Why Didn't They Do a True Reboot?

[Robert D. Robot]

..... which goes back to my earlier point about the fans being a bunch of babies.

I would have to agree with you on that comment- if it is expanded a bit. Guys who wanted to see the exact same pattern of buttons as seen on TOS Enterprise's transporter console AND the guys who wanted Kirk to be a gritty lesbian with Tiger Blood in command of a restored, space-going WWII PT boat fighting these Sylon/Skarran hybrid things are crying. Most of the people in the middle between the two extremes are at least moderately OK -if not enthusiastic- about what we got in Trek XI.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

They didn't need to do a true reboot. Of course that would have riled up the "core" fans, and while the movie could have been a success, core fans or not, why rile anyone up needlessly?

All they needed to do was this:

1. Bring back the elements that people recognize as Star Trek, namely: Kirk, Spock, Enterprise. This means you can forget about basing the movie on original characters, so why not just bring in all the TOS regulars while you're at it?

2. Make the characters young and sexy. This means it has to be a prequel.

3. Come up with a way of linking those elements enough to the wider Star Trek universe that it will still have emotional meaning for the core fans who care about such things, without restricting the dramatic possibilities by making it seem like "everything is a foregone conclusion." This means it has to take place in an alternate reality, but with a lot of similarity to the prime reality, plus it helps a lot if the original Spock shows up to give it all his blessing.

1 and 2 are the only mandatories. They could have just done a Star Trek movie without even addressing the inconsistencies. 95% of the audience wouldn't know Kirk is supposed to be a stack of books with legs, the age spread among all the characters is too large for them to have been at the academy together, and nobody was supposed to know what a Romulan looked like. They just did #3 to be nice.

Star Trek is now in the very capable hands of people who know how to make highly successful franchise movies, and are also Star Trek fans or at least can fake it well. The situation could be a lot worse.

 

[-Brett-]

Why Didn't They Do a True Reboot?

I would argue that they did, and that the alternate timeline stuff is just a disguise for that fact.

You can bet your ass that the events of Enterprise and time travel episodes of other series won't have even a tiny impact on anything in these movies.

 

[Devon]

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.

There's your reason.
Now I can't wait to find out what happens next.

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.

Reset, reset, reset, reset, reset. No wonder some fans aren't used to change.

 

[Nerd unRage]

I think the filmmakers had to somehow connect this to TOS and the subsequent movies or else all hell would have broken loose for a lot of seasoned fans. Also, it captured the interest of newer fans, like myself, who were curious enough to go back and watch TOS and the movies.

 

[Merky]

I can at least say that I was tickled beyond belief when I saw Spock Prime appear on my TV screen. I have to give the movie credit where credit is due: they acknowledge that we existed and tried to do as much as possible not to alienate us and respect the established canon but still allowing themselves enough sand to play with in their own sandbox.

In order to successfully resurrect Star Trek from the dead they needed to do the following:

1) Pick a marketable show that the entire world knows (TOS)
2) Develop a story that reintroduces the characters (Prequel)
3) But also allowing a window for a potential series of movies
4) And keeping the story fresh and new (Alternate Universe)
5) But respecting the 40 years of established canon (Spock Prime, Prime Timeline)

Bad Robot gave us a movie I thought was excellent against the odds that it had to deal with (Writer's Strike, writing a story based upon classic trek, etc). Anything less or more would have been a disaster. After seeing quite a few beloved reboots/adaptations gone to shit (Avatar the Last Airbender) I can't hate on it for avoiding disaster.

Besides it brought in a new interest into Star Trek, new fans, and brought old fans back.

eta:

Even if was a true reboot or this, whatever creative works that have been made prior have not been negated or whatever. If it sucks, there's always what was left before.

 

[The Wormhole]

It essentially is a reboot. My problem is that Abrams and his Cohorts refuse to admit it's a reboot by dancing around the issue saying "alternate timeline."

 

[Robert D. Robot]

As human beings, we have a need to classify and name things to help put order to our world. This effort and the categories that result from the efforts is helpful, although pointless (I think) conflicts can result from getting hung up too much on arguing over differences in the terminology (which can often be fuzzy- not tightly defined), which can somehow become more important to an individual than simply having an understanding of what is being observed.

Someone looks at a particular fish and says, "That is a striped bass..." and another person says, "Hey! No- that's a rockfish!" while a third person says, "Actually, that fish is called Morone saxatilis."

These three might still choose to argue over what term should be used to describe the beast, even if they are all familiar with this fish and its nature. If they do, they are just arguing over names.

I believe that everyone here knows the storyline/nature of Star Trek XI. We all know WHAT this fish is. To say the movie is a reboot vs. not a reboot seems to be just arguing over the word, not the movie. Was the "Mirror, Mirror" episode a reboot, or simply a look at characters from a different realm of the Trek multiverse? Would it have been a reboot if the story line had stayed there? If so, by this logic, TNG must be a reboot, and not simply a continuation after jumping ahead 80 years in the story? Was it a reboot when the engineering set changed? When Chekov showed up? Each time Worf's forehead changed?

Not sure why it is important to have it defined and carved into stone what this new movie is. It is what it is. Pick the term that you like to use to describe it, but is only a name that seems to be too fuzzy a descriptive to mean that much. If Abrams terms it an "alternate timeline", he isn't refusing to admit anything, he's just essentially calling the thing a rockfish....

 

[Cyke101]

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.

I certainly enjoyed this ride more than the ride offered by half of Voyager, 3/4ths of Enterprise, Insurrection, and Nemesis.

 

[DonIago]

Another argument over whether it should have been a "true" reboot?

It must be Tuesday...

 

[Shazam!]

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

There's no real drama in an alternate universe either.

Oh noes! Kirk and Spock are in danger an may die! Oh well, there are more Kirk and Spocks having rad adventures in other universes.

 

[Merky]

It essentially is a reboot. My problem is that Abrams and his Cohorts refuse to admit it's a reboot by dancing around the issue saying "alternate timeline."

I don't think they ever actually denied that it wasn't a reboot.

" We rebooted the franchise and stuck it in an alternate universe "

 

[Gojira]

There's no real drama in an alternate universe either.

Oh noes! Kirk and Spock are in danger an may die! Oh well, there are more Kirk and Spocks having rad adventures in other universes.

I think Kirk is one of the few main characters to be killed and not brought back to life. Star Trek has the habit of taking the sting and drama out of death by continually bringing the dead back to life.

 

[F. King Daniel]

There's no real drama in an alternate universe either.

Oh noes! Kirk and Spock are in danger an may die! Oh well, there are more Kirk and Spocks having rad adventures in other universes.

If your point were true, it would have been so since TNG's "Parallels", not STXI.

But it didn't make an iota of difference to me that another Amanda lived on in the Prime universe when we saw her die in STXI.

 

[DonIago]

Really. If alternate universes do exist does that somehow make people in this one less important?

 

[Cake]

I would have preferred a true reboot without the whole time travel story. This way there would have been more time to show more background of the characters. I would have liked to see more of their Starfleet Academy days for example.

 

[number6]

The real issue is that ST fans ARE huge crybabies when it comes to all this stuff. That's why a total reboot wouldn't have worked for some and why others can't see that at the end of the day, this film WAS a total reboot.
The film came out in 2009. Let's move on already.

 

[BillJ]

The real issue is that ST fans ARE huge crybabies when it comes to all this stuff. That's why a total reboot wouldn't have worked for some and why others can't see that at the end of the day, this film WAS a total reboot.
The film came out in 2009. Let's move on already.

I'm a huge Star Trek fan, but I was in favor of doing a "hard reboot" of the franchise. I was simply interested in a film with a less convoluted story. If that makes me a crybaby... so be it.

 

[DestinyCaptain]

I think the Sub-Prime Universe thing was a waste of time. Why not just do an entirely new from the ground up Trek? Then you don't have to deal with anything? New characters and new situations would have been a better way to go. Set the thing when you want it. Develop the kind of aliens you want. Design the ships and technology the way you want. This frees you from that dang ole continuity. This frees you from direct comparisons to previos versions of characters. This allows you to develop more contemporary stories and situations.

 

[DonIago]

Of course, then it wouldn't actually be a Star Trek movie...

I don't know why people can't just accept that TPTB were in a no-win scenario and did the best job they thought they could of handling it. No matter how they handled it people would have complained.