Why not invent new characters?

[Tim Thomason]

I think it's water under the bridge at this point. Love them or hate them, those films are done.

It'll be interesting to see what they do with the next incarnation. It'll probably be another reboot of TOS but maybe a mix-and-match with all-new characters and characters from other series. Maybe. I think the adaptations will keep getting looser and looser from here on out.

I don't think we'll see a reboot until the current run of shows (the Kurtzman era) is done. Right now, all the planned shows seem to be in the same continuity and timeline as The Original Series.

Maybe, as the final Kurtzman show is dying down, and Kurtzman himself having long left, some bigtime creative fan of Star Trek will propose a reboot, a la JMS's post-Enterprise reboot proposal, and CBS will give it a go. More likely, there'll be a hiatus of a few years and Hollywood will have to enter a "reboots are cool" phase.

Right now, with Netflix and fan nostalgia, sequels and continuations are the big thing, with Star Trek being a beneficiary of that goodwill. Reboots aren't as well-liked, at the moment. Charmed and Roswell, notwithstanding.

 

[Lord Garth]

I don't think we'll see a reboot until the current run of shows (the Kurtzman era) is done. Right now, all the planned shows seem to be in the same continuity and timeline as The Original Series.

Maybe, as the final Kurtzman show is dying down, and Kurtzman himself having long left, some bigtime creative fan of Star Trek will propose a reboot, a la JMS's post-Enterprise reboot proposal, and CBS will give it a go. More likely, there'll be a hiatus of a few years and Hollywood will have to enter a "reboots are cool" phase.

Right now, with Netflix and fan nostalgia, sequels and continuations are the big thing, with Star Trek being a beneficiary of that goodwill. Reboots aren't as well-liked, at the moment. Charmed and Roswell, notwithstanding.

I mean specifically the films. On the TV end with CBS All Access, I don't think they'll ever do a full-on BSG-style total reboot.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Instead of messing up the canon in the jjverse, why can't they simply create new characters, like they did for the next generation?

I'm glad that they did this for Discovery; hopefully the new crew will have feature film as well.

Because we want to see the iconic characters we grew up with, in new adventures. We already have an emotional connection to them.

Even Discovery brought in Captain Pike and Spock, and made their main character Spock's sister.

 

[The Wormhole]

It'll be interesting to see what they do with the next incarnation. It'll probably be another reboot of TOS but maybe a mix-and-match with all-new characters and characters from other series. Maybe. I think the adaptations will keep getting looser and looser from here on out.

I used to think a TNG reboot would be a forgone conclusion at some point down the road, but now that the Picard Show is a thing and is a continuation of TNG, a film reboot is going to be a good long time from now, if ever.

I don't think we'll see a reboot until the current run of shows (the Kurtzman era) is done. Right now, all the planned shows seem to be in the same continuity and timeline as The Original Series.

True, but if the rumours of a Pike spin-off do indeed pan out, than that would sort of be a rebooted TOS. From a certain point of view, anyway.

 

[BillJ]

On the TV end with CBS All Access, I don't think they'll ever do a full-on BSG-style total reboot.

I don't think they'll ever admit they are doing a full-on reboot, but I have a feeling we're already knee deep in one.

 

[Greg Cox]

The problem is that any big budget Star Trek film needs to appeal to a much bigger audience than the hardcore fandom. What was that thing in the TOS series bible, "we need to entertain 20,000,00 people or we just don't stay on the air".

Bingo. By definition, us hardcore fans are the outliers. Star Trek was never meant to be a culty, clique-y thing aimed only the True Believers. Star Trek is for everyone: lifelong Trekkies, casual fans, newcomers, and general audiences.

 

[FormerLurker]

The problem is that any big budget Star Trek film needs to appeal to a much bigger audience than the hardcore fandom. What was that thing in the TOS series bible, "we need to entertain 20,000,00 people or we just don't stay on the air".

Bingo. By definition, us hardcore fans are the outliers. Star Trek was never meant to be a culty, clique-y thing aimed only the True Believers. Star Trek is for everyone: lifelong Trekkies, casual fans, newcomers, and general audiences.

This is true across the board. Hardcore fans are the hardest to please, and as such, should and usually do get the least consideration in new versions, adaptations, and continuations. They get loud about how much they hate the new product, sometimes condemning it without seeing it, but the reason new product continues to be produced is because the producers spend more time, money and effort in appealing to a broader audience. And when that doesn't work, it's the broader audience that lets them know. The hardcore fans are almost always merely along for the ride.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

I



Star Trek: Generations - Coming to theaters!!!!!

Worked quite well. Creating their own characters had a great run. 5 spin off series. Star Trek 09 would have worked with new characters. The door had been opened. Hard core Fandom was used to different crews in different locations.

Theoretically, it did work... for about two movies. But, there was also the recognition of Picard and co. from TV success. I'm not sure they would have had the same success on Generations and First Contact if it was a rando crew nobody ever heard of before. I also wonder what the box office takes for Insurrection and Nemesis would have been with unknowns in the lead? About $20 combined ?

 

[fireproof78]

Recognition and cautious nature of Hollywood.

 

[Ralphis]

It's been years since I've watched the extra features on the Star Trek '09 Blu-Ray, but I do remember them addressing this. I can't remember world-for-word, but they pretty much said with it being essentially a reboot from the point-of-view of the studio (albeit an alternate universe from our point-of-view), it needed to have the original characters or else it wouldn't work. Had they done a different ship with a new crew with the amount of money Paramount was throwing at the production, it would have been too much of a risk considering how the previous films in the franchise did at the box office.

 

[fireproof78]

Had they done a different ship with a new crew with the amount of money Paramount was throwing at the production, it would have been too much of a risk considering how the previous films in the franchise did at the box office.

Paramount would not have done it. Hollywood studios tend to be highly risk adverse.

 

[Greg Cox]

Star Trek was the exception for about 50 years.

Perhaps, but that's not necessarily a reason why it has to stay that way. Traditions are made to be broken, especially once the original TOS cast members start dying off. Why retire classic characters like Kirk or Spock or McCoy for good when you don't have to?

 

[Jayson1]

You might would be able to get away with all new characters in the Kelvinverse but you would half to have the Enterprise for sure. Maybe you could sell it on a chance to see a brand new Enterprise with a new crew of the Enterprise but I don't know if that would be enough. Maybe a Pike show or Captain April to appeal to old school fans who we haven't seen in April and at the time we only saw in the TOS pilot and the two parter and in that one he was confined to his wheelchair without the ability to speak.

Jason

 

[Greg Cox]

You might would be able to get away with all new characters in the Kelvinverse but you would half to have the Enterprise for sure. Maybe you could sell it on a chance to see a brand new Enterprise with a new crew of the Enterprise but I don't know if that would be enough. Maybe a Pike show or Captain April to appeal to old school fans who we haven't seen in April and at the time we only saw in the TOS pilot and the two parter and in that one he was confined to his wheelchair without the ability to speak.

Jason

The average moviegoer has never heard of Pike and has certainly never heard of April, so a big-budget movie about them would be quite a gamble. And remember, the idea behind the movies is to hook a new generation of Trekkies, not to entice us old-timers.

 

[Jayson1]

The average moviegoer has never heard of Pike and has certainly never heard of April, so a big-budget movie about them would be quite a gamble. And remember, the idea behind the movies is to hook a new generation of Trekkies, not to entice us old-timers.

That's true. I was thinking of them for the older fans. The new fans would maybe hooked on the Enterprise name but I am not so sure because it sure didn't help "Enterprise" the show. Perhaps if Captain Tom Hanks is involved though and first officer Scarlett Johannson.

Jason

 

[Doom Shepherd]

The point of the movies is mass appeal. To get people like my mother to go see a Star Trek movie. Mom dislikes sci-fi, mostly she can't - or doesn't want to - follow it. My father (OG Trekkie) and I (grew up on reruns) dragged her to the theater. BUT... she knew who the main characters were, because pop culture, and she LOVED the George Kirk self-sacrifice scene, because parent, so she didn't stay home when we went to see it again.

 

[MacLeod]

This is true across the board. Hardcore fans are the hardest to please, and as such, should and usually do get the least consideration in new versions, adaptations, and continuations. They get loud about how much they hate the new product, sometimes condemning it without seeing it, but the reason new product continues to be produced is because the producers spend more time, money and effort in appealing to a broader audience. And when that doesn't work, it's the broader audience that lets them know. The hardcore fans are almost always merely along for the ride.

Fans being hard to please isn't just restricted to various forms of media.

How vocal were fans of ST when TNG was announced?
What about when DSN was announced?

Whilst I might have reservations about for example a reboot/reimaging of a show. I'll either give it a chance to prove my reservations incorrect or will simply not bother watching it and refrain from commenting on it further.

The average moviegoer has never heard of Pike and has certainly never heard of April, so a big-budget movie about them would be quite a gamble. And remember, the idea behind the movies is to hook a new generation of Trekkies, not to entice us old-timers.

Us old-timers are likely considered at best a good place to start or a nice bonus. But for anything to survive it has to change and adapt to the changing times and grow is market.

 

[FormerLurker]

Fans being hard to please isn't just restricted to various forms of media.

I was referring to all media, not just print. There are fans of TOS that consider even the TOS films sacrilege, and an affront to everything they love about the Original Series.

And as far as TNG, I vividly remember co-workers saying that any Star Trek that didn't have Kirk, Spock and McCoy in it wasn't Star Trek, and shouldn't be watched.

 

[mwang141]

Hollywood is getting lazier and stupider.... Look at recent sci-fi series story-line, character-building.....lousy quality... they want fans quick-$$$ but unable to produce shiny brand new ideas, so they just chop here, smash there, add some seasoning, and viola "stir-fly" a dish forcing you to eat... "They're so thirsty for it, they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

 

[Doom Shepherd]

Remakes and reimaginings are quite literally nothing new. You have to know very little about film history to think that’s just a recent trend.

“Wizard of Oz?” Remake.
“Dracula?” Remake.
“Ben-Hur” (the one with Charlton Heston?) Remake.
“Scarface?” Remake.
“Phantom of the Opera” (Lon Chaney)? Remake.
“The Maltese Falcon?” REMAKE.

And so on and so on.