Why no reboots until now?

[F. King Daniel]

Why is it, that during the 40+ years of Star Trek, on TV, film, books, comics etc. there has never until now (Star Trek XI) been a reboot of the series?
I can understand not wanting to screw up and devalue a TV franchise (…and then they pretty much did that anyway with Voyager and Enterprise!), but many comics (like Batman and the rest) pretty much reboot every few years, and have continuing parallel comic lines featuring (roughly) the same characters but exist in their own continuities. And Star Trek was the market leader in various media tie-ins for a long, long time. So why did it never happen?
I get the “40 years of sacred canon” rubbish that STXI haters have been spewing for the last couple of years on the STXI board but I can’t see why, say, a one-off comic series hasn’t been tried. Paramount/CBS would probably do far more horrible things for money than re-imagine Star Trek given the chance.
It seems to have been a waste of an opportunity.

Let me make myself clear: I am not presenting this as a “story idea”. I am merely wondering/asking why it never happened at some point in the last 40 years. There’s got to be some reason (uninformed guess: Gene-o or Richard Arnold forbade it in the long ago and the current administration is still using their rulebook).

Once again: This is not a “story idea”. I’m sure this concept has been rejected more than once in the last four decades by the people in charge (and it’s much less likely to happen now – new comics/books/games/whatever will now already have a choice of which version of Star Trek to play in. Can you really see a third version cropping up in comic or novel or cartoon form?)

(If a mod, or the rest of you really think I’m violating some rule by asking this, feel free to delete the thread. Take with you the knowledge that you are overreacting ;-)

 

[Christopher]

Why is it, that during the 40+ years of Star Trek, on TV, film, books, comics etc. there has never until now (Star Trek XI) been a reboot of the series?
I can understand not wanting to screw up and devalue a TV franchise (…and then they pretty much did that anyway with Voyager and Enterprise!), but many comics (like Batman and the rest) pretty much reboot every few years, and have continuing parallel comic lines featuring (roughly) the same characters but exist in their own continuities. And Star Trek was the market leader in various media tie-ins for a long, long time. So why did it never happen?

No single reason; it just happened that way. Just because some fictional franchises have periodic reboots doesn't mean it's a universal law. Sometimes a revival of an old series or franchise is a reboot (Mission: Impossible, Battlestar Galactica), sometimes it's a direct continuation (Doctor Who, Extreme Ghostbusters).

For years, Star Trek was just 79 episodes and a lot of fan and tie-in fiction spinning off of them. Perhaps the dependence of all the derivative material on that finite but substantial base set a precedent for keeping all subsequent material grounded in the same base. The producers of TAS probably set a precedent by making it as faithful a continuation as they could. Then TMP was also made as a direct continuation with the same cast. Later, when Roddenberry got the chance to do TNG, he could've done it as a reboot -- and arguably in some ways he did, since he considered a lot of what he'd done in TOS to be flawed and was willing to disregard it -- but at least nominally, it was painted as a direct continuation, and the cameo of Deforest Kelley in the pilot pretty much locked that down even though "the admiral" was never identified by name. And so Roddenberry's successors kept subsequent Trek productions truer to the original than Roddenberry himself might have, in large part because an increasing number of them were fans themselves and wanted to pay tribute to the original show.

From then on, ST was in the hands of the same people continuously. All subsquent Trek series were from Berman and those working for him, so they chose to continue the existing franchise. It made good economical sense to do so, since they could reuse sets, costumes, props, makeup, etc., and it was creatively convenient because it let them build on an existing conceptual base and allow for crossovers.

As for why the tie-ins have never done their own reboot, it's not their place. The mandate of media tie-in literature is to follow the lead of the canon it's tying into, not to take the lead in asserting a new direction. It's one thing when you make a movie based on a comic, since most moviegoers will not be familiar with the comic so it's logical to create an independent work. But when you go the other way, from movie or TV to novel or comic, the latter will have a much smaller audience that's mostly going to be familiar with, and invested in, the source material. The screen franchise is the dog, the print tie-in is the tail. The wagging only goes one way.

Of course, one could argue that some early works of tie-in fiction, like the Gold Key comics and maybe a few of the Bantam novels, were such loose interpretations of the source material that they could almost be considered "reboots" anyway. But of course it would be anachronistic to apply that concept to works from 30-40 years ago. Back then, there just wasn't much concern about continuity, since comics were seen as disposable and the series was no longer in production anyway.

Once again: This is not a “story idea”. I’m sure this concept has been rejected more than once in the last four decades by the people in charge (and it’s much less likely to happen now – new comics/books/games/whatever will now already have a choice of which version of Star Trek to play in. Can you really see a third version cropping up in comic or novel or cartoon form?)

(If a mod, or the rest of you really think I’m violating some rule by asking this, feel free to delete the thread. Take with you the knowledge that you are overreacting ;-)

Frankly, you're the one who's overreacting by pre-emptively being so judgmental of a response that nobody's going to make. Of course this isn't a story idea. You're just talking about a generic category. If you proposed a particular way of reinventing Star Trek, told us specifically how you would reimagine the characters and ship and universe, that would be a story idea.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I love the Gold Key comics. They're my favourites.
I've never really been a fan of any other Trek comic (except that old mirror universe DC one that i never got all the parts of :-/).

 

[Trent Roman]

Seems to me like the better question would be: why would it have been, before the current climate of rebooting everything (into the ground, sometimes)? How many franchises have had these kind of re-imaginings before the last ten years, compared to the number of properties rebooted or on slate to be? It's a fashion trend, and there was no reason for Trek to jump onto a trendy bandwagon that didn't yet exist outside of isolated cases.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Star Trek WAS rebooted.

TNG bears zero resemblance to TOS either thematically or in execution.

The fact that Rodenberry and Co. chose to move forward in fictional time rather than recreating the original series with new people is immaterial.

Also, until Generations, the TOS cast and plot lines were still in play in the movies. Rebooting TOS at that time would have undercut movie revenue unnecessarily. Two active captains Kirk would have been silly and invited comparisons that would have hurt one or both franchises.

My suspicion is, if the TOS cast had simply not gotten old (how DARE they?) Paramount would have continued making movies with them instead of switching to TNG.

It doesn't have to be an either/or.

If they are smart they won't squander this opportunity to have a movie continuity and a TV continuity that are separate and distinct from one another, thereby creating separate but complimentary revenue streams.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I know several diehard ST fans who considered TMP a major reboot in 1979. Kirk promoted to Admiral? Spock purging his human half? Klingons with spinal columns joined to their noses? McCoy left Starfleet? Chapel a doctor? Rand a transporter chief? Scotty grows a mustache? The Enterprise reimagined? Transporter beams totally different? Uniforms in a style totally ignored by the next movie?

 

[Stevil2001]

The Star Trek premise is flexible enough that you can tell new stories without rebooting, making a reboot unnecessary up until now (and some would say, still). The fundamental premise of Star Trek is a ship exploring outer space-- you can just have a new ship. Just like a Doctor Who reboot was unnecessary, with the fundamental premise of an immortal exploring space and time.

Things with more limited premises like Battlestar Galactica are harder to reboot.

 

[Christopher]

In fact, it's somewhat inaccurate to assume that "reboot" only means "starting a series over with a new, incompatible continuity." People assume that because that's what Moore's Galactica did, but that's just one example of rebooting techniques. In marketing terms, a reboot is anything that breathes new life and relevance into a dormant franchise and makes it active again, or that takes something failed or moribund and makes it work better. That can be done in any number of ways: by starting over from scratch like Galactica, by doing a direct continuation in a fresh style like Doctor Who, by trying to recapture the old magic like Indiana Jones/Crystal Skull (not every reboot attempt works), whatever. There's nothing in the word "reboot" that requires a new continuity.

So yes, Star Trek has been rebooted several times before. It was rebooted as an animated series in 1973. It was rebooted as an arty, expensive piece of cinema in 1979, then re-rebooted as a less expensive, less highbrow action franchise in 1982. It was rebooted as a 24th-century TV series in 1987. Even ENT counts as a minor reboot, an attempt to replace the well-mined 24th century with a fresh setting and attitude (though that would've worked better with more new blood behind the cameras).

 

[Hober Mallow]

Star Trek WAS rebooted.

TNG bears zero resemblance to TOS either thematically or in execution.

This.

 

[donners22]

In a similar vein, I'm very surprised there was never a Myriad Universes-style collection released when Star Trek authors were under far tighter constraints to maintain canon. Considering many of the best novels dealt with alternate universes and time travel to get around this (Echoes, Q-Squared, Imzadi, etc), it would have seemed a logical option.

Much as I'm enjoying the stories at the moment, they seem a bit less remarkable now than they would have been ten or so years ago.

 

[Dick Whitman]

My suspicion is, if the TOS cast had simply not gotten old (how DARE they?) Paramount would have continued making movies with them instead of switching to TNG.

It was much more than the age of the actors. ST VI while improving on the Box Office of ST V was only a moderate success. Paramount saw a chance to revitalize ticket sales with TNG cast. Of course in the long run that only really happened with First Contact.

 

[Christopher]

In a similar vein, I'm very surprised there was never a Myriad Universes-style collection released when Star Trek authors were under far tighter constraints to maintain canon. Considering many of the best novels dealt with alternate universes and time travel to get around this (Echoes, Q-Squared, Imzadi, etc), it would have seemed a logical option.

Logic had very little to do with it. The reason for those constraints was that Roddenberry didn't want the novels diverging too much from what he'd established. He wanted them to follow his lead, to reflect the Star Trek universe as Roddenberry saw it, rather than go off on attention-grabbing flights of speculation. He didn't want them focusing on guest characters created by the novelists or comic authors, and he didn't want the authors engaging in elaborate worldbuilding of their own that distracted from the core Star Trek casts. (One of the things that triggered his and Richard Arnold's continuity crackdown was Roddenberry's annoyance at hearing Diane Duane credited as "creator of the Rihannsu," i.e. the Romulans.)

So something along the lines of Myriad Universes -- books that weren't even set in Roddenberry's own ST universe but in timelines reshaped at the whim of the authors -- would've been even more unacceptable to him and Arnold. Continuity with canon wouldn't have been the issue; Roddenberry had a flexible approach to continuity and considered much of TOS to be apocryphal. The issue was whether the fiction reflected his vision (or Richard Arnold's rather fundamentalist interpretation of his vision) rather than someone else's.

 

[Josh Kelton]

TNG bears zero resemblance to TOS either thematically or in execution.

How so? Since both are science fiction series about a starship flying around in space.

 

[William Leisner]

TNG bears zero resemblance to TOS either thematically or in execution.

How so? Since both are science fiction series about a starship flying around in space.

Thematically.

And in execution.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

TNG bears zero resemblance to TOS either thematically or in execution.

How so? Since both are science fiction series about a starship flying around in space.

Really? By that logic, both BSGs, Star Blazers and Robotech are identical to Star Trek. And Star Wars is identical to The Wizard of Oz.

or

What about Firefly. Andromeda. Farscape. Lexx. Blake's 7. Cowboy Bebop. Outlaw Star. Red Dwarf. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Same show?

Conceptually they are nearly indistinguishable. Execution is everything.

The differences between TOS and TNG are far more than cosmetic. All they really have in common is some shared terminology, emblems and similar opening credits.

BSG 2 even alludes to BSG 1 by saying, repeatedly "This has all happened before and will all happen again" as well as using viper and cylon designs from the original. It's not unlikely that the current creators meant to imply that BSG 1 and 2 are part of the same meta-continuity. (With GALACTICA 1980 of course being a fever dream that takes place entirely in the mind of Admiral Adama as he slips into a coma).

TNG was a far more cerebral, more antiseptic, frankly colder show than TOS and that was due entirely to its creator wishing it to be so. Rodenberry could legitimately have retitled it and called it a new show with no ripples whatsoever.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Why is it, that during the 40+ years of Star Trek, on TV, film, books, comics etc. there has never until now (Star Trek XI) been a reboot of the series? [SNIP]
I am merely wondering/asking why it never happened at some point in the last 40 years.

A recasting was, I think, inevitable. The simple truth is that the original 1966-1969 actors aged, as all of us do, and just because William Shatner might not be young enough to portray Kirk in the flowering of youth doesn't mean that someone else couldn't. We almost had a recasting in 1991 with Starfleet Academy (and I can almost see Harve Bennett's casting in my mind's eye now -- Ethan Hawke as Kirk and John Cusack as Spock). There's no reason that these characters needed to be put into a box because the original actors were no longer able to portray them.

The rebooting of continuity, however, is a different question. Was it necessary?

I think, frankly, at this point, it probably is.

It's the same problem that bedevils long-running comics series. There's such a mass of history behind them that it can become detrimental to bringing new fans into the story. I say this as a long-time Legion of Super-Heroes fan; there comes a point where past (and future) continuity is a detriment rather than a benefit, and to keep the storytelling vital and fresh to a new audience it's best to bite the bullet, alienate the hardcore fans, and start fresh again.

The reasons for why no reboot before this have, I think, been adequately answered, except for one thing -- there's a natural desire not to alienate the audience you have. Making a clean break with the past could inflame the same passions that were aroused in fandom by, say, the death of Spock in 1982. That could make the producers gunshy about making too great a change.

 

[TheAlmanac]

I think there's a rather liberal definition of "reboot" developing in this thread...

Drastic changes, the presence of inconsistencies, or general reinvigoration do not a reboot make.

For lack of a better source, Wikipedia describes a reboot as "...a discarding of much or even all previous continuity in the series, to start anew." I think that's generally what's understood by the term in this context.

Star Trek WAS rebooted.

TNG bears zero resemblance to TOS either thematically or in execution.

The fact that Rodenberry and Co. chose to move forward in fictional time rather than recreating the original series with new people is immaterial.

Not to whether or not this constitutes a reboot, IMHO. Making that choice, by definition, makes TNG something else.

It doesn't have to be an either/or.

I agree.

If they are smart they won't squander this opportunity to have a movie continuity and a TV continuity that are separate and distinct from one another, thereby creating separate but complimentary revenue streams.

The Terminator franchise seems to be going this route, and is even incorporating two active John Connors, despite your saying this would've been a bad move with Kirk.

Before that, the Highlander franchise put out a feature film whilst the (generally incompatible) television series was in production (with, er, mixed results)--and that franchise as a whole has felt comfortable with multiple disparate continuities.

In fact, it's somewhat inaccurate to assume that "reboot" only means "starting a series over with a new, incompatible continuity."

Actually, that is what people assume when they use "reboot" as opposed to some other term, such as "retcon" or "sequel."

For one, a reboot is kind of the antithesis of a retcon.

In marketing terms, a reboot is anything that breathes new life and relevance into a dormant franchise and makes it active again, or that takes something failed or moribund and makes it work better.

I really do think that "reboot" denotes something more specific than what you're describing--but if you can find examples of people using "reboot" in that way, please feel free to link to them.

The rebooting of continuity, however, is a different question. Was it necessary?

I think, frankly, at this point, it probably is.

That is a different question, and that's definitely a legitimate take on it.

I just wanted the terminology to be clear.

The current Battlestar Galactica and Doctor Who are examples of two different things, even though both change a lot of the details and approach compared to what came before. As such, claiming that Star Trek: The Next Generation was a reboot of Star Trek is like saying that Frasier was a reboot of Cheers.

 

[Therin of Andor]

claiming that Star Trek: The Next Generation was a reboot of Star Trek is like saying that Frasier was a reboot of Cheers.

TNG was a reboot of "ST: Phase II", with a little "Questor Tapes" spliced in.

"Frasier" was a character spin-off of "Cheers", just as "Gomer Pyle, USMC" was a spin-off of "The Andy Griffith Show".

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Some would say that Frasier the tv show rebooted the main character's personality. And in Cheers, Frasier indicated that his father was dead but he was alive and well in Seattle all along (Frasier explained this by saying he was angry at Martin at the time). Indeed, the actor who played Martin had even turned up in Cheers as a jingle-writer, who Sam hired to write an advert for the bar, yet Frasier failed to notice the uncanny resemblance ...

Overall, I have to say that this is a really interesting thread. I'm enjoying it a lot.

 

[Therin of Andor]

the actor who played Martin had even turned up in Cheers as a jingle-writer, who Sam hired to write an advert for the bar, yet Frasier failed to notice the uncanny resemblance ...

Spock made a similar fatherly flub in "Balance of Terror".