Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.

[Tim Walker]

Most people who will watch the new film will not be aware of or care about that "history" when sitting in the theater

Most of them likely don't even care that it's "Star Trek" either, They are in the theater to see a generic summer sci-fi movie with girls in their underwear and zap gun battles between spaceships.

Indeed. And if there was a reboot of TNG, the end result would likely be less cerebral and more action orientated than the old television show.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Most people who will watch the new film will not be aware of or care about that "history" when sitting in the theater

Most of them likely don't even care that it's "Star Trek" either, They are in the theater to see a generic summer sci-fi movie with girls in their underwear and zap gun battles between spaceships.

Indeed. And if there was a reboot of TNG, the end result would likely be less cerebral and more action orientated than the old television show.

IOW, what they did in TNGs movies.

 

[Greg Cox]

And that is why I put my money on a complete reboot. Then you can create a new Crew, with new threats, in a new environment without having the burden of an in-universe-history that one has to follow.

And why - apart from the obvious money making reasons - would you call such a show "Star Trek"? A show that has no connection to the known Star Trek Universe whatsoever should be its own show and start its own franchise. I mean, calling some random SciFi show "Star Trek"? What would be the point?

I'm all for a show or movie with a new crew, but it HAS to be set in the established Trek Universe, be it the PrimeVerse or the NuVerse. At least they came up with a good explanation for the NuVerse, but they won't get away with it twice.

Star Trek is more than just its continuity. It's also the basic premise and format and many of its distinguishing story elements: starships, transporter beams, Klingons, Vulcans, mind-melds, etc. I mean, I suppose you could keep all that stuff and call it something else, but then people would just accuse you of ripping off Star Trek.

Take Batman, for instance. We've had umpteen different versions and continuities, but as long as you've got a Batman, a Bat-Cave, a Batmobile, Gotham City, Catwoman, and so on . . . well, you've got a Batman show. Regardless of whether it's set in the same "universe" as one of the last six versions.

Same with Star Trek. You can reboot it twice, three times, five times . . . whatever. As long as there's enough elements in common with the previous version for it to be recognizable as Star Trek, then Star Trek it is.

 

[fireproof78]

If the heart and soul of Star Trek didn't please the masses, it wouldn't have survived for 50 years and counting.

Bingo. People seem to keep clamoring for "it doesn't have to be popular as long as it's good!"...

...well uh if it's good but not popular, you better love the hell out of that one movie, because that's all you're going to get!

That certainly could've been the fate of Trek after TMP. What saved it was that although the movie was far from a fan and critical success, it was a financial success.

Indeed. TWOK would not have happened (though, perhaps Trek would have been better for that) without the financial success of TMP, despite budgetary overages and critical shortcomings.

Regardless of my other opinion of TWOK, Meyer's ability to pull that project together impress me to this day.

Also, Star Trek is not always a cerebral romp. Even TOS and TNG had its "shoot 'em up" moments.

 

[Greg Cox]

Most people who will watch the new film will not be aware of or care about that "history" when sitting in the theater

Most of them likely don't even care that it's "Star Trek" either, They are in the theater to see a generic summer sci-fi movie with girls in their underwear and zap gun battles between spaceships.

So? Where's the harm in that?

In any given audience, there are going to be some viewers who are really into Trek in particular and others who are just looking for a good time, with most of the audience somewhere in the middle. And that's cool. Since when is there a "right" way to watch Star Trek?

And, honestly, I wish we could drop this whole elitist stereotype that the general audience (except for us, of course) is composed primarily of mindless masses who only care about sex, action, and explosions. Sure, that probably applies to some moviegoers, but, in real life, the audience is a lot more diverse than that, and most moviegoers probably want interesting characters, snappy dialogue, a good story, gorgeous visuals, drama, emotion, excitement, or any number of other priorities, depending on their individual tastes.

(Note: T'Girl, the above rant is not directed at you but at the larger tendency in these parts for people to start dissing the "masses" whenever this topic comes up.)

 

[Oso Blanco]

Take Batman, for instance. We've had umpteen different versions and continuities, but as long as you've got a Batman, a Bat-Cave, a Batmobile, Gotham City, Catwoman, and so on . . . well, you've got a Batman show. Regardless of whether it's set in the same "universe" as one of the last six versions.

Good example. The Batman movies (as well as Spiderman etc) are certainly entertaining, but do I care about the story or what happens to the characters? I don't, because none of it will have happened when the next reboot is coming about.

What are the stories or the characters worth if they are being overwritten every few years? There are already so many versions and contradictions out there that I can choose whatever canon or continuity I prefer to be the "true" story. Which is making the whole thing kind of trivial. I just can't take any of it seriously! From Star Trek on the other hand, I expect more than a popcorn movie that I forget about as soon as I leave the theater.

The interesting thing about Star Trek is that every episode and every movie is part of a bigger picture, a picture that's being built for 50 years now. It would be a lot more interesting to continue the story instead of rebooting it.

Marvel seems to understand that. With their massive MCU project they are building up a universe over multiple movies and tv shows, and they will continue to do so for many years to come. The content could use a little more brain and a little less action, but that's another story.

 

[Greg Cox]

So do you reject, say, Elementary and Sherlock because they're not set in the same "universe" as earlier Sherlock Holmes series? Or can you still get caught up in the stories because of the writing, acting, plot twists, etc.?

Why even worry about which version of Star Trek--or Sherlock Holmes--is the "true" version? They're all equally true and/or fictional. And it's perfectly possible to enjoy multiple versions of the same characters and stories, depending on their execution.

To paraphrase Garak, all stories are true, especially the made-up ones.

 

[JWPlatt]

...You can reboot it twice, three times, five times . . . whatever. As long as there's enough elements in common with the previous version for it to be recognizable...

For the newer audiences, they probably appreciate the story retold to their contemporary sensibilities. But it gets old and repetitious and feels like we're going nowhere fast when we have to watch the same story story reboot multiple times; a giant Groundhog Day of cinema experience. For your example of Sherlock Holmes, it's an older classic with a limited amount of backstory from an author who tired of his own work and killed the character. Star Trek isn't that old yet and it's environment is vast. Shakespeare is quite old now and no one minds the repetition, but it's not rebooted except very loosely as modern tales without any of the literal trappings or environment of the plays; TOS's "Elaan of Troyius" for instance.

...I wish we could drop this whole elitist stereotype that the general audience (except for us, of course) is composed primarily of mindless masses who only care about sex, action, and explosions.

I suspect that it's not so much that we have that view of the audience, but that we are insulted by the studio's cynical attitude about how that is what the audience wants and what earns the biggest profits. That said, I can't stand here with certainty that it's not true in selected demographics.

 

[Oso Blanco]

So do you reject, say, Elementary and Sherlock because they're not set in the same "universe" as earlier Sherlock Holmes series? Or can you still get caught up in the stories because of the writing, acting, plot twists, etc.?

I consider Elementary the biggest insult to the Sherlock Holmes universe ever!

Sherlock on the other hand is a well executed show, but I just pretend it has nothing to do with the original Sherlock Holmes. It's set in a completely different time frame, and there is no way this could be the same character as the one that Arthur Canon Doyle had written.

As a tv show, it would have been good enough to stand on its own feet and they should have given the characters new and original names, at least that wouldn't have left the bitter aftertaste of a cheap rip-off in my mouth.

I wonder why writers/producers/studios don't have enough faith in their own work anymore ... why does everything have to resort to a remake/reboot/reimagining ... why aren't there more original stories and characters? Trying to invent something new, for a change?

 

[fireproof78]

So do you reject, say, Elementary and Sherlock because they're not set in the same "universe" as earlier Sherlock Holmes series? Or can you still get caught up in the stories because of the writing, acting, plot twists, etc.?

I consider Elementary the biggest insult to the Sherlock Holmes universe ever!

Sherlock on the other hand is a well executed show, but I just pretend it has nothing to do with the original Sherlock Holmes. It's set in a completely different time frame, and there is no way this could be the same character as the one that Arthur Canon Doyle had written.

As a tv show, it would have been good enough to stand on its own feet and they should have given the characters new and original names, at least that wouldn't have left the bitter aftertaste of a cheap rip-off in my mouth.

I wonder why writers/producers/studios don't have enough faith in their own work anymore ... why does everything have to resort to a remake/reboot/reimagining ... why aren't there more original stories and characters? Trying to invent something new, for a change?

Because there is no guarantee of success, pure and simple. I've said this before, but its worth repeating, studios are terrified of losing money right now, and they are not in risk taking mode. "Jupiter Ascending" and "Interstellar" are probably among the most original concepts for scifi movies in a few years, and that's due to the pull of the director to get it done.

Studios would prefer known properties, even if it repeats every couple of years until they feel safer in the uncertain market.

And, for me at least, each iteration of characters is just as meaningful as the last. While I enjoy world building, I have no problem watching McGuire's Spider-man and then Garfield's Spider-man, or Shatner's Kirk and then Pine's Kirk. The world is interesting, but the characters are more interesting. Even if I don't see those characters in another film, that doesn't keep them from being interesting, or me being engaged with them.

 

[Cyke101]

So do you reject, say, Elementary and Sherlock because they're not set in the same "universe" as earlier Sherlock Holmes series? Or can you still get caught up in the stories because of the writing, acting, plot twists, etc.?

I consider Elementary the biggest insult to the Sherlock Holmes universe ever!

Sherlock on the other hand is a well executed show, but I just pretend it has nothing to do with the original Sherlock Holmes. It's set in a completely different time frame, and there is no way this could be the same character as the one that Arthur Canon Doyle had written.

As a tv show, it would have been good enough to stand on its own feet and they should have given the characters new and original names, at least that wouldn't have left the bitter aftertaste of a cheap rip-off in my mouth.

I feel like this kind of analysis misses the distinction between execution and premise, though, and that it confuses "inspired by" with "part of the same universe." Would Elementary fare better as an adaptation and reboot in your opinion if the premise was kept but the execution changed? Even its basic premise deviates from BBC Sherlock enough to keep the two as separate but identifiable. And if Sherlock is a well-executed show, but it has nothing to do with the original Sherlock, that makes it more of an adaptation; "nothing to do with the original" implies a shared continuity with the Doyle novels, which is most definitely not the case.

As well, it's definitely not the same that Doyle would have written, simply because of social and technological differences between now and then, easy. Nor should it really apply, unless they're purposely trying to remake "Time after Time," but with Sherlock rather than HG Wells.

 

[Ithekro]

And yet the audience still understands it is Sherlock Holmes and Watson. The element are still there and the audience still knows about what to expect regardless of how or even when the story is told. And was within 50 years of the character being written.

Star Trek has enough recognizable elements that it can be retold. The main difference is the question on what is Star Trek? Is that only the Kirk-Spock era? Or does that include the 18 years of spin off television shows which far outnumber all the materal featuring Kirk and Spock.

 

[eyeresist]

Star Trek has enough recognizable elements that it can be retold. The main difference is the question on what is Star Trek? Is that only the Kirk-Spock era? Or does that include the 18 years of spin off television shows which far outnumber all the materal featuring Kirk and Spock.

Star Trek is Starfleet keeping the peace and exploring for the United Federation of Planets, in a universe where somewhere a ship called Enterprise is doing something heroic. If they build on this base convincingly, I will buy it as Star Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek has enough recognizable elements that it can be retold. The main difference is the question on what is Star Trek? Is that only the Kirk-Spock era? Or does that include the 18 years of spin off television shows which far outnumber all the materal featuring Kirk and Spock.

Star Trek is Starfleet keeping the peace and exploring for the United Federation of Planets, in a universe where somewhere a ship called Enterprise is doing something heroic. If they build on this base convincingly, I will buy it as Star Trek.

For my part, just add in a general positive attitude of human development and the usefulness of technology and I will be on board

 

[Tim Walker]

Star Trek is more than just its continuity. It's also the basic premise and format and many of its distinguishing story elements: starships, transporter beams, Klingons, Vulcans, mind-melds, etc. I mean, I suppose you could keep all that stuff and call it something else, but then people would just accuse you of ripping off Star Trek.

Take Batman, for instance. We've had umpteen different versions and continuities, but as long as you've got a Batman, a Bat-Cave, a Batmobile, Gotham City, Catwoman, and so on . . . well, you've got a Batman show. Regardless of whether it's set in the same "universe" as one of the last six versions.

Robin Hood would be an excellent example of this sort of thing.

 

[eyeresist]

Star Trek is Starfleet keeping the peace and exploring for the United Federation of Planets, in a universe where somewhere a ship called Enterprise is doing something heroic. If they build on this base convincingly, I will buy it as Star Trek.

For my part, just add in a general positive attitude of human development and the usefulness of technology and I will be on board

Not sure what you mean by "usefulness of technology", unless you are just warding off those cheesy there-are-some-things-man-was-not-meant-to-meddle-with plotlines, in which case fair enough.

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek is Starfleet keeping the peace and exploring for the United Federation of Planets, in a universe where somewhere a ship called Enterprise is doing something heroic. If they build on this base convincingly, I will buy it as Star Trek.

For my part, just add in a general positive attitude of human development and the usefulness of technology and I will be on board

Not sure what you mean by "usefulness of technology", unless you are just warding off those cheesy there-are-some-things-man-was-not-meant-to-meddle-with plotlines, in which case fair enough.

Partially. But more like, an attitude that technology can be a help to society and solve problems. It isn't that technology causes no problems, but it isn't the chief problem, if that makes sense.

If not, well, I still want a more optimistic attitude about the future to be part of any Trek.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

I don't, because none of it will have happened when the next reboot is coming about.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFUqVeQg-Yg[/yt]

 

[JWPlatt]

Heh, very clever!

 

[Cyke101]

I don't, because none of it will have happened when the next reboot is coming about.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFUqVeQg-Yg[/yt]

Jesus, he's channeling Jeff Bridges Prime.

You can't tell me it didn't happen! It happened... with a box of scraps!