Poll Will the new reboot happen?

[Firebird]

It rarely proselytized and told the viewer what to think,

If you really think that, I've got a bridge in Manhattan to sell you.

 

[fireproof78]

If you really think that, I've got a bridge in Manhattan to sell you.

I have a bridge to San Francisco as well. Just to sweeten the deal.

 

[fireproof78]

With all due respect, this is one of the most intellectually vapid positions I've experienced in recent memory.

You're accusing people of having "toxic world views" and bigotry simply because they don't like something you do?!

I've been a Star Trek fan for over 40 years. I despise everything Abrams and Kurtzman have done to the name and the legacy. Not one iota of that disdain is because of how Kurtzman treats minorities. My issues are with a basic misunderstanding of how to tell Star Trek stories, an apparent disgust with the unities of the universe (continuity among them) and the fact that CBS, like every other media corporation today, signals virtue in an attempt to maintain their social credit scores. CBS and Kurtzman aren't crusaders for minorities or anyone else; they're out to make a profit from an IP they own and have to exploit so they don't lose the rights.

Contrast that with the real and lasting impact Roddenberry and many of the TOS-ENT actors had on society and fans. "Old Trek" as some call it today put narrative and characterization first. It rarely proselytized and told the viewer what to think, preferring to instead present a look at themes that challenged the viewer to look within and then look without. That's what great science fiction has always done and it's what not one second of Abrams or Kurtzman Dreck have managed.

To quote Trip Tucker's Vulcan professor, "Challenge your preconceptions, or they'll challenge you."

It literally had a Trek episode about drugs are bad, preached out racism, and various snobbery towards 20th century humans.

It preached a lot.

Never mind the ridiculous idea Abrams ruined Star Trek. It did a TOS style story with a good social commentary better than ENTERPRISE.

 

[FredH]

If someone is already hating on something that has next to nothing known about it, then there’s something probably not nice driving their actions.

And a lot of them will inevitably say, “No, it’s not because of [obvious but still somewhat socially-disapproved reason], it’s, uh, the writing! Yeah, that’s it! And the stupid plot holes, totally unlike TOS and TNG! It’s missing the spirit! If you don’t see how, it’s because you’re not a real fan…”

 

[Mudd]

It depends on how we are defining terms.

Wrath of Khan had the largest opening weekend gross of any film in history at the time of its release. I would consider that a massive money maker. And Paramount did too at the time. In fact, the first four Trek films were considered blockbusters at the time.

But those films were also made on modest budgets compared to what they do today. For some reason, the attitude has shifted and, as you mention, studios want to have one billion dollar hit rather than four modest successes. I don't know why. It is certainly easier to get modest successes than billion dollar hits. It baffles me.

Among other things, film marketing and exhibition has changed.

The competition for screens is intense, as it also is for studio marketing dollars. A "modestly budgeted film" will be starved for publicity and screens, as those limited resources go to films in which the studio has invested more and has more to lose, and theater chains schedule films looking for blockbusters.

There are genres that can succeed with less money because spectacle is not baked into audience expectations and tastes: horror. Comedy, inclusive of rom-coms.

Skiffy movies are not among those.

Serenity.

 

[Mudd]

I think the "Star Trek The Beginning" movie that was canned for Abrams Trek had a lot of potential. Putting the Romulan War on the big screen would probably have a lot of non-Trekker appeal.

Nope. Non-Trekkers don't give a damn about Romulan Wars or Trek history. Or Trek.

Expecting big openings for science fiction war movies is almost as much living in the past as wanting first or second generation Trek back. Those times are gone.

If you don’t see how, it’s because you’re not a real fan…”

I don't want to be a real fan. Life's too short. I just want to enjoy Star Trek.

 

[JoeZhang]

I think the answer is wigs - the right wig will push this over the top:

 

[BillJ]

I think the answer is wigs - the right wig will push this over the top:

What the hell is that?

 

[Firebird]

What the hell is that?

More Axanar Bullshit™

 

[BillJ]

More Axanar Bullshit™

That is, uh, rough.

 

[Ovation]

I hope she got paid good mon…coffee.

 

[I am not Spock]

At this point, even 'official' announcements mean very little.

We had SJ Clarkson officially announced as director. I remember the articles. Then a host of other ones. Matt Shankman, Noah Hawley, etc.

Toby Haynes.

And now this. All this time later, and there's no casting, no pre production, nothing.

It's all vapourware, until and unless it finally happens

 

[F. King Daniel]

I can see Paramount have engendered a healthy, trusting relationship with their fans looking at the poll. And their pile of nonsense announcements that even the actors supposedly involved publicly called them out on that one time.

 

[Dukhat]

Nope. Non-Trekkers don't give a damn about Romulan Wars...

And actual Trekkers would hate it because it would not live up to the expectations they've had for it for the last 60 years.

 

[Steve Roby]

I always felt like I learned everything I needed to know about the Romulan War from "Balance of Terror." We never found out much about the Cardassian War that happened at some point before TNG or the Tzenkethi War, but I'm okay with that, too.

 

[FredH]

If there was ever a time to do the Romulan War, that time has long past. We don’t need it anymore, and we’ve had plenty of war stories since (and don’t need more of those either).

 

[camdudetenger2018]

the term reboot means restarting an old tv show but with everything new

 

[Noname Given]

It was a non-starter, submitted at a bad time for the studio, the franchise, and the audience.

It was Rick Berman fulfilling the terms of his contract up to the point said contract ran it's course and was not renewed. He knew the script he was writing would never be made.

Same with Kurztman now. He's still doing post production on SFA S2 and SNW S5 and he's made some pitches because again, that's all part of his duties outlined on his contract; but like Berman, he sees what's going on with all the set items going to auction and like Berman, he'll fulfill the terms of his contract until it runs out, and if/when it isn't renewed, he'll move on.

 

[StarCruiser]

I may not be 'fond' of most of his version of Star Trek but, he is a professional.

 

[Danja]

Contrast that with the real and lasting impact Roddenberry and many of the TOS-ENT actors had on society and fans. "Old Trek" as some call it today put narrative and characterization first. It rarely proselytized and told the viewer what to think, preferring to instead present a look at themes that challenged the viewer to look within and then look without.

"The Omega Glory," "A Taste of Armageddon," "The Cloud Minders," and "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" have entered the chat.

People seem to think Trek is/was this debate club that aired both sides of every argument equally (It wasn't).

Trek has always had an agenda.