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

[Bishbot]

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

TOS is my favourite Trek (didn't used to be, but I came round) and I love it dearly, watching those episodes is like having old friends round. That said, the stories are very self-contained, there is very little continuity and sometimes it contradicts itself. There's nothing much wrong with the series as is except for the occasional duff episode, but its the characters and ship I fell in love with, not the continuity. Most of the major continuity stuff deals with the 24th Century, which while I loved it at the time, I'm cooling off on now, apart from my favourite episodes.

I say reboot away. A reboot doesn't kill the original, and we're never going to see new adventures with that ship and crew exactly as we remember them so where's the harm? I'm less keen on trying to fit a new film into continuity if you squint a bit than I am on simply recasting the roles redesigning the ship (but not too much) and starting Star Trek afresh.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

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

It's not like I don't care, but I'm still with the majority on this one: reboot away, it's okay as long as the film's entertaining and (and this is important to me) consistent in itself. And as others have said: it's (to me) about the characters, the setting, the plot. Continuity isn't worthless, but definitely overrated.

I'll go to the cinema wanting to like it, and they're going to have to make a really lousy film to muck it up completely in my view.

 

[Kemaiku]

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

I've never been that bothered with the idea of a reboot and Trek XI probably will be changing at least something along the way. I'm still going to see the movie, what I'm more concerned about it whether that change will be well written.

Think of it this way: even if Trek XI is a reboot and starts a new "future" off, its an in-universe reboot shaped by the characters and ships we know. Like any other time travel episode where people kept complaining there were no consequences, this one is different in that it will. And we have a "hard copy" of the original time line (DVD's).

Besides, didn't Enterprise already change things? the Sphere Builders and Cochrane's contact with the Enterprise-E altered the past already. Since it was the newest series we don't know how events we've seen have already been altered. Trek as we have seen it probably already different (possible reason for the differences in Nemesis?).

Either way I don't mind.

 

[superstring01]

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

It has the potential to allow it to continue having freshness and a sense of the unknown. We know what happens over the course of several hundred years in the Trek universe. We know what to expect, and that the Federation/galaxy/universe is never in much danger as its still going on in the future.

With a reboot or even a slight alteration, possibilities open up. Trek is all about possibilities. Maybe there'll be a Klingon war in the 23rd century. Maybe some characters will die. Maybe they'll discover new things that make the Trek mythos even more interesting - things that couldn't have been done before.

The old series is still there - they all are. No one is saying they never happened. If it is a reboot is doesn't make them into one huge dream sequence and make everything you know and love about them empty and worthless. It simply adds a new chapter with new potential. Like the old one better? That's fine. But you should wait to judge the new until you actually see it, I think. Its the logical thing to do.

Precisely.

The stardates and sundry facts often contradict eachother. Start the whole shebang over from the start and set some guidelines. I'm happy with what happened in BSG, and I'd like to see that kind of helming at Star Trek.

~String

 

[MattJC]

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

It has the potential to allow it to continue having freshness and a sense of the unknown. We know what happens over the course of several hundred years in the Trek universe. We know what to expect, and that the Federation/galaxy/universe is never in much danger as its still going on in the future.

With a reboot or even a slight alteration, possibilities open up. Trek is all about possibilities. Maybe there'll be a Klingon war in the 23rd century. Maybe some characters will die. Maybe they'll discover new things that make the Trek mythos even more interesting - things that couldn't have been done before.

The old series is still there - they all are. No one is saying they never happened. If it is a reboot is doesn't make them into one huge dream sequence and make everything you know and love about them empty and worthless. It simply adds a new chapter with new potential. Like the old one better? That's fine. But you should wait to judge the new until you actually see it, I think. Its the logical thing to do.

Precisely.

The stardates and sundry facts often contradict eachother. Start the whole shebang over from the start and set some guidelines. I'm happy with what happened in BSG, and I'd like to see that kind of helming at Star Trek.

~String

Please stop comparing Star Trek to BSG.
Star Trek should not now, or ever, be like BSG.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

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

I for one am one of those people who didn't care at all for the original BSG, but fell in love with the new show.... so there might be more people than you think who'd watch new Trek, but won't care for the rest of it. Likewise, there'll be those who won't watch any new Trek, or those who'll just not care.

Surpringly, most people around here tend to be relaxed about the whole reboot thing. That's cool. It means there's room for everyone. And personally I think that is a good thing.

 

[MattJC]

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

I for one am one of those people who didn't care at all for the original BSG, but fell in love with the new show.... so there might be more people than you think who'd watch new Trek, but won't care for the rest of it. Likewise, there'll be those who won't watch any new Trek, or those who'll just not care.

Surpringly, most people around here tend to be relaxed about the whole reboot thing. That's cool. It means there's room for everyone. And personally I think that is a good thing.

I just don't want Trek to become anywhere near as dark and grim as the new BSG.
It bothers when when Trek fans want Trek to be more like that.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

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

The old series is still there - they all are. No one is saying they never happened.

I'm saying they never happened.

You know why? 'Cause they never happened. They are fictional.

No story that runs for as long as Trek has run, been written by as many people as have written Trek, and that intends to continue to run for as many years as possible, can ever be expected to hold together in the way of a novel, or even a movie trilogy.

As several people have pointed out, Trek already has a contradictory fictional history. So, I don't see how anyone can make an argument that rebooting damages suspension of disbelief, or whatever else it is that gets people upset about the idea of "overwriting".

Long running stories get overwritten from time to time. It's the nature of anything that survives a long time and has multiple writers. Robin Hood was originally a peasant who robbed rich people just to rob them. It wasn't until much later that someone wrote a story in which he was a nobleman forced to become an outlaw who stole from the rich to give to the poor. Superman didn't encounter kryptonite until 10 or 15 years after his creation, when the actor who played him on the radio show needed a vacation so the idea of a rock that knocks out the Man of Steel was invented. The earliest King Arthur stories are about him killing giants, not running a round table, and there sure wasn't any Lancelot and Guinevere in those first tales. Things that we consider precious, essential bits of legendary tales weren't part of the original stories. Just like, if this reboot works, things introduced in it and in other media since 1966 will be able to be woven into a new Star Trek fabric. The good ideas will stick. The bad stuff will disappear. It's how stories evolve - and how they last. If anyone is interested in your grandkids getting to enjoy Star Trek, change is the only way to go.

Reboot.

It should have been done 10 years ago.

Preferably without some tortured time travel hooha that attempts to keep changes to a fictional universe "in-continuity" with convoluted alternate timelines that will most likely just weigh down the story.

Though I know that's probably too much to hope for.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

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

I for one am one of those people who didn't care at all for the original BSG, but fell in love with the new show.... so there might be more people than you think who'd watch new Trek, but won't care for the rest of it. Likewise, there'll be those who won't watch any new Trek, or those who'll just not care.

Surpringly, most people around here tend to be relaxed about the whole reboot thing. That's cool. It means there's room for everyone. And personally I think that is a good thing.

I just don't want Trek to become anywhere near as dark and grim as the new BSG.
It bothers when when Trek fans want Trek to be more like that.

Okay, that's something I agree with. Trek isn't dark and gritty to that point, nor should it be.... and I don't think it will, but that's pure speculation at this point.

 

[Sector 7]

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

I for one am one of those people who didn't care at all for the original BSG, but fell in love with the new show.... so there might be more people than you think who'd watch new Trek, but won't care for the rest of it. Likewise, there'll be those who won't watch any new Trek, or those who'll just not care.

Surpringly, most people around here tend to be relaxed about the whole reboot thing. That's cool. It means there's room for everyone. And personally I think that is a good thing.

I just don't want Trek to become anywhere near as dark and grim as the new BSG.
It bothers when when Trek fans want Trek to be more like that.

MattJC, I agree with you on this one. NuBSG was dark and depressing, that's why I couldn't get into it. Star Trek has, at it's best, always been positive and optimistic about the future. JJ Abrams gets that. I'll watch the new movie hoping that Trek gets back to that optimism which made me a fan long ago.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

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

I for one am one of those people who didn't care at all for the original BSG, but fell in love with the new show.... so there might be more people than you think who'd watch new Trek, but won't care for the rest of it. Likewise, there'll be those who won't watch any new Trek, or those who'll just not care.

Surpringly, most people around here tend to be relaxed about the whole reboot thing. That's cool. It means there's room for everyone. And personally I think that is a good thing.

I just don't want Trek to become anywhere near as dark and grim as the new BSG.
It bothers when when Trek fans want Trek to be more like that.

MattJC, I agree with you on this one. NuBSG was dark and depressing, that's why I couldn't get into it. Star Trek has, at it's best, always been positive and optimistic about the future. JJ Abrams gets that. I'll watch the new movie hoping that Trek gets back to that optimism which made me a fan long ago.

Another vote for a bright (if difficult - ala Kirk's great speeches in This Side of Paradise and Return to Tomorrow), optimistic future of diverse people working together to realize the great dream of space exploration and wonder.

 

[Qonos]

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

I for one am one of those people who didn't care at all for the original BSG, but fell in love with the new show.... so there might be more people than you think who'd watch new Trek, but won't care for the rest of it. Likewise, there'll be those who won't watch any new Trek, or those who'll just not care.

Surpringly, most people around here tend to be relaxed about the whole reboot thing. That's cool. It means there's room for everyone. And personally I think that is a good thing.

I just don't want Trek to become anywhere near as dark and grim as the new BSG.
It bothers when when Trek fans want Trek to be more like that.

Well seeing as Trek is about exploring new worlds and BSG was a dark and grim story about humanity running away from a group that was trying to exterminate them, there's no reason for Trek to become Dark and Grim. The overall look from the stills we've seen says Bright seeing as the movie is well lit. That's the one thing you have to realize about storytelling in a visual motif. If the lighting is bright and pleasant you probably won't be getting a dark story. You visuals have to conicide with your story or the darkness looks out of place.. Hence why BSG, Alien, Event Horizon, Chronicles of Riddick all have the dark environments, their stories were gritty and dark.

Matt I really think your panicing for no reason repecially since JJ said in entertainment weekly is the thing he found he like about Trek was it's positive and optimistic message, and that it was about time a sci fi movie brought that back.. Especially in today's society.

 

[Qonos]

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

The old series is still there - they all are. No one is saying they never happened.

I'm saying they never happened.

You know why? 'Cause they never happened. They are fictional.

No story that runs for as long as Trek has run, been written by as many people as have written Trek, and that intends to continue to run for as many years as possible, can ever be expected to hold together in the way of a novel, or even a movie trilogy.

As several people have pointed out, Trek already has a contradictory fictional history. So, I don't see how anyone can make an argument that rebooting damages suspension of disbelief, or whatever else it is that gets people upset about the idea of "overwriting".

Long running stories get overwritten from time to time. It's the nature of anything that survives a long time and has multiple writers. Robin Hood was originally a peasant who robbed rich people just to rob them. It wasn't until much later that someone wrote a story in which he was a nobleman forced to become an outlaw who stole from the rich to give to the poor. Superman didn't encounter kryptonite until 10 or 15 years after his creation, when the actor who played him on the radio show needed a vacation so the idea of a rock that knocks out the Man of Steel was invented. The earliest King Arthur stories are about him killing giants, not running a round table, and there sure wasn't any Lancelot and Guinevere in those first tales. Things that we consider precious, essential bits of legendary tales weren't part of the original stories. Just like, if this reboot works, things introduced in it and in other media since 1966 will be able to be woven into a new Star Trek fabric. The good ideas will stick. The bad stuff will disappear. It's how stories evolve - and how they last. If anyone is interested in your grandkids getting to enjoy Star Trek, change is the only way to go.

Reboot.

It should have been done 10 years ago.

Preferably without some tortured time travel hooha that attempts to keep changes to a fictional universe "in-continuity" with convoluted alternate timelines that will most likely just weigh down the story.

Though I know that's probably too much to hope for.

BTW as far as we know the only two time travellers are Nero and Mr. Spock.....

At least that's going by the only plot synapses I've seen on the web...

 

[blockaderunner]

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

Not only I don't mind, it is way overdue!

If ENT and NEM was any evidence, Trek 1.0 had overstayed it's welcome. Time for Trek 2.0 to continue the journey for another 40 years. Either get on board, or get left behind, dry humping your TOS DVD's.

 

[Balthier the Great]

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.

How can you be surprised if the movie changes nothing? what's the point of making a film that changes nothing?

I want a modern trek with the style of TOS trek. even id it's hard to figure out whi y they changed what they changed. 2008 = change.

 

[shapeshifter]

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

I don't mind this movie rebooting Star Trek, I'm ok with change, but I hope the released IMG's and interview quotes are only misdirections intended to bolster debate and fuel free publicity.

 

[Captain Robert April]

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

This bit from my review of Generations has some relevance here:

In my calmer moments, I've acknowledged that if you took away the Star Trek elements from Generations, then it was a pretty good movie. Unfortunately, we can't do that. It has all those Star Trek elements, and that includes thirty years of baggage to lug along behind, and several million volunteer sherpas more than happy to point out where you screwed up in Scene 23.

On one level, I say go ahead and reboot, let those who want a reboot have their fun and leave the rest of us alone.

So long as the mainline canon is left alone and available for further exploration, in novels, comics, tv series, movies, etc., then go ahead and have your Trek v2.0.

However, if some marketing halfwit at Paramount tries to foist this abortion on us as the one and only true Star Trek, then they've got a problem on their hands.

​

 

[Ovation]

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

The old series is still there - they all are. No one is saying they never happened.

I'm saying they never happened.

You know why? 'Cause they never happened. They are fictional.

No story that runs for as long as Trek has run, been written by as many people as have written Trek, and that intends to continue to run for as many years as possible, can ever be expected to hold together in the way of a novel, or even a movie trilogy.

As several people have pointed out, Trek already has a contradictory fictional history. So, I don't see how anyone can make an argument that rebooting damages suspension of disbelief, or whatever else it is that gets people upset about the idea of "overwriting".

Long running stories get overwritten from time to time. It's the nature of anything that survives a long time and has multiple writers. Robin Hood was originally a peasant who robbed rich people just to rob them. It wasn't until much later that someone wrote a story in which he was a nobleman forced to become an outlaw who stole from the rich to give to the poor. Superman didn't encounter kryptonite until 10 or 15 years after his creation, when the actor who played him on the radio show needed a vacation so the idea of a rock that knocks out the Man of Steel was invented. The earliest King Arthur stories are about him killing giants, not running a round table, and there sure wasn't any Lancelot and Guinevere in those first tales. Things that we consider precious, essential bits of legendary tales weren't part of the original stories. Just like, if this reboot works, things introduced in it and in other media since 1966 will be able to be woven into a new Star Trek fabric. The good ideas will stick. The bad stuff will disappear. It's how stories evolve - and how they last. If anyone is interested in your grandkids getting to enjoy Star Trek, change is the only way to go.

Reboot.

It should have been done 10 years ago.

Preferably without some tortured time travel hooha that attempts to keep changes to a fictional universe "in-continuity" with convoluted alternate timelines that will most likely just weigh down the story.

Though I know that's probably too much to hope for.

As ever, you are a voice of reason in whichever forum I find your posts. This post should be a "sticky" and required reading.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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

Makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Sector 7]

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

^^Agreed.