Why the Prime Universe makes sense for new Trek series

[Ryan8bit]

We shouldn't take the computer analogy too literally. In computing there may be no such thing as a semi-reboot, but we're talking Hollywood here, not programming.

It's kind of amusing that I made a post just above yours about the usage of the word literal, and then you post about taking things literally.

I'm not taking the analogy literally, that's kinda hard to do. I'm just taking it how it was meant to be. I get that other people use or interpret it differently, just like they do with other words. I think that's where the confusion lies here.

Mr Awe and others probably define a reboot as a continuity being wiped. Dennis and others probably define it as a sweeping number of changes (setting, characters, etc) while still retaining the gist of what its about. They argue over semantics.

Personally, I think the latter description dilutes the meaning too far. You could pretty much say that CSI:NY was a reboot by Squiggy's meaning. Not that the CSI shows have a huge body of continuity to work from or anything, but those seem more like spin-offs than reboots to me. If you start to apply it everywhere, what's the point of the word?

And that brings us to "semi-reboot" (or any other strange variations) like you mentioned. That really just muddles things even further. What the heck is a semi-reboot? I'm going to say it's when you restart the engine of an 18-wheeler, and no one can prove me wrong!

 

[Mr Awe]

The Abrams films are sequels to TOS as well, with a Post-Unification Spock dithering around and everything. Yet they're still 'reboots'.

No, the timeline/history is intentionally meant to be different than what we saw on TOS. It's the intention that counts. We're not meant to believe that TOS and the Abrams movies take place in the same history. In fact, they go to great pains to show us that they're different.

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

Mr Awe and others probably define a reboot as a continuity being wiped. Dennis and others probably define it as a sweeping number of changes (setting, characters, etc) while still retaining the gist of what its about. They argue over semantics.

No, not semantics, although I'm sure there are differences in the definition. For me, the key thing is whether it's meant to be one timeline where you can assume that the earlier parts of the timeline happened as you saw them.

Here's why TNG is a continuation of the TOS timeline:

In TNG, clearly the intent was that the events of TOS happened as we saw them. Sure, it's not a 100% consistent timeline. It's not even consistent within TOS or within TNG. But, clearly, the intent during TNG was that TOS occurred as we saw it unfold in the series.

Here's why the Abram's movies are a reboot:
The intention is that we're not supposed to believe that in the Abrams universe that the events we saw in the TOS TV series occurred. Instead, those events/timeline are replaced by a different timeline.

It's not just semantics because it gets to the heart of what events you can assume happened in any particular universe. In TNG, we know that the events in TOS' Naked Time happened because it was directly mentioned. We can assume all the other episodes happened as well.

However, in the Abrams movies, you cannot assume that the Naked Time (or Naked Now) occurs as we saw them in TOS and TNG. In fact, the second film goes to great lengths to show that Space Seed (and Wrath of Khan) did not occur as we saw them in the original timeline. Obviously Amok Time cannot occur because Vulcan is destroyed. Clearly, these are different universes--one with Vulcan and the other without. There is no possible reconciliation. Ergo, Abrams universe is a reboot.

While I don't care what people call these different things (I call them continuations vs reboots) but it's not about semantics. It's about differences in the timelines and what basic assumptions you can have about each universe.

Mr Awe

 

[Mudd]

We shouldn't take the computer analogy too literally. In computing there may be no such thing as a semi-reboot, but we're talking Hollywood here, not programming.

Exactly.

The idea of a "soft reboot" doesn't make much sense for computers. TNG, however, is what one would call a soft reboot of TOS.

 

[Ryan8bit]

The idea of a "soft reboot" doesn't make much sense for computers.

Actually, it does. The terms "soft" and "hard" reboot also come from computers. The only difference is that they kinda break the analogy when referring to entertainment. With computing, a hard or cold reboot is like when power is interrupted and the computer is turned back on. A soft or warm reboot is a little less well-defined though, much like an entertainment reboot, but it's generally something more like a restart or crash that still saves certain things before doing so. Sticking too close to the analogy indeed doesn't work there. At least, when people say "soft" or "hard," they aren't really working with the analogy, they just mean how much things have changed. Soft = a little, hard = a lot. You could maybe still maintain some of the analogy, but at that point things get convoluted (on the computing side).

 

[Mr Awe]

We shouldn't take the computer analogy too literally. In computing there may be no such thing as a semi-reboot, but we're talking Hollywood here, not programming.

Exactly.

The idea of a "soft reboot" doesn't make much sense for computers. TNG, however, is what one would call a soft reboot of TOS.

TNG is what Dennis would call a soft reboot. Others would call it a continuation.

Honestly, I don't even know what you mean by a soft reboot of TOS anyway. Maybe there's a difference in what our terms mean, or maybe not. Under your view, can you assume that TOS is the actual history of TNG?

Mr Awe

 

[AviTrek]

We shouldn't take the computer analogy too literally. In computing there may be no such thing as a semi-reboot, but we're talking Hollywood here, not programming.

Exactly.

The idea of a "soft reboot" doesn't make much sense for computers. TNG, however, is what one would call a soft reboot of TOS.

TNG is what Dennis would call a soft reboot. Others would call it a continuation.

Honestly, I don't even know what you mean by a soft reboot of TOS anyway. Maybe there's a difference in what our terms mean, or maybe not. Under your view, can you assume that TOS is the actual history of TNG?

Mr Awe

"I had a discussion with him[Roddenberry] once, where I cited a couple things that were very clearly canon in The Original Series, and he told me he didn't think that way anymore, and that he now thought of TNG as canon wherever there was conflict between the two. He admitted it was revisionist thinking, but so be it." - Paula Block, VCP Senior Director of Licensed Publishing

link

That's what I call a soft reboot. It pretends to be in the same universe/continuity, but makes changes for no reasons other than the writer changed his mind.

 

[Mr Awe]

^ That's just saying that if there is a conflict, he's going to go with the TNG version. That doesn't make it a reboot. They're set in the same timeline still.

I guess if that's what you guys call a "soft reboot", alright, sure. To me, it's still the same timeline where there are inconsistencies both within shows and between shows. This quote just says that he's siding with the more recent stories on the consistencies, not that it's a different timeline/reality altogether.

Bear in mind though, under your definition of a soft reboot, each subsequent season is a soft reboot of the previous! The more recent content gets the priority over the older content. And, apparently, that's enough under your definition to be considered a soft reboot.

Mr Awe

 

[sojourner]

Well, then using that same argument, couldn't each episode be considered a soft reboot? each commercial break? each scene change? each camera change?

 

[Trekkin]

Here's my question - why does the definition of 'reboot' even matter? It's a buzzword, applied to nearly anything that creators want to 'distance' from something else.

And now to be a hypocrite:

The Abrams films are sequels to TOS as well, with a Post-Unification Spock dithering around and everything. Yet they're still 'reboots'.

No, the timeline/history is intentionally meant to be different than what we saw on TOS. It's the intention that counts. We're not meant to believe that TOS and the Abrams movies take place in the same history. In fact, they go to great pains to show us that they're different.

Mr Awe

Abrams specified his movie wasn't a reboot - it's harder to get more 'creators intentions' than that. By your definition, the majority of First Contact and COTEOF are reboots, as was the entirety of 'In the Mirror Darkly'. Alternate universes are part of Trek continuity and history.

When creators decide to slap the term 'reboot' on something, they're referring to 'rebooting' the franchise. They don't give a crap about timelines. As others have mentioned, if you're simply going off that then Trek's been rebooted over a dozen times!

 

[Mr Awe]

^ It just helps others know what you mean. The practical implication is that for me TNG is a continuation of TOS. So, as I elaborated earlier, you can assume that from a TNG perspective, all of the events seen in TOS happened as we saw them (minus a few inconsistencies). That we're meant to assume that both series take place at different points in one historical timeline.

Those who say it's a reboot wouldn't necessarily believe those things. Obviously, they're free to believe whatever they want, I just don't see the support for that argument myself.

I'm not exactly sure what they mean by a "soft reboot" as they use it in a very fuzzy manner.

But, it facilitates discussion if you (in the general sense) know what others mean when they use terms like these. However, whether you consider something a continuation, reboot, soft reboot, or whatever, it probably doesn't influence your enjoyment of it too much.

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

Well, then using that same argument, couldn't each episode be considered a soft reboot? each commercial break? each scene change? each camera change?

Each frame of the film baby!

Mr Awe

 

[Paradise City]

It's not difficult guys.

Reboot - serious overhaul. Set, design, aesthetic. May or may not mean that exists in the same timeline/universe. Rebooting a dated concept or refreshing it.

Reimagining. What BSG did. Basically a new show, new history, new universe, you name it but with overarching common elements mostly in regards to the premise.

And that's it.

TNG was a reboot of STTOS.

This new ST will be a reboot on the TOSTNG..etc. Whether it's a reimagining remains to be seen.

 

[martok2112]

It's not difficult guys.

Reboot - serious overhaul. Set, design, aesthetic. May or may not mean that exists in the same timeline/universe. Rebooting a dated concept or refreshing it.

Reimagining. What BSG did. Basically a new show, new history, new universe, you name it but with overarching common elements mostly in regards to the premise.

And that's it.

TNG was a reboot of STTOS.

This new ST will be a reboot on the TOSTNG..etc. Whether it's a reimagining remains to be seen.

And just thinking forward here...

 

[Nerys Myk]

We have to remember that at it's core, TNG is Star Trek Phase II, the proposed TOS TV revival that eventually evolved into TMP.

Where does the idea that a reboot means a new continuity/timeline come from? Comic books?

 

[Belz...]

Aside from the The Naked Now and McCoy's cameo I can't think of any early ones. Once TNG was running on it's own they brought in Spock and Scotty for a "very special episode".

That's kind of my point: not only did it not specifically ignore TOS and the movies, it referenced them a couple of times and reused the same actors for the same roles a few times too. That's not, therefore, a reboot. Enterprise could be argued to be a reboot, though I think it's just a retcon due to the events of First Contact.

 

[drt]

We have to remember that at it's core, TNG is Star Trek Phase II, the proposed TOS TV revival that eventually evolved into TMP.

Yep, shoot, Riker's first conversation with Troi is nearly word-for-word that of Decker and Ilia's in TMP.

 

[Mr Awe]

It's not difficult guys.

Reboot - serious overhaul. Set, design, aesthetic. May or may not mean that exists in the same timeline/universe. Rebooting a dated concept or refreshing it.

Reimagining. What BSG did. Basically a new show, new history, new universe, you name it but with overarching common elements mostly in regards to the premise.

And that's it.

TNG was a reboot of STTOS.

This new ST will be a reboot on the TOSTNG..etc. Whether it's a reimagining remains to be seen.

That's one interpretation of what those words mean in entertainment.

Many would say that what you call a reimagining is the same as a reboot. A reboot being a new history, etc. But, the terms get a bit murky.

Mr Awe

 

[Ryan8bit]

Where does the idea that a reboot means a new continuity/timeline come from? Comic books?

I think the first usage of the word was probably applied to comic books, yeah. As with many colloquialisms, it's not really possible to nail it down exactly.

Observance of internet user groups suggest that it didn't surface much until the mid 90s. Around that time there was a cartoon named ReBoot which probably helped push the term further into public consciousness. Obviously continuity resets existed prior, but people began referring to these as reboots probably around the time the comic Zero Hour: Crisis in Time came around. They began retroactively labeling its predecessor, Crisis on Infinite Earths, as a reboot as well.

It didn't come to movies until much later. Even Batman Begins, which I think everyone now recognizes as a reboot, wasn't really referred to or marketed as such. Back then, people called it a remake or re-imagining. There may have been comic book fans who were aware of the term and referring to it as such, but I don't think the term was that popularized yet. I think the first movie marketed as a reboot was The Incredible Hulk, and this was simply because the previous Hulk movie had only come out a few years prior.

These types of movie were on the rise, so the usage spread pretty fast, and somewhere in that mix it became a buzzword. It would be combined or paired with other words, regardless of if it was true to how it was originally used.

Speaking of Crisis on Infinite Earths, in an interesting parallel to Star Trek they were trying to simplify 50 years of continuity because over that time things had become quite inconsistent. It sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

No one who understood what the term meant ever referred to Batman Begins as a remake.