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

[number6]

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

Probably. He got a taste of that with TNG, leading him to make an angry statement from the stage at the big L.A. Creation Con in 1988 - he declared that "if I'd listened to everything you want, 'Star Trek' would be shit."

Thank you, Sir Dennis, for my new sig line!

Dammit, you got to it first

Nice quote, I didn't know he had said that...

I never heard that one before. GR had some great quotes about Trek being redone by others in the future and fans comparing one to the other. At the end of the day, I do believe he'd be pleased (and surprised) that people still have such reverence for "that old show," as he would call it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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

Thank you, Sir Dennis, for my new sig line!

Dammit, you got to it first

Nice quote, I didn't know he had said that...

I never heard that one before.

He was angry at the time about vocal fan reaction to Beverly Crusher being replaced (Season Two wouldn't premiere for another couple of months after the convention). There had been some petitions, and letters, and evidently some calling out from the audience at the convention. GR got wound up and started out with something along the lines of "You each have one vote, and I have one vote. I vote nay, and the nays have it." Then the line about "If I ran the show like the fans wanted, Star Trek would be shit."

 

[FalTorPan]

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

Ninety percent of the "Star Trek canon" that purists fret about now was established by modern Trek TV shows that were initially unacceptable to TOS purists.

Heh heh. No doubt.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

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

I don't think it needs rebooting and the franchise can be reinvigorated without changes that would qualify to me as a reboot. But if they wanted to do that, I'd be happy as long as the results are good. I just don't think they will do that, or that it's necessary.

A real reboot would mean the characters would be a lot different, Starbuck's a woman, that kind of thing. Why even keep the names Kirk and Spock for instance? Why bother to preserve Spock's backstory? Why have a Russian navigator and a Scottish engineer? Why name the ship "Enterprise"? Why bother with Romulans? For a reboot, this sure isn't very creative.

Changing details like what the bridge looks like or Uhura's got a slightly different hairstyle does not remotely qualify as a reboot to me. It's gotta be something like Spock's a Klingon now.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

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

Well, while it's always dicey to get into a discussion of what "reboot" means, I think what you're describing is a "reimagining" as opposed to a reboot. As far as I know, the use of the term "reboot" in reference to fiction came about in comics with things like the rebooting of the DC comics universe in 1986 with the story Crisis on Infinite Earths. Superman was still an alien raised as the human Clark Kent, Batman was still Bruce Wayne whose parents were murdered before his eyes, Wonder Woman was still an Amazon princess from an island - but history was "reset" and begun again from point zero. Origins were rewritten and a new history was built for each character as stories unfolded. The inflection of characters was changed, but all of the basic elements remained pretty stable. Superman was still surrounded by Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen and Perry White didn't become a woman.

BSG wasn't simply rebooted, it was completely reworked, keeping basically only the high concept premise (humans on the run from killer robots of their own creation, looking for earth) and a few names and relationships.

 

[superstring01]

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

Well, while it's always dicey to get into a discussion of what "reboot" means, I think what you're describing is a "reimagining" as opposed to a reboot. As far as I know, the use of the term "reboot" in reference to fiction came about in comics with things like the rebooting of the DC comics universe in 1986 with the story Crisis on Infinite Earths. Superman was still an alien raised as the human Clark Kent, Batman was still Bruce Wayne whose parents were murdered before his eyes, Wonder Woman was still an Amazon princess from an island - but history was "reset" and begun again from point zero. Origins were rewritten and a new history was built for each character as stories unfolded. The inflection of characters was changed, but all of the basic elements remained pretty stable. Superman was still surrounded by Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen and Perry White didn't become a woman.

BSG wasn't simply rebooted, it was completely reworked, keeping basically only the high concept premise (humans on the run from killer robots of their own creation, looking for earth) and a few names and relationships.

Good point. I'm okay with EITHER a reboot or re-imagining. This seems like more of a reboot, however.

~String

 

[KendraW]

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

Well, I'm not liking the look of this cast so If there was a reboot I'd prefer it not be them. I want'em to bring back Enterprise! If the reboot were to happen I'll support it though. Trek has to get back on TV. But I doubt that will happen.

 

[SalvorHardin]

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

Trek has to get back on TV. But I doubt that will happen.

The best chance Trek has to get back on TV right now is through the success of Trek XI in my opinion.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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

None of these words - "reimagining," "reboot," "reworking, " et al - has any real specific meaning that distinguish them one from the other. One was a marketing neologism coined to describe Tim Burton's version of "Planet Of The Apes;" another is an appropriation of a word that means something specific in computer technology but is used metaphorically now in entertainment.

They're going back to redo something from the past and they're changing it where they think it's necessary to make it into successful contemporary entertainment. I'll call it a "reboot" but any one of a number of similarly vague terms would be interchangably appropriate.

 

[superstring01]

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

Well, I'm not liking the look of this cast so If there was a reboot I'd prefer it not be them. I want'em to bring back Enterprise! If the reboot were to happen I'll support it though. Trek has to get back on TV. But I doubt that will happen.

I agree. It was stupid to put it on the silver screen. Trek, and it's character driven story lines, were made for TV. A new, totally rebooted series on the SciFi Channel would be nice.

Also, they need to dispense with Roddenberry's nonsensical "humanity has evolved" stuff and realize that humans won't evolve in the next few hundred years. I'm okay with Earth being a paradise, but human beings should have egos and drama. I like war. Conflict is fun in TV shows. THUS, I loved DS9. So dark. So interesting.

Trek has to get back on TV. But I doubt that will happen.

The best chance Trek has to get back on TV right now is through the success of Trek XI in my opinion.

I'm not sure about that. But, let's hope.

~String

 

[Lapis Exilis]

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

Trek has to get back on TV. But I doubt that will happen.

The best chance Trek has to get back on TV right now is through the success of Trek XI in my opinion.

I'm not sure about that. But, let's hope.

~String

It's not like Trek has exactly shone when it comes to movies. Maybe 3 out of 10 were actually good stories/ good films. That's a big part of my doubt about the whole project. Though I'd be even more dubious of a television effort at this point, after the last 9 years.

 

[KendraW]

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

let's hope.
~String

Fingers crossed!

 

[Qonos]

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

Well, I'm not liking the look of this cast so If there was a reboot I'd prefer it not be them. I want'em to bring back Enterprise! If the reboot were to happen I'll support it though. Trek has to get back on TV. But I doubt that will happen.

I agree. It was stupid to put it on the silver screen. Trek, and it's character driven story lines, were made for TV. A new, totally rebooted series on the SciFi Channel would be nice.

Also, they need to dispense with Roddenberry's nonsensical "humanity has evolved" stuff and realize that humans won't evolve in the next few hundred years. I'm okay with Earth being a paradise, but human beings should have egos and drama. I like war. Conflict is fun in TV shows. THUS, I loved DS9. So dark. So interesting.
~String

But "Humanity Has Evolved is what trek's basic tennants consist of. Humanity working together to ensure a future for themselves. Taking that away from trek is like taking the pointed ears off spock. It's like taking the power of flight away from superman. It's like allowing Tony Stark to have a completely working heart...

Trek with out it's positive message is not Trek.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

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

Well, I'm not liking the look of this cast so If there was a reboot I'd prefer it not be them. I want'em to bring back Enterprise! If the reboot were to happen I'll support it though. Trek has to get back on TV. But I doubt that will happen.

I agree. It was stupid to put it on the silver screen. Trek, and it's character driven story lines, were made for TV. A new, totally rebooted series on the SciFi Channel would be nice.

Also, they need to dispense with Roddenberry's nonsensical "humanity has evolved" stuff and realize that humans won't evolve in the next few hundred years. I'm okay with Earth being a paradise, but human beings should have egos and drama. I like war. Conflict is fun in TV shows. THUS, I loved DS9. So dark. So interesting.
~String

But "Humanity Has Evolved is what trek's basic tennants consist of. Humanity working together to ensure a future for themselves. Taking that away from trek is like taking the pointed ears off spock. It's like taking the power of flight away from superman. It's like allowing Tony Stark to have a completely working heart...

Trek with out it's positive message is not Trek.

You can have a positive message without the idea that humans have completely eliminated their baser impulses. In fact if you look at TOS, what you see is not perfect humans, but humans who work everyday to be better than their baser instincts.

A Taste of Armageddon, the Council leader accuses Kirk of being a savage and Kirk replies, "Yes, I am a savage! We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill - today!"

In This Side of Paradise, Kirk, after having rejected the idea of perfect bliss as being stagnant, replies to McCoy's comment that this was "the second time Man had been thrown out of Eden" by saying, "No, Bes, this time we walked out on our own. Maybe we're not meant for paradise. Maybe we were meant to fight, scratch, claw for every inch of the way."

This original philosophy of Star Trek optimism is not only more true, it makes for much better stories, because it lets human beings still struggle with their inner instincts and triumph over them, rather than just be born already perfectly well-adjusted.

 

[Maxillius]

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

Since they're already going to reboot, I say do it properly. Do the movies, then if they're warmly recieved, do a series based on those movies, then if they want to do another movie, stop the series and write the movie in after the end of the series.

Also, they don't have to skip 80 years of the universe this time around.

 

[superstring01]

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

But "Humanity Has Evolved is what trek's basic tennants consist of. Humanity working together to ensure a future for themselves. Taking that away from trek is like taking the pointed ears off spock. It's like taking the power of flight away from superman. It's like allowing Tony Stark to have a completely working heart...

Trek with out it's positive message is not Trek.

I'm not saying that they should do away with Earth being a paradise, or the UFP worlds living in peace with eachother. But I like what we saw in DS9. Roddenberry was dead-set against war stories. In fact, it took some fighting within the production staff to get Roddenberry to agree to the Borg war story. He wanted "human" stories. Which is just boring. The DS9 story-lines would have him turning in his grave. Personally, I think he came up with a great idea, but was a crummy writer.

You can have a positive message without the idea that humans have completely eliminated their baser impulses. In fact if you look at TOS, what you see is not perfect humans, but humans who work everyday to be better than their baser instincts.

A Taste of Armageddon, the Council leader accuses Kirk of being a savage and Kirk replies, "Yes, I am a savage! We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill - today!"

In This Side of Paradise, Kirk, after having rejected the idea of perfect bliss as being stagnant, replies to McCoy's comment that this was "the second time Man had been thrown out of Eden" by saying, "No, Bes, this time we walked out on our own. Maybe we're not meant for paradise. Maybe we were meant to fight, scratch, claw for every inch of the way."

This original philosophy of Star Trek optimism is not only more true, it makes for much better stories, because it lets human beings still struggle with their inner instincts and triumph over them, rather than just be born already perfectly well-adjusted.

Agreed.

~String

 

[Qonos]

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

I agree. It was stupid to put it on the silver screen. Trek, and it's character driven story lines, were made for TV. A new, totally rebooted series on the SciFi Channel would be nice.

Also, they need to dispense with Roddenberry's nonsensical "humanity has evolved" stuff and realize that humans won't evolve in the next few hundred years. I'm okay with Earth being a paradise, but human beings should have egos and drama. I like war. Conflict is fun in TV shows. THUS, I loved DS9. So dark. So interesting.
~String

But "Humanity Has Evolved is what trek's basic tennants consist of. Humanity working together to ensure a future for themselves. Taking that away from trek is like taking the pointed ears off spock. It's like taking the power of flight away from superman. It's like allowing Tony Stark to have a completely working heart...

Trek with out it's positive message is not Trek.

You can have a positive message without the idea that humans have completely eliminated their baser impulses. In fact if you look at TOS, what you see is not perfect humans, but humans who work everyday to be better than their baser instincts.

A Taste of Armageddon, the Council leader accuses Kirk of being a savage and Kirk replies, "Yes, I am a savage! We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill - today!"

In This Side of Paradise, Kirk, after having rejected the idea of perfect bliss as being stagnant, replies to McCoy's comment that this was "the second time Man had been thrown out of Eden" by saying, "No, Bes, this time we walked out on our own. Maybe we're not meant for paradise. Maybe we were meant to fight, scratch, claw for every inch of the way."

This original philosophy of Star Trek optimism is not only more true, it makes for much better stories, because it lets human beings still struggle with their inner instincts and triumph over them, rather than just be born already perfectly well-adjusted.

And evolution doesn't me we walk away from that which makes us human. It also doesn't mean we use it as a crutch. Yes we are animals with base insticts and emotions, and free will. We also know what are the right actions and the wrong actions. What Trek illudes to is the hope that we evolve enough to do what's right a majority of the time. We will always have villains and evil, but it's how we deal with that that makes us better, and so far the message behind the evolution of humanity is that instead of being divided as many different sub-races we can pull together and be one race, the Human Race.

What String is seeing as Evolution it seems is the oh we are going to ascend into a utopia where hate and anger don't exist. Evolution doesn't work that way, you gain new tools to make you better, not perfect because conditions continue to change. Evolving is taking that beast and holding him down, so the quote you pulled out show how Kirk is an Evolved human, he knows his faults, he knows also that that's what makes Humans, Human. We are fallable creatures, we make mistakes, we learn from those mistakes and grow, and evolve. I once worked with a chef (I'm a cook for my day job) that said "If you don't make mistakes I don't want you in my kitchen" The fact that people want to take that out of trek means that they don't feel that humanity needs to grow up, that we are the best we can become and I can't believe that, not with all the shit we do to each other now.

 

[-Brett-]

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

It's an irritating trend in sci-fi these days that no one seems to have the balls, the brains, or both to make something new. Everything has to be a remake, or a reboot, or a rewhatever.

It doesn't make much sense to claim to want a fresh start, then rewhatever a forty year old series. I'd like to see new, original space based sci-fi. I don't think bastardizing existing properties is the way to go about getting a fresh start.

To be fair, nothing I've seen or heard about this new film says "reboot" to me. Same uniforms, same aesthetic, same aliens. There are stylistic differences, which are long overdue, but I don't think that qualifies as a reboot. It looks like the same Star Trek universe we've always known.

That's not to say make no changes, since the movie would be pretty shitty if that was the case. It's also not to say strict continuity, since there are already so many contradictions, especially in the original series. But reasonable continuity shouldn't be too hard once you distinguish actual continuity from the wild-assed assumptions (the Cochrane/Alpha Centauri thing for example).

If it did turn out to be a rewhatever, I'd think Abrams is as much of a hack as Moore for his half-assed "fresh start".

 

[I am not Spock]

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

I don't think Trek XI will be any more a reboot than TMP was, or for that matter, TNG. They felt different from the original, and changed a few details (lumpy Klingons, anyone? And don't tell me they always looked that way, its just lack of budget in TOS), but they were fitted into the existing continuity. I think fans will find a way to retcon whatever changes occur in XI to fit the existing Trek universe.

 

[I am not Spock]

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

It's an irritating trend in sci-fi these days that no one seems to have the balls, the brains, or both to make something new. Everything has to be a remake, or a reboot, or a rewhatever.

It doesn't make much sense to claim to want a fresh start, then rewhatever a forty year old series. I'd like to see new, original space based sci-fi. I don't think bastardizing existing properties is the way to go about getting a fresh start.

To be fair, nothing I've seen or heard about this new film says "reboot" to me. Same uniforms, same aesthetic, same aliens. There are stylistic differences, which are long overdue, but I don't think that qualifies as a reboot. It looks like the same Star Trek universe we've always known.

That's not to say make no changes, since the movie would be pretty shitty if that was the case. It's also not to say strict continuity, since there are already so many contradictions, especially in the original series. But reasonable continuity shouldn't be too hard once you distinguish actual continuity from the wild-assed assumptions (the Cochrane/Alpha Centauri thing for example).

If it did turn out to be a rewhatever, I'd think Abrams is as much of a hack as Moore for his half-assed "fresh start".

I agree with you completely.

If you want to do something new, DO SOMETHING NEW. Give us a new universe.

But taking on the Trek universe, and doing a reboot, or rewhatever, is just lazy.

Of course, small continuity changes are inevitable. Some of the little things in TOS that we can attribute to the writers still finding their feet (UESPA or Starfleet, Remus or Romii, Vulcan or Vulcanian, James T or James R, etc) I don't mind if they ignore those. But if Abrams screws too much with the Trekverse, then I don't see the point of him doing this film in the first place.