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

Blind rejection and blind outrage?

So no one can ever do Star Trek again?? Ever??

Doesn't seem right to me.

Design restraints were removed obviously because they couldn't tell a good story with them and probably without them.

Take me on the Logic Train to tell me how you came to this conclusion.

 

[xortex]

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

Blind rejection and blind outrage?

So no one can ever do Star Trek again?? Ever??

Doesn't seem right to me.

Design restraints were removed obviously because they couldn't tell a good story with them and probably without them.

Take me on the Logic Train to tell me how you came to this conclusion.

Design restraints should have nothing to do with how good a story you could tell with them. So they were the first to go.

 

[number6]

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

Design restraints were removed obviously because they couldn't tell a good story with them and probably without them.

Take me on the Logic Train to tell me how you came to this conclusion.

Design restraints should have nothing to do with how good a story you could tell with them. So they were the first to go.

Got it. In other words, you've got nothing.

 

[xortex]

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

Take me on the Logic Train to tell me how you came to this conclusion.

Design restraints should have nothing to do with how good a story you could tell with them. So they were the first to go.

Got it. In other words, you've got nothing.

Not at all.

 

[number6]

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

Design restraints should have nothing to do with how good a story you could tell with them. So they were the first to go.

Got it. In other words, you've got nothing.

Not at all.

We all knew that. Thanks for actually admitting it.

 

[xortex]

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

Got it. In other words, you've got nothing.

Not at all.

We all knew that. Thanks for actually admitting it.

I think Star Trek is in an unusually cohesive set of details that encompasses design that actually makes up the fabric of its universe. It was a very simple dream Gene had and it has been shattered. It is now something else more akin to 2001 which isn't a bad thing. But I feel a little unneccessary.

 

[VonHelton]

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

Irregardless, I was RIGHT.......It really is "Doogy Howser in Space!", just like I said it would be. Comments on other BBS' seem to echo my sentiments as well. According to them, the actors picked are the wrong ones to replace the original crew. Since I don't know any of these actors, I'll defer to their judgement.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

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

The point was we'd have no more of the original continuity. It'd be gone forever, shunted off into a "second class" status, the new continuity being given priority.

I don't think saying "this is done" is the same as saying this is "second class status", and I've never understood this attitude. All good things must come to an end. I just wish TOS had a decent ending to the original continuity, but since people insisted on continuing to flog that dead horse we got more and more stories in an overburdened continuity until things sucked. That to me is a "fate worse than death". I would much rather let something end with dignity and start over, than watch Paramount and their *ahem* "creative" teams flail about in the original continuity in perpetuity. Which is what it seems like would be our only other option.

As said, I like what we had. Why do we have to lose it?

You don't. I'm fairly sure, no matter what is done with Star Trek from here on out, no one from Paramount is going to sneak into your bedroom one night and steal your DVDs.

If a script is written carefully enough and sets designed carefully enough, we can have new "TOS" Trek, without violating existing continuity in any significant way. Look at the uniforms. Essentially no difference.

Copying a clothing design is simple. Writing within a contricting continuity isn't. It hampers creativity, and it keeps writers from being able to freely mix and match various elements from previous stories. It's not as if what we've known before will be entirely gone. It will be recombined into new forms.

Look at the re-done set for that silly Kentucky Fried Chicken commercial. Not exactly the same, better looking consoles, displays, but unmistakeably the TOS bridge. The iMac bridge we've seen isn't it.

If JJ had used something like the KFC bridge, it would have been better. If you have to change anything, don't make the differences glaringly obvious.

There should be some glaringly obvious differences. Again, it has to do with creative freedom. And updating tech to be true to the spirit of Star Trek - more on that in a second.

As for the Eugenics Wars, you aren't aware that the whole Khan situation has been cleverly explained in the novels?

Besides, we've long known that STAR TREK's Earth isn't ours. It's obviously to be taken as a parallel universe. For example, even at the very time the episodes were aired, did Gary Seven appear at a government space launch facility and try to mess with the launch? Was there a near nuclear disaster that day?

No.

That's been true from the start.

We don't need yet another parallel universe to replace the one we already have.

Star Trek's history isn't "dated". It's just a bit different. Has been from the start.

No, it wasn't from the start. From the start it assumed everything between the Star Trek universe and our universe was the same up to Spetember 1966 and from there fictional stories were written. Personally, one of the things I found compelling about Star Trek back then was the idea that I could imagine that it could happen - it could be a reasonable (if fictional) extrapolation of future history. This has long since been lost and it is an important element of the spirit of Star Trek - much more so than whether or not the Eugenics Wars happened in the 1990s. And in the books, which were enjoyable enough - look at how many backflips the author had to do to make the story work. That's what I mean by continuity being restricting. I want to see what can be done without those kind of restraints.

You continuity folks have gotten 42 years within this continuity. That's plenty. Let's try it the other way now. It's only fair.

I would NEVER argue that we should never revisit Kirk and Spock in the younger days. I think NEW VOYAGES/PHASE II is just plain great, and this movie, in general, is more of the same. I just wish I could look at it and say "That's the same as I remember".

Why is that important? Why when you have hundreds upon hundreds of hours of Star Trek that you don't even have to remember, but can easily revisit via recordings. Why do you need even more?

A while back someone posted pictures they'd done, a redesign of the Enterprise. I saw it and couldn't note any differences. Others could. That's a GREAT redesign, when it looks so much like the original, it may take scrutiny to tell the difference. The new uniforms are essentially the same. If the bridge and tech had also been only slightly changed, I'd be tickled pink. It'd still obviously be "our" Trek.

Why is the design so important? Isn't the spirit of the storytelling, the essence of the characters a bigger issue? Personally I never entirely bought into the design, which was always obviously of our time (and always will be). The design has always required some rewriting in the imagination, so to speak, because it's always looked like sound stages, which of course, it is.

A reboot means nothing from before is a given. The claim is still being made that this is part of the existing continuity.
That's not a reboot.

I'm willing to wait and see before saying it is or isn't, and I really think we'd all have to wait. As long as they're saying only the visual aspect has changed, seemingly meaning the stories themselves are still in place, then even then it's not truly a reboot.

A reboot totally ignores and denies the original.

No. A reboot begins the history of the characters and universe anew, but it does not ignore or deny the original. It recombines it. A creative team going at a reboot lays out all the elements that have come before and says - what are the most compelling elements of this? Can this bit be merged with that bit to create something powerful and dramatic? Can a tweak to this, followed by this, with a splash of something new, lead back around to this iconic moment in the character or universe's history? Can we take what's classic, rejuvenate it, make it surprising again? Can we be brave, walk out on a limb, take a risk?

Risk, after all, is what this ship is about.

 

[number6]

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

Not at all.

We all knew that. Thanks for actually admitting it.

I think Star Trek is in an unusually cohesive set of details that encompasses design that actually makes up the fabric of its universe. It was a very simple dream Gene had and it has been shattered. It is now something else more akin to 2001 which isn't a bad thing. But I feel a little unneccessary.

The problem is that dream that you speak of had shattered a lot earlier than you think. Try 1964. Once that dream is handed to producers, production designers, writers, and actors, it is shattered even more.

The only solution for the purists seems that Star Trek should never be touched, and to some extent I actually agree. However it is out of our hands and we can accept it, refuse it, or put our heads in the sand and pretend it's something else. Those who would go on record attacking the talent and character or those in charge of Star Trek now would seem to be doing the latter.

I don't think it would be fair to Star Trek or its fans to never allow someone to do Star Trek ever again and it's presumptious of us to think that we know who should be allowed, because we will always disagree and have our own thoughts about how it should be done. No matter what anyone thinks, someone will be angry and disappointed.

Design ethic is very subjective. Every incarnation of Star Trek has given us its own design ethic. Would I like it to be a big screen version of the original?? You bet I would!! I'm not going to boycott the movie just because I didn't like a picture of the new bridge. That's just petty and stupid. See the film if you want or don't. Don't question my fandom and my love of Star Trek because I want to see this film and make up my own decision. At the very least I can make an educated decision by checking this film out. The rest will keep their heads in the sand. I don't think that was part of GR's "dream," either.

 

[gastrof]

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

Continuing "Star Trek" as it currently exists is not only lazy, but irresponsible.

Nah.

It's irresponsible to feel the existing TREK needs to be abandoned when a respectful, careful job being done is all that's necessary.

This is not Gene's universe anymore in it's details which the most important thing, it's J.J.'s now and he is plowing GR under and stealing his characters and glory the way everyone else has.

I'm a little unclear on what you're trying to say.

All I know is, we have a reasonably continuing universe that this movie has the capacity of destroying in the name of preserving the franchise.

Bad choice, alienating many existing fans.

If this DOES actually end up violating the visual aspect of things, then it does overwrite and make invalid all that came during and after TOS.

That means our STAR TREK universe that we've loved all this time is being replaced with something else using the name. As said before, it'll be LIKE the STAR TREK we've known, but it'll invalidate all the rest, and make any continuing of THAT version impossible.

I don't like having something that worked and that we enjoyed taken from us.

"Worked"? Yes, worked. Bad episodes have been around since TOS. It didn't mean the whole thing needed to be junked and restarted.

JJ could have done as described above, and I hope somehow it turns out that in the end, the visual changes are no more extreme than the change in the uniforms.

 

[gastrof]

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

Irregardless, I was RIGHT.......It really is "Doogy Howser in Space!", just like I said it would be. Comments on other BBS' seem to echo my sentiments as well. According to them, the actors picked are the wrong ones to replace the original crew. Since I don't know any of these actors, I'll defer to their judgement.

I think you should think for yourself and not let others make your decisions for you.

Wait and see what the new actors do with the roles.

Nobody will do the characters exactly like the originals did, but if we want more Kirk and Spock in their prime, this is the only way to go.

Changing the actors doesn't mean the whole look of things needed to be changed, tho'. (See NEW VOYAGES fan films on how it all can still work and work well... In particular the more recently released ones.)

 

[ManOnTheWave]

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

They could painstakingly follow continuity, and it's still going to be new actors, writers, creative people, etc. It's going to go in it's own direction no matter what. I just hope it's good.

 

[gastrof]

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

I don't think saying "this is done" is the same as saying this is "second class status", and I've never understood this attitude. All good things must come to an end....

If the old universe isn't being added to, then it's been shifted off to second class status. They'll add nothing to it. They'll just be glad to take money from people for new releases of old recordings...

Recordings depicting a continuity that's been abandoned and won't be added to any more.

In the meantime they may well be adding to the new. That puts the original in second class status, and you know that as well as I do.

"All good things..."? Then why are they still using the title "Star Trek"? Why would the visual aspect have to be changed to tell an interesting story? Hmmm?

I'm fairly sure, no matter what is done with Star Trek from here on out, no one from Paramount is going to sneak into your bedroom one night and steal your DVDs.

And will they also do more stories in the same universe? It seems they may not. THAT is what we're losing, and I plainly said so. Either you're deliberately pretending to not have read what I said, or you didn't bother to really read what I said.

Copying a clothing design is simple. Writing within a contricting continuity isn't. It hampers creativity...

Never did before. Why should it now?

They claimed this was a story in the exsiting continuity, but now seem to have done something very different.

If this is so, they not only LIED, they also failed to do something many writers do all the time.

Oh, and that doesn't even address the matter of the changed visual aspect...IF indeed it does get permanently changed.

Creative freedom? Then why use the name "Star Trek" if it's not the Trek universe they want to write about?

They're free to create their own title and universe.

There should be some glaringly obvious differences. Again, it has to do with creative freedom....

Why? Because YOU say so?

If you're doing Trek, accept that there's an existing continuity.

Did every writer of every episode of TOS redesign the bridge? If this is Kirk and Spock, fine. If the actors have to be changed to achieve that, fine, but why change other things? Can't you tell interesting stories on the same bridge of the same ship?

What can Cawley and his writers do that JJ can't?

Are you sure it's "creative freedom" you're concerned about, and not selling new action figures and toys? Or maybe someone changing things just to stroke their own ego and say "Look what I did"?

No, it wasn't from the start. From the start it assumed everything between the Star Trek universe and our universe was the same up to Spetember 1966 and from there fictional stories were written...

Untrue, as the example of Gary Seven proves. Why are you contradicting plain simple facts?

Why is the design so important? Isn't the spirit of the storytelling, the essence of the characters a bigger issue?...

Fine. Then don't change it if it's not important.

Why do YOU feel it HAS to be changed? Why not just be happy with more stories in the same setting we had before?

If it's REALLY "Star Trek" that you enjoy, why would you need a visual difference to keep you happy? You didn't need it before.

A reboot begins the history of the characters and universe anew, but it does not ignore or deny the original.

Yes it does, BY beginning it anew. The former version is thereby called "non-existant" as far as the new stories are concerned. This is called "ignoring and denying".

How can you claim the original is still considered as valid when it's being simultaneously overwritten?

Your claims are empty and invalid.

You've even contradicted yourself.

You've failed to prove your point.

Totally.

 

[Captain Robert April]

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

Now ya did it, gastrof, injecting logic to the discussion....

 

[gastrof]

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

They could painstakingly follow continuity, and it's still going to be new actors, writers, creative people, etc. It's going to go in it's own direction no matter what...

But as long as they respect the existing continuity, those changes won't be "violations".

You can't have it both ways. Either stay within existing continuity, or admit you aren't and go find your own stories to tell in your own universe, and don't mess with Star Trek.

If they're changing the continuity in the name of "freedom", they're riding on the coattails of the real Star Trek, because they don't have what it takes to create a new universe on their own.

If Strazinski did it with B5, why can't others?

You don't have to undermine existing Trek to add to it, and you don't have to use the Star Trek name to do your own thing.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

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

Rebooting "Battlestar Galactica" worked and improved the vapid original beyond all expectations - so there's no reason a reboot won't be a good idea for "Star Trek" too.

 

[Nowhere Man]

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.

Thank You! I too don't want to erase everything that has came before and the way i understood it to be was a we will be seeing how the crew came together and some academy day's plus some sort of time travel involving Spock then I dont mind small changes like the bridge display or " oh my god Kirk saw a Romulan" as long as it's the same charachters and the same basic mission. That being said, an alternate timeline would be eceptable and a TOS era show would definately be cool

 

[Captain Robert April]

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

Rebooting "Battlestar Galactica" worked and improved the vapid original beyond all expectations - so there's no reason a reboot won't be a good idea for "Star Trek" too.

Are you seriously comparing one mediocre season of Battlestar Galactica and an even worse follow up (Galactica 1980) to over forty years of Hugo award winning Star Trek material?

If you can't tell the difference, I suggest getting professional help.

 

[number6]

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

Rebooting "Battlestar Galactica" worked and improved the vapid original beyond all expectations - so there's no reason a reboot won't be a good idea for "Star Trek" too.

Are you seriously comparing one mediocre season of Battlestar Galactica and an even worse follow up (Galactica 1980) to over forty years of Hugo award winning Star Trek material?

If you can't tell the difference, I suggest getting professional help.

Says the guy who has heated discussions about the rotation of the bridge.

 

[Captain Robert April]

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

Apples and kumquats, Number 6....