Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forward?

[Brent]

There has been a lot of discussion lately about "rebooting" Star Trek. There are many rumors that this next film may indeed do so, it may leave us with an entirely 'new' Star Trek. This is my poll to find out if the majority are ok with change, or if they want strict continuity post Star Trek XI.

 

[Kelso]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

I think it's time for a reboot. Hopefully, we'll get the best of both worlds with this film. With Nero changing history we might get an in-continuity reboot.

I love to follow the adventures of a new Kirk and Spock in a universe where anything could happen.

 

[MattJC]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

I want strict continuity but if you're going to reboot Trek, just do it already and be done with it. Don't try to get cute and try to have it both ways.

 

[davejames]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

Yeah I'm not totally crazy about the time travel idea (using the original Spock), but everything else about the reboot I'm fine with.

 

[number6]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

I do want it both ways. There's no reason why the franchise can't be restarted without honoring what's come before. The people involved seem to be fans of not only the series, but some of the better novels out there as well. There is such a rich tapestry of lore to draw from. There is no reason not to build on that while still creating a new and unique thread as well.

 

[gastrof]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forward?

Before I can answer this, I have one question of my own.

What IS Star Trek?

If it's not the continuity we've known since the 1960's, if all of that is being overwritten, then what is this?

Is it Star Trek, or is it something else using the Star Trek name?

There's no denying it'll be LIKE Star Trek. Kirk and Spock will be there. The Enterprise will be there. Apparently there'll be phasers and other familiar trappings, but will it REALLY be the Star Trek we know?

Apparently not, IF it overwrites what came before.

Will things like Harry Mudd and the androids, his wife Stella and the androids of her, Kevin O'Reily locking himself in Engineering and driving everyone crazy with "I'll Take You Home Kathleen", and Sam Kirk and his wife dying, leaving their son more or less in Captain Kirk's care....

Will ANY of that hold any more?

If it doesn't, WILL it still be Star Trek?

Will Picard and Data still be somewhere down the road, and will we ever know?

Will there BE the Borg, DS9, Wolf 359 and the loss of Jennifer Sisko?

Will Engisn Wildman exist, and will she give birth on a lost ship called Voyager?

I don't know.

And I don't like not knowing.

I like what was promised. A prequel that fits into the existing timeline, and changes nothing. NOTHING.

I've elsewhere said that the changes made to the uniforms, I essentially count as NOTHING changed.

If the bridge was circular, had the familiar red railing all around, but had different buttons and slightly different displays, I'd count that as essentially NOTHING being changed.

I might even be convinced to accept a loss of those familiar big red doors to the turbo lift, so long as they're still there in a different color.

A while back someone posted pictures of "their" TOS Enterprise, and I looked at it and said "So?"

I saw no differences.

Others did.

Turns out there WERE differences. My comment was "If this is the type of thing they do, then I'm ready to go!"

Seems this may NOT be what they're going to do.

They may do more.

They may do what the post title suggests...

They may ERASE all we know, and start a whole new story with a lot of familiar elements. They may even BORROW occasionally from what we had before to make certain things "still canon", but that's not really the same.

I like the Trek we had.

If this isn't it, then what is it, especially if it goes on to use the Star Trek name, and from now it's the only game in town?

I'd like more of what we had.

I may very well like this new thing too, but does it HAVE to erase and overwrite what we had before?

I'd like to know the "real" Star Trek is still an option, something we may see more of down the road.

I don't like thinking we'll never see it again, because people in suits have decided it's gone forever.

 

[Dar70]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

I dont mind visual continuity changes.(ala Superman returns) But I really want this to be the backstory of the Kirk and crew we have all know for years.(which I still think it is) I want this movie to be part of the whole story. If not I still wont sweat it. If this is indeed a new universe of Trek I doubt it will go beyond 3 films.

Also to tell the truth Im starting to wonder if maybe they should have told a story in the tos era with a different crew and ship. They would not have had much continuity to deal with and could have gone into new directions with Trek.


I had to pick the second option. That said again Im not opposed to visual continuity changes or even slight story changes. If there was another option that was inbetween I would have chosen that one.

 

[TeutonicNights]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

I, too would be uncomfortable with them trying to have it both ways.
If they want a reboot, fine. People will accept it.
But then, they have endless opportunities that they should use and which will be seriously hindered by too much (and unnecessary) catering to canon. The fans that are willing to accept change won't mind if it comes down to nods to TOS.

It's kinda like the remastered TOS. People who hated the idea either got "converted" or kept on bitching at whatever they came up with. I also doubt they even have the opportunity to change that many things during one movie. So even if there is "a new canon", that new canon won't be that different from what we know.

There are many good reasons to keep the continuity going.
But somehow I think, to go on with the 24th century and make it work again they would have to change so many things (like somehow cut down the ridicuolus amount of technobabble solutions) that it would come close to a reboot, anyway, in my opinion.

And I don't want to ever see those ridiculous future uniforms from "The Visitor" and "All Good Things"! lolol
So bring on the reboot. If Trek is in capable hands, it doesn't really matter. But don't change crucial stuff and expect us to still believe this is somehow a TOS prequel (I know...design changes don't mean anything... but to me they make a big difference)

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

As long as its entertaining I don't really give a crap.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

I'm fine with a reboot. Why not?

 

[Iamnotspock]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forward?

Before I can answer this, I have one question of my own.

What IS Star Trek?

If it's not the continuity we've known since the 1960's, if all of that is being overwritten, then what is this?

Is it Star Trek, or is it something else using the Star Trek name?

There's no denying it'll be LIKE Star Trek. Kirk and Spock will be there. The Enterprise will be there. Apparently there'll be phasers and other familiar trappings, but will it REALLY be the Star Trek we know?.

Hmm, I think that if it stays true to the spirit of TOS, ie, presenting an optimistic future and the characters we know and love with all their core personality traits intact, then it will be Star Trek. Everything that I've read from people who've seen the movie seems to suggest that it will be. The James Bond franchise is still going strong today after having periodically reinvented itself while keeping the core of what makes it work. Likewise Doctor Who has done the same with its central character, albeit within the same continuity.

I like the Trek we had.

I'd like to know the "real" Star Trek is still an option, something we may see more of down the road.

I don't like thinking we'll never see it again, because people in suits have decided it's gone forever.

We still have that Star Trek. It's still there in the form of five live-action TV series, one animated series and ten movies, all readily available on DVD and continuing to boldly go around and around in reruns, not to mention countless Tie-in novels and comic books. The men in suits can never take that away.

What is "real" Star Trek anyway? If real Star Trek means a camp and colourful fictional universe in which there was a Eugenics War in the 1990s and women of the 23rd Century aren't allowed to command ships, then "real" Star Trek is beyond dated. As lovely as TOS is, it doesn't talk to anyone outside the fanbase anymore, and if it is to survive then it needs to shake off the "nerdy" stigma and get back in touch with the zeitgeist.

You could argue that there isn't a need to go back to the beginning in order to do that, but to the public at large, Star Trek is Kirk and Spock, and this movie is going to get their attention whereas another new crew in the 25th Century or whatever just wouldn't.

Personally, I think it's time for a reboot. It seems to me that this is a reboot, whether we like it or not. Adhering to canon does not preclude it from being a reboot in that whichever way you look at it, this is a new cast on newly designed sets bringing something new to the table. Having Nimoy on board doesn't necessarily mean that he's playing the Spock we knew either; while on the one hand having him in the movie serves as a nice metaphorical passing of the torch, since we, the audience, know him as the Spock of old, on the other hand maybe we've been looking at it from the wrong angle. Maybe Nimoy's playing an older version of Quinto's Spock as opposed to Quinto playing a younger version of Nimoy's.

 

[superstring01]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

Reboot it. It's time for a fresh start.

~String

 

[davejames]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forward?

Before I can answer this, I have one question of my own.

What IS Star Trek?

To me Star Trek is simply "a crew in the distant future exploring space in the Starship Enterprise". In the end, that's all I've ever really cared about.

Yeah all the 40 years of continuity is fun and all, but it's really the basic concept of the show that has captivated me above all else-- and nothing captured that idea better than the simpler and bare-bones original series. Clearly Abrams felt the same way, and wanted to get back to that.

 

[DEWLine]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

This isn't a superhero comics universe, prone to reboots every ten to twenty years. At least, I'd hope not. I'd prefer to keep and keep on building on what we have. If this movie does that, we're good.

If, on the other hand, we're starting to watch another ST universe, co-existing alongside the one we've grown up with - and we do have precedent for that sort of thing being possible - that's another form of building on what we've had all along. Also fine by me, and it just might be worth my money.

Reboots...make me nervous. No disrespect to those who work on them - some of them have been entertaining reading over the years, in fact.

I just need a lot of convincing. I'm from Saskatchewan, after all.

 

[soot]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

One person's reboot is another's faithful prequel. Just do what's best for the story, and fans will view the result in whatever way suits them.

I'm the sort of guy who spends his time rationalizing the differences between "First Contact" and "Federation". Even if the producers think they're making a reboot, they'd have to go pretty far for me to view it as such.

 

[JuanBolio]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

Somehow I don't think they're doing a total reboot with this movie, but I could be wrong. If they are, I'll be fine with it. I'd love to see a 23rd and 24th century where nothing old is certain, and anything can happen. Experience old adventures in new ways. We'll still have the old continuity. Its not going anywhere. But I'm not opposed to trying something new. Not at all.

As was stated in EW, "This movie is about the act of changing what you know."

 

[Amaris]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

Somehow I don't think they're doing a total reboot with this movie, but I could be wrong. If they are, I'll be fine with it. I'd love to see a 23rd and 24th century where nothing old is certain, and anything can happen. Experience old adventures in new ways. We'll still have the old continuity. Its not going anywhere. But I'm not opposed to trying something new. Not at all.

As was stated in EW, "This movie is about the act of changing what you know."

Honestly, I wouldn't call it a reboot. Too many things staying to be such.
What I do think they're doing is nudging. They're nudging here and there to bring the new Trek in line with what Abrams hopes will be an optimistic and bright future in Trek, and also trying to keep the characters and situations recognizable to fans. Something totally acceptable, in my opinion.

J.

 

[ancient]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

I'd want the characters to be the same, and the general look to be the same, obviously. I'm good with a 'Batman Begins' type reboot.

I mean, Abrams could've called Kirk's father Ted and his mother Clementine if he wanted, since Kirk's parents are not part of 'canon'. But I like that he's using some behind-the-canon fan-accepted Trek facts.

 

[Sector 7]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

Damn the canon... full speed ahead!
I agree with sentiments already posted: the heart and soul of Star Trek is the sense of adventure, exploration, newness, good story telling... if those are in the new movie then I'm not only good... i'm damn happy!

 

[Qonos]

Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

This isn't a superhero comics universe, prone to reboots every ten to twenty years. At least, I'd hope not. I'd prefer to keep and keep on building on what we have. If this movie does that, we're good.

If, on the other hand, we're starting to watch another ST universe, co-existing alongside the one we've grown up with - and we do have precedent for that sort of thing being possible - that's another form of building on what we've had all along. Also fine by me, and it just might be worth my money.

Reboots...make me nervous. No disrespect to those who work on them - some of them have been entertaining reading over the years, in fact.

I just need a lot of convincing. I'm from Saskatchewan, after all.

But with each series it has contradicted what came before. Zephram Cochran the creator of the warp drive was ORIGINALLY From Alpha Centarui.. IN First Contact he's from Earth..

Each and every new series has damaged the continuity, changing things from the established canon of the original, even the movies did this. Like the aforementioned "Chekove was never on the Enterprise when Khan was." I think that in the least we should see how Abrams and crew address this and work to being a cohesive continuity together...

I'm ready for the reboot.