Why Didn't They Do a True Reboot?

[Albertus]

Actually, the reboot seems to have begun with the somewhat controversial ENT and Star Trek XI appears to be a continuation of that series and not a reboot or re-imagining of the TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY universe.

The reference to "Admiral Archer" and his "prize beagle", by Scotty, would help to support this. In fact, there was so much meddling in the timeline in ENT that it would make more sense to view this film as a natural progression from ENT. Spock Prime's involvement in the story actually seems to herald the final severance of NuTrek from all the Prime time-lines pre-ENT.

Further, although the general shape and component parts of the exterior and interior of the NuEnterprise remain pretty much the same, the look and feel of the ship seems to stem from a different design ethos, certainly insofar as the lighting and colour scheme used is not consistent with that seen in the 'Prime' series', more of a 'Neo-Industrial' approach, if you will.

Just my take on things.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It was a reboot. 100% reboot. Total and complete reboot.

No it wasn't. Leonard Nimoy's presence saw to that. NuTrek is in the same continuity as regular Trek. It's a parallel universe that is almost entirely the same as the Prime U, with just a few interesting changes scattered here and there, so that the audience who cares about continuity can care about what's going on, and for everyone else, it's all fresh and new.

The Prime U still exists. It's possible that the story could migrate back there in the future. Wouldn't it be funny if Zachary Quinto's Spock gets shunted over to the Prime U at the end of the final movie in this run? Cosmic irony, ya gotta love it...

The writers haven't deleted or "ruined" anything. They've expanded their sandbox, that's all.

They only came up with the non-reboot rationalizations (much like White House publicists) so many in our merry group wouldn't have a bitch fit

But why? I've been told time and again that I (being a long time fan) wasn't the target audience for this movie. I was also told there were enough Trekkies out there to make an impact on the box office.

Because they're respectful to the material and Orci is a Trekkie himself. I don't think they needed to worry about continuity at all. As I said in a previous post, they could have done a true reboot, thrown any nonsense they liked up on the screen, and made the same money as they did.

Aside from those of us that know the 60's Trek., I have run into very few that know what Trek is beyond the name. The connection to TOS is mostly for us older people. The kids that this film was clearly geared would have never known or cared if it wasn't about Kirk and Spock

While I wouldn't probably consider myself a "kid," I also wasn't even a twinkle in my mother's eye when TOS was on the air. That being said, my husband and I most likely would not have had much interest in going to see this movie if it hadn't been Kirk and Spock. And that's not to say either of us had an active interest in TOS, we knew the basics of the show and who the characters were, but neither of us were "fans."

I don't know, maybe we're the exception, not the norm. Except I find that hard to believe when I've talked to those younger than myself who knew who Kirk and Spock were even before the movie.

Your experience jives with what I learned before the movie, talking to non-Trekkies (and I don't know any true Trekkies in RL, sadly or maybe happily ) Nobody was interested in a Star Trek movie until I said "Kirk and Spock." They may only have tangental knowledge or memories of those characters, but they still mean "good, fun adventure" to the general public, whereas TNG means "tired old shit" and none of the other series mean anything at all. And I say that as a Niner. It's just reality. The future is Abrams Trek and then beyond that, something new, but nobody will ever go back to the spinoff series.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Actually, the reboot seems to have begun with the somewhat controversial ENT and Star Trek XI appears to be a continuation of that series and not a reboot or re-imagining of the TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY universe.

The reference to "Admiral Archer" and his "prize beagle", by Scotty, would help to support this. In fact, there was so much meddling in the timeline in ENT that it would make more sense to view this film as a natural progression from ENT. Spock Prime's involvement in the story actually seems to herald the final severance of NuTrek from all the Prime time-lines pre-ENT.

Further, although the general shape and component parts of the exterior and interior of the NuEnterprise remain pretty much the same, the look and feel of the ship seems to stem from a different design ethos, certainly insofar as the lighting and colour scheme used is not consistent with that seen in the 'Prime' series', more of a 'Neo-Industrial' approach, if you will.

Just my take on things.

ENT is not a reboot. It is unique in that it exists in both universes - the prime one and the Abramsverse. Everything that happened in ENT is common to both. The branching point did not occur until many years after.

 

[F. King Daniel]

That's true from an in-universe standpoint ("These are the Voyages" puts ENT firmly in the past of TNG) , but it's pretty clear that Enterprise was intended to be a fresh start and a new take on the origins of Star Trek IRL. Otherwise it might have paid some heed to the 22nd century stuff established in TOS, the decades of Trek novels and even the Star Trek Chronology.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Otherwise it might have paid some heed to the 22nd century stuff established in TOS

Which was actually very little. Much less than what fanon has assumed.

the decades of Trek novels and even the Star Trek Chronology.

Doesn't need to, since neither of those are canon.

 

[RAMA]

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.

I'm probably late in responding, but its just seems totally obvious why. Rather than abandon all of the large number of fans, they wanted the movie to be inclusive...but center on a mainstream appeal. It accomplished both well, earning almost $550 million from box office and DVD/Bluray sales.

Another answer, first paragraph:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=141287

 

[F. King Daniel]

Otherwise it might have paid some heed to the 22nd century stuff established in TOS

Which was actually very little. Much less than what fanon has assumed.

I say this as a fan of TOS and ENT: "Balance of Terror" and "Minefield" are fundamentally incompatible. Unless Spock is an idiot and the TOS crew never read their history books.

Everything Kirk did "first" was later bumped by Archer, which makes the TOS crew look rather silly as they look on amazed at things that were mundane 100 years prior. Time travel? Phasers? Cold start of the warp engines? You can come up with excuses based on flimsy technicalities ("It's not a phaser, it's a phase canon - they just look and act exactly alike") but they're not real fixes.

the decades of Trek novels and even the Star Trek Chronology.

Doesn't need to, since neither of those are canon.

Canon or no, still a departure from what went before... exactly as I said.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Rather than abandon all of the large number of fans, they wanted the movie to be inclusive

How many fans would have been that angry if they just did a reboot though? Like, wouldn't it just be the same group of people that are upset anyways?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

"Balance of Terror" and "Minefield" are fundamentally incompatible.

Okay, they did kind of screw the pooch on that one. But, at the risk of bringing up novels which I just admitted weren't canon, I think they did a fair job explaining that one away:

Spoiler: The Good That Men Do

The Romulan ship in "Minefield" was a prototype. The reason it kept cloaking and decloaking at random moments was because it was malfunctioning. The cloak took so much power that the ship eventually self destructed from the overload. So "Balance of Terror" represented the first Romulan vessel with a working cloak.

Everything Kirk did "first" was later bumped by Archer

But how many things did Kirk *really* do first? No one ever claimed that his ship was the first one to travel in time or anything like that. And Spock was *never* proven or even suggested to be the first Vulcan in Starfleet.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I thought those Enterprise novels did an awful job of... well, everything (the excuse for why TOS looks "less advanced" than ENT... something that never needed explaining 'coz it's a TV show from the 60's... was pure ). And what about the Suliban? Their cloaks worked perfectly. Enterprise even carried a small cloaking Suliban ship around for awhile.

STXI built on the retcons of ENT, with decloaking Klingon ships during the Kobayashi Maru (and earlier in the deleted scenes, surrounding the Narada) as well as phasers on the USS Kelvin.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Rather than abandon all of the large number of fans, they wanted the movie to be inclusive

How many fans would have been that angry if they just did a reboot though? Like, wouldn't it just be the same group of people that are upset anyways?

Pretty much. The only reason for Abrams et al not to do a true reboot is because they personally didn't want to. Maybe they don't like the idea of rebooting Trek. Orci is a fan, after all. Maybe somebody raised the idea and he threw a TrekBBS-style fit.

But the general audience wouldn't have cared. I doubt they would have noticed. They might think it's a reboot anyway, or still taking place in the same universe, or whatever. I don't think we should overestimate just how much the general audience cares about such things.