider a true reboot. They're not at all restricted by canon. There was no canonical explanation for a bunch of stuff in the movie. And they're free in future to do whatever they want without the slightest care for what happened in TOS or the movies. Including the original timeline storyline didn't restrict them from wiping the slate clean.

Speaking of not "getting it", there is a huge difference between how Bond/Batman and Trek handle continuity. You can't compare Bond/Batman, which are both adaptations of other media and ideas, to Trek, which was established by those particular actors in that very same medium.
Batman and Bond can ignore continuity and do a clean reboot because neither of them are what established the characters in the first place, so were never the original canon, so there's no need to justify it. They've never been built on one timeline.
But until now there has only been one Kirk, one Spock etc. And the stories of TOS and the movies are the one and only established canon for that crew. It's more than just the basic idea. It's something very specific and well defined. If you're going to reboot it, it needs to make some sense and relate to what is established.
Having done this, they are now as free as they would have been by completely ignoring everything in the past. It's the best of both worlds.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Even though we know the outcome of things, we enjoy the ride and the drama. Do we not?

Almost no one was "enjoying the ride" any more, and the few who were, were for the most part too old to support a modern movie franchise with any future.

 

[lurok]

Oh no, we all get it, we just disagree, along with all the millions of people, existing fans and otherwise, who perfectly enjoyed the movie and didn't "get it" either.
Ultimately the movie has all of the freedom of what you consider a true reboot. They're not at all restricted by canon. There was no canonical explanation for a bunch of stuff in the movie. And they're free in future to do whatever they want without the slightest care for what happened in TOS or the movies. Including the original timeline storyline didn't restrict them from wiping the slate clean.

Speaking of not "getting it", there is a huge difference between how Bond/Batman and Trek handle continuity. You can't compare Bond/Batman, which are both adaptations of other media and ideas, to Trek, which was established by those particular actors in that very same medium.
Batman and Bond can ignore continuity and do a clean reboot because neither of them are what established the characters in the first place, so were never the original canon, so there's no need to justify it. They've never been built on one timeline.
But until now there has only been one Kirk, one Spock etc. And the stories of TOS and the movies are the one and only established canon for that crew. It's more than just the basic idea. It's something very specific and well defined. If you're going to reboot it, it needs to make some sense and relate to what is established.
Having done this, they are now as free as they would have been by completely ignoring everything in the past. It's the best of both worlds.

^ this Perfectly expresses several of the views I couldn't be arsed to write

 

[thumbtack]

But are Star Trek fans really such big babies?

A few.